Skip to content

Clueless Emma Gatten

March 12, 2022
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

This is a hopelessly muddled article by Emma Gatten, who clearly has not got a clue what she is talking about!

The same also applies to the MPs mentioned.

 

 image

Energy giants will be handed more than £1.2 billion from wind and solar farms as gas prices soar in the coming months, despite the cost of living crisis hitting household bills.

When electricity prices are low, wind and solar farms are paid subsidies in the form of green levies taken directly from household bills. Last year, this amounted to around £30 of the total £176 of green levies included in energy bills. 

When wholesale electricity prices are high, renewable producers pay money back to the Government. But rather than the money going directly to households, it is passed back to energy suppliers, The Telegraph has learnt.

In the first six months of this year, wind and solar producers are predicted to pay back £1.2 billion as gas prices soar, pushing up the wholesale electricity price – a potential saving of around £40 per household. 

The total figure is set to rise as renewable energy becomes cheaper to produce and could hit as much as £26 billion in 10 years – a saving of up to £330 per household, if gas prices remain high, according to analysis shared with The Telegraph.

‘Handy dose of economic aspirin’

Senior Tory figures have called for reform of the green subsidy system, to allow the dividends from cheap renewables to be passed through directly in the form of lower household bills.

“Most UK renewable energy costs less than it used to, just as international gas prices are going through the roof. So recycling the savings from renewables straight into everyone’s energy bills makes sense,” John Penrose, a Conservative MP, told The Telegraph.

“It would create a built-in price stabiliser for hard-pressed households and businesses, giving everyone a concrete example of how net zero can help our finances."

He said it would also "provide a handy dose of economic aspirin for the Chancellor, who would have one less headache to deal with in his budget next month”.

Sam Hall, the director of the Conservative Environment Network, said: "With consumers reeling from surging fossil fuel prices, the Government should look at whether payments from cheap British renewables can be returned to bill payers to relieve the cost of living.”

Philip Dunne MP, chairman of the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, said it was important that these dividends were passed on to households. 

“As renewable projects scale up, it is likely that bills will be reduced for millions of consumers as renewables are often cheaper than high carbon energy such as oil and gas,” he said. “Suppliers must make sure that this green dividend is passed on in full to bill payers as a return on their investment in renewables."

Wind is now Britain’s second biggest power source

The renewable subsidy system – in place since 2014 – paid back for the first time last September, when a gas price crunch caused by a spike in demand and stymied supply in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic caused wholesale electricity prices to rise significantly.

Prices of gas, which is used to produce around 40 per cent of the UK’s electricity, have risen as much as 10-fold year-on-year since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Renewable producers receive a pre-agreed price per megawatt hour (MWh) for the electricity they produce, under the Government’s scheme to encourage the development of wind and solar.

Some of these prices are as low as £68 per MWh – well below the wholesale prices they receive for electricity, which are linked directly to the price of gas. On Friday, prices reached £174 per MWh. Projects expected to start producing next year are as low as £50 per MWh.

A 54 per cent rise in the energy price cap in April will cause dual bills to rise to around £2,000. It is expected to push more than a million households into fuel poverty.

Ofgem, the regulator, has said bills could rise again in October to a “devastating” £3,000 a year, as the impact of the Ukraine crisis continues to be felt.

Simon Cran-McGreehin, of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said households were seeing the benefit of cheaper renewables, but indirectly.

He added that when the renewable subsidy system was designed, it was assumed that the levies would always be paid out to producers.

“The gas crisis has blown that thinking out of the water,” he said. “Given that gas prices could remain high for a number of years, a rethink could be appropriate.”

Thanks to the falling costs of wind and solar, dividends from cheap renewables could easily hit up to £7 billion if a similar gas price crunch hits in five years and up to £26 billion in 10 years – a saving of around £290–£330 per household, according to analysis by the ECIU.

Gordon Edge, the head of strategy at the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which manages the scheme – known as Contracts for Difference – said the gas price hike had taken the industry by surprise.

“We were expecting to see this eventually, but not quite yet. We are still working through exactly all of the implications. But for now it is working exactly as it is meant to,” he said.

A spokesman for Energy UK, which represents suppliers, said the surplus so far had been offset by “additional costs”.

The spokesman added: “However with more money looking likely to be returned from the scheme, Ofgem is set to consult on how to reflect this in its next price cap decision and we look forward to working with them on this.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/03/11/demand-relieve-cost-living-passing-bonuses-cheap-renewables/

First of all, let’s deal with Emma Gatten’s grossly misleading comment:

“When electricity prices are low, wind and solar farms are paid subsidies in the form of green levies taken directly from household bills. Last year, this amounted to around £30 of the total £176 of green levies included in energy bills. “

She is referring to the Contracts for Difference scheme, which was projected to cost £2.1 billion in 2021/22.. However she does not mention that most of the subsidies for wind and solar farms are covered by Renewable Obligations and FITs, which cost consumers another £8.0 billion.

In total, renewable subsides amount to £10.2 billion a year, equating to £370 per household. About a third of this appears on household electricity bills:

image

 

Rant over!

But what on earth is Gatten babbling on about when she complains that £1.2 billion of rebates are being handed over to “energy giants”, something that John Penrose repeats?

As they should both know, any savings returned under CfDs are passed on to consumers via the CfD Supplier Levy, just as subsidies are. Oersted produced this factsheet for its business users to show how it works:

 image

 https://orsted.co.uk/business/knowledge-hub/your-invoice

 

The Levy is actually operated by the National Grid. As I say, the above is for business customers. The only difference with residential customers is that their bills are now regulated under the Energy Price Cap, set by OFGEM.

