Climate & energy: Life after Brexit
Hinkley, investors, carbon: What are the outstanding questions, post-referendum and post-reshuffle?
By Jonny Marshall
Share
Last updated:
As the UK prepares for life outside the European Union – and outside the free market too, according to Chancellor Philip Hammond – politicians and commentators of all shapes and sizes have been pitching in with their ideas of how our future is going to look now that we've 'taken back control'.
There have been sometimes contradictory ideas put forward about our new relationship with Europe, the overall economic direction, the rights of EU citizens, and more.
Through these tangles, however, those responsible for the UK’s energy sector have been unusually agreeable with each other.
At a speech just days after the referendum result, then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Amber Rudd spoke of the importance of progressing along the path to affordable, secure and sustainable energy, highlighting the dangers of a changing climate, and extolling the importance of Britain leading the way in its mitigation.
Just days later Andrea Leadsom, then her junior minister at DECC and her opponent in the referendum debate, reiterated the same points but with added extra emphasis on the transition to a smarter, decentralised energy system that many in the industry, notably the National Infrastructure Commission and the trade body EnergyUK, are calling for.
Then came the creation of two existing government departments to form the new Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). And it's headed up by a Secretary of State, Greg Clark, who has historically been as progressive as they come on energy and climate issues. The same goes for the rest of the Ministerial team.
Nevertheless... against the dark clouds/journey to the sunlit uplands (delete as appropriate) that Brexit entails, big questions remain. Here are some of them.
It's the economy, stupid!
On the economic front, we're £1.7 trillion and rising in debt, and several economic indicators suggest bumpy times ahead, certainly in the short-term. Then again, the government seems to be breaking with the recent past in abandoning George Osborne's 'austerity-über-alles' approach and hinting that it may borrow to invest.
The UK can't keep the lights on or decarbonise without building new stuff - generating plant, cables both national and international, and perhaps new gas infrastructure.
But there's already a crisis of investor confidence in the energy sector. Post-Brexit, will the government be able to reassure investors enough to ensure new stuff gets built at reasonable rates of return?
Meanwhile, not building new low-carbon stuff will sustain higher reliance on fossil fuels which are, increasingly, imported - and therefore more expensive than in pre-Brexit days, if the pound remains depressed.
In Europe, but not of it
The decision on what level of integration Britain retains with Europe is likely to be decided primarily on the issues of free trade and immigration. But it'll certainly have implications for the energy sector.
In particular, to what extent will the UK participate in continent-wide power and gas markets? Will plans for electrical interconnection (an additional 9GW according to the March Budget [pdf link]), be affected?
Will British companies continue to take part in the EU Emissions Trading System - and if not, how else might the UK constrain emissions from industry and the power sector?
While it's almost too late now to affect whether we meet our EU target of sourcing 15% of energy from renewables by 2020, presumably the UK will expressly divorce itself from the EU 2030 targets... unless we end up in the EEA, in which case we might not be able to.
Equally presumably, whatever happens we will continue to see the benefits of EU regulations making appliances more energy efficient, given that manufacturers are unlikely to make products just for the UK.
Meanwhile, post-Brexit realities mean that we're going to have to be extra-nice to countries with which we want trade deals in future. Increasingly, this means countries that take climate change seriously and have major decarbonisation plans in place - just think of China. What are they going to be looking for from the UK on this increasingly important agenda?
BEIS: Honey, or bumbling?
(The buzz is that this new department will pronounce itself 'bees', by the way, in case you're confused about the sub-heading above)
Back to investor confidence. The government is due to roll out a number of measures between now the end of the year that are collectively aimed at keeping the UK on course for decarbonisation while keeping the lights on. A consultation on the proposed coal-phase out is scheduled to be launched later this week; the next auction of Contracts for Difference (CfDs) supporting offshore wind development (£290 million for about 1GW) is due by the end of the year; and there's to be an Emission Reduction Plan running up to about 2030, also due by the end of the year.
If these materialise on time, if they're pragmatic and firm, that will go some way to restoring investor confidence and so keeping decarbonisation costs down. What's technically known as 'fannying around' will do the opposite. Yet, given the huge workload about to hit government as Brexit processes begin in earnest, and given economic constraints, there may be some temptation to vacillate or water down.
Looking further ahead, the creation of BEIS offers a tantalising vision: a holistic, integrated industrial strategy folding in the interests of energy producers and energy users alike – what you might call a “solar to steel strategy” - with decarbonisation as one of its core goals. On the other hand, packing all of these interests inside a single super-ministry risks down-grading the importance of constraining carbon emissions. Greg Clark and his team have a challenging, though massively exciting, time ahead.
Shale gas and nuclear: Essentials or illusions?
David Cameron said that shale gas 'would be good for our country'. Amber Rudd said the proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is essential to 'ensure secure, clean, affordable supplies now and in the decades ahead'.
However... speaking in 2014, Mr Cameron predicted shale gas wells would be producing by the end of that year. They're not even close. And Ms Rudd's comments echoed those of her predecessors dating back to 2008, when Labour's John Hutton said new nuclear power 'provides one of the cheapest electricity options available to reduce our carbon emissions'.
As has been amply documented, Hinkley is now nearly a decade behind its original schedule, while estimates of the eventual cost to bill-payers could rise as high as £30bn. The French government is flogging off shares in airports and in Peugeot to raise money. Security experts ask whether if nuclear reactors are 'essential', we're well advised to give control of them to China. Meanwhile the National Infrastructure Commission, by endorsing the smart flexible grid as the logical destination for the UK electricity sector, has cast new doubt on whether vast block-type power stations are needed.
Shale gas is smaller in scale, and the economics are uncertain rather than certainly daunting. But it's still not here.
Unreality fields surround both technologies. Arguably they're both better viewed, right now, as 'nice-to-haves' rather than 'essentials'. How will the new government proceed - let the unreality fields endure, or choose to cleave wholeheartedly to the tried and tested, renewables-led, NIC-style smart power path?
North Sea, and Scexit
The North Sea oil and gas sector is not in a happy place. Output is inexorably falling, jobs are disappearing; the Exchequer is having to pump money in in order to keep the place running. And now, for the first time in a generation, strikes are due.
What is the wisest course? Economically, it largely depends on what you believe about the future oil price - something that's recently proven just about as unpredictable as the 4.30 at Catterick. If you bet on a price elevation, keeping the North Sea going until firms can extract the last drop, which is currently government policy, might make sense. But not if you believe in a long period of low prices.
But this isn't just a matter of economics. At the weekend, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that a second independence referendum was an option for next year, depending on how talks go with London and Brussels. Brexit may have changed terms of the North Sea debate; prospects of a Scexit most certainly would.
Share