By Paul Homewood
Carbon Brief have been up to their tricks again:
Several newspapers, most prominently the Daily Telegraph, are pointing the finger at “green taxes” today, after British Gas blamed policy costs for its latest energy bill price rise.
The UK’s largest utility is raising its electricity prices by 12.5% and scrapping its dual-fuel discount, adding £76 to customers’ average bills.
The claims revive the long-running debate over energy bills and the impact of government policy.
This debate typically ignores the significant savings that have resulted from energy efficiency policies to lower demand, focusing only on the smaller costs of supporting the development of low-carbon electricity.
Carbon Brief explains what makes up an average energy bill and how policy is influencing the total.
Latest claims
British Gas is the last of the “Big Six” major utilities to raise its electricity prices this year, the other firms having already done so this spring. Before these increases, energy bills had largely slipped off the political agenda, as average bills were in decline and public concern over paying them fell to record lows.
Now, after each of the Big Six has raised prices, energy bills are firmly back on the political radar. Both the Conservatives and Labour promised to cap bills in their election manifestos, though Theresa May’s weakened post-election government appears to have backtracked on this.
In the wake of the British Gas announcement, a Daily Mail editorial today says: “British Gas claims [green levies] have added up to £98 to the average bill since 2014.”
Meanwhile, the Telegraph’s frontpage splash says: “Green taxes adds £150 to home energy bill”, above an article that goes on to say: “Green taxes will cost households almost £150 from next year, British Gas has claimed.”
The Daily Telegraph, 02/08/2017
In a video interview published with the online version of the Telegraph article, Centrica chief executive Ian Conn refers to a different figure on increases since 2014, saying:
“What is driving [the price rise] is the increase in transport and distribution costs, the costs of operating the grid and, secondly, the other area is environmental and policy costs, feed-in tariffs, the cost of building the data centre for the smart meter programme, the carbon pricing strategies. These are the things that increased by about, approaching £100, and so that is the driver for the increase in September of 12.5% on our electricity prices.”
These different numbers have caused confusion, not least within the Telegraph’s own article, which includes a chart showing “green levies” adding £73 to the average electricity bill in 2015/16.
The Daily Telegraph, 02/08/2017
Carbon Brief asked Centrica, British Gas’s parent company, to explain where these various figures come from. It had not responded by the time of publication. However, on a page announcing its interim 2017 financial results, Centrica has a graphic showing “environmental and social policies” adding £135 to average dual fuel bills in 2016.
This appears to be the key distinction missed in the Telegraph and Mail reporting, with British Gas referring to the cost of all policies, including carbon reduction and fuel poverty, whereas the newspapers conflate this total with “green taxes”.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) says in an emailed press statement:
“We don’t recognise these figures put out by British Gas. A number of independent reports have shown energy policy costs make up a relatively small proportion of household energy bills.”
In fact, it is Carbon Brief who are deliberately misleading here. The facts actually could not be simpler.
As I pointed out yesterday, Environmental Levies are projected by the OBR to cost £10.7bn next year, which equates to £148 per household electricity bills, confirming the Telegraph story, which specifically states “next year”.
Carbon Brief attempts to confuse its readers by comparing these claims with Centrica’s Ian Conn, who talks about cost increases since 2014:
These are the things that increased by about, approaching £100, and so that is the driver for the increase in September of 12.5% on our electricity prices.
The Daily Mail make a similar statement that British Gas claims [green levies] have added up to £98 to the average bill since 2014.
And, indeed, this statement is also essentially correct.
Environmental Levies cost £3.1bn in 2013/14, equivalent to £43 per household, meaning an additional cost by next year of £105.
Carbon Brief’s next attempt to mislead is this:
These different numbers have caused confusion, not least within the Telegraph’s own article, which includes a chart showing “green levies” adding £73 to the average electricity bill in 2015/16.
But as they point out, but don’t appear to realise, this is based on 2015/16!!
And going back to the OBR chart, the cost of Environmental Levies was £4.8bn, equating to £66 per household.
They then say:
Centrica has a graphic showing “environmental and social policies” adding £135 to average dual fuel bills in 2016.
The OBR figure for 2016/17 is £6.9bn, or £96 per household. As they go on to state, the figure of £135 also includes other costs, such as smart meters, estimated at £15 per household. In other words, it is fair to say that the Telegraph has underestimated the true effect of govt policy.
Carbon Brief makes absolutely no attempt to actually disprove any of the numbers given by the Telegraph, Mail or British Gas. And for the very good reason that they can’t, as the numbers are correct.
Instead they try to throw enough mud at the wall in the hope it will confuse people.
Not only that, but they make no mention of all of the other costs being loaded on to energy bills as a result of govt policy, such as smart meters, carbon levies and transmission costs.
They end up by trotting out the old red herring about energy savings, which have partly offset higher prices. Yet this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the price increase announced by British Gas.
So who are Carbon Brief?
Their Editor and Director is Leo Hickman. His prior career included 16 years at the Guardian, and a stint at the WWF, which hardly inspires confidence in his objectivity or accuracy.
The team includes a bunch of grant troughing climate scientists including the unreliable Zeke Hausfather.
If that is not bad enough, they appear to receive all of their funding from the European Climate Foundation (ECF).
The ECF is notoriously at the heart of the green lobby funding web in Europe, receiving millions from far left, liberal foundations, mainly in the US, and distributing it to all sorts of green groups across Europe.
The fact that supposedly honest scientists allow themselves to be involved with such an organisation says a lot about their own integrity and motivation.
Comments are open on the Carbon Brief article. I suggest we leave a few comments, and see how long it stops open for!
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
August 3, 2017 at 08:27AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 