What this means in practice is that OFGEM have to take a view two months before the cap takes effect as to what energy costs will be, and that includes the cost of the Levy.

It may be that they have underestimated the savings on this occasion, in which case it will be adjusted for in six months time.

However, reading behind the lines of the Telegraph article, particularly the comments by Energy UK, what has happened is that the savings have been more than offset by “additional costs”.

So the idea that “energy giants” are somehow profiteering to the tune of £1.2 billion is simply nonsense.

Why on earth does the Telegraph delegate its reporting on energy matters to it Environment Editor? She may know all bout trees and toads, but she regularly shows that she does not have the first idea about energy.

35 Comments
  1. P YARNALL permalink
    March 12, 2022 7:08 pm

    Which ever one you want me to do. I’m out now until about 10-00. Prefer Chorley, but the other is fine. It’s just that I don’t trust bank transfers from anybody! Just let me know contacts and details. Cheers P

    • March 12, 2022 8:34 pm

      A couple of days ago someone phoned me up. After a few moments a third voice broke in, trying to order fish and chips (yes, really). Is that what is happening here, PY?

    • Peter Yarnall permalink
      March 13, 2022 7:29 am

      How my reply to a totally different email ended up here, I have no idea!!!

      • Penda100 permalink
        March 13, 2022 3:55 pm

        Oh, I thought you were writing an energy article for the Telegraph.

  2. David Wood permalink
    March 12, 2022 7:15 pm

    Dear Paul, I have been reading and enjoying and quoting your blog for ages, but I do find it hard to separate the article/quotes you write about from your comments on them. Could you make the distinction clearer for older gits like me please?!
    David Wood

  3. David Wojick permalink
    March 12, 2022 7:17 pm

    It is symptomatic that the environmental writers are covering energy, as though energy issues were just a subset of environmental concerns. In reality energy is up there with food, environment not so much.

  4. Duker permalink
    March 12, 2022 7:49 pm

    She seems to love bird watching, so maybe thats her speciality -ornithology

    12 years ago in the Guardian she was saying all children at primary school should do Media Studies as a core subject when she was a MA student in journalism at City University. So no real background in depth science knowledge

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 13, 2022 9:26 am

      This is economics or more properly Civil Service pseudoeconomics.

  5. March 12, 2022 8:38 pm

    Paul, it is fair to be critical when supposed experts don’t know their a55 from a hole in the ground. But criticism is also due to the creators of these subsidy systems, for making them as opaque as possible.

    I have still not been able to find out what the exit penalty is for companies who have signed up to supply leccy at ludicrously low prices. See for example my comment here: https://cliscep.com/2022/02/15/spot-the-difference/#comment-114569

  6. ecobunk permalink
    March 12, 2022 9:30 pm

    CfD is merely a fixed price contract dressed up with a complicated method of administration. BUT whether the power is needed or not, it entitles the supplier to at least that payment for all they can produce. If there is a surplus, there is an auction to decide who will reduce output. Clearly no-one will do that unless they get more than they would have got for producing the power. This must be the only commodity where the bigger the glut, the higher the price.

    I suspect this is where the real profits lie. The payoffs can only multiply as the gluts increase at times when renewables start to exceed the total demand.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 13, 2022 9:31 am

      That’s the problem with the system – it looks like a fixed price but it isn’t. Consumers are exposed to rising prices but not falling prices, and volatility has increased greatly for a number of reasons (despite the asinine claims of politicians). I suspect – as ever – Civil Service modelling simply failed to anticipate reality.

      • March 13, 2022 6:24 pm

        Except you just cannot design a system around anything that’s unreliable like wind and solar. It just isn’t possible.

  7. March 12, 2022 9:32 pm

    There’s the very simple answer of course, just don’t subsidise renewables.

    • Jordan permalink
      March 12, 2022 10:35 pm

      Agree – they shouldn’t need subsidies if renewables really are the cheapest form of power generation.
      And why are all those “100% renewable tariffs” increasing as gas costs increase? Are these supply contracts being supplied by the cheapest form of generation or not? Does renewable energy production reduce exposure to international fossil fuel prices or not?
      The increase in these “100% renewable tariffs” shouldn’t be necessary if the claims are true.

      • In The Real World permalink
        March 13, 2022 9:22 am

        Yes , that whole story is one of the biggest loads of propaganda rubbish ever .

        Renewable generation is very expensive .
        In 2020 the average grid cost for electricity was £35 per MWh , and offshore wind was being paid £150 to £180 for the same .
        But a huge increase in Green taxes [ ETS] in 2021 is one of the main reasons that gas / oil / coal generation has become a lot more expensive , [ although still about half the cost of renewables ] , which means that everyones energy costs have gone up by large amounts .

        It is very noticeable that the media has not been saying much about these green tax rises ,, perhaps because they are the main reason for the huge cost increases in road fuel [ world costs of oil are less than it was in the 1980s and from 2005 to 2010 ],, the media is keeping quiet so that the “Yellow Jackets ” do not take to the streets .

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 13, 2022 9:38 am

      Depends on what we mean by “subsidies”. No one will build wind without some guarantees around price because the risks are too great – either no wind or too much/too much capacity. What we should have (if anything) is a core of baseload reliable generation with remewables supping peak and more at times of high gas prices. Being able to switch between coal and gas for as much as possible would minimise volatility.

      But the system is designed to reduce emissions, not have the lowest price possible compatible with reliability. So we don’t have that.

  8. March 13, 2022 12:22 am

    Do you really believe she WROTE the article ?
    Usually such articles are PRasNