Britain needs an energy revolution – stop the terrible renewable subsidies–Nick Timothy

By Paul Homewood

A rather rambling, badly thought out piece by Nick Timothy, formerly the Theresa May’s chief advisor until he cocked up the election:

http://ift.tt/2h5AFDe

He starts by rehashing his arguments for an energy tariff cap, to protect consumers from the evil Big 6 energy companies.

His arguments really are nonsense, as the UK probably has the most competitive energy market in the world. The fact that some people cannot be bothered to shop around is their problem, not the government’s. Even he admits that half of people have switched suppliers at some time.

Timothy accepts that the total price of energy won’t fall, as a cap on standard tariffs will simply mean that cut price deals won’t be as cheap.

But then he starts to make a bit of sense:

A safeguard tariff cap would not, of course, reduce the cost of energy overall. To do that, or to at least check the increase in prices, we need a bigger change.

This is not only a question of social justice but of economic competitiveness. Britain’s industrial electricity prices have increased by more than 150 per cent since 2004.

They are the fourth highest of the 29 mainly western member countries of the International Energy Agency. They are more than double those in America. And they have been getting increasingly uncompetitive. In 2004 our industrial electricity prices were cheaper than the IEA average; in 2010 they were 0.7 per cent more expensive; now they are 54 per cent more expensive.

It is not possible to have a successful industrial strategy with energy costs that cripple industry. And neither will the Government succeed in rebalancing the economy while industrial electricity prices are so high.

We need lower prices, and to get them we need a new energy strategy based on competition and a sensible regulatory framework. For that to happen, there must be meaningful price transparency for all forms of power generation, including nuclear power and renewables.

Well, we all know the reason for this – the Climate Change Act. After all, it was only last year that Timothy himself who described the Act as a “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm”.

It is curious then that he goes on to write:

This will require a new approach to reducing carbon emissions. There is no need to abandon our international commitments, and no need to abandon the Climate Change Act.

He looks forward to a time when, energy technologies would compete against one another on a level playing field. That would mean a more rational energy market, with prices that are fairer for households and more competitive for industry.

Given that renewable energy options are a long way from competing on a level playing field, (that Timothy says should include the cost of coping with intermittency), his proposals are incompatible with the Climate Change Act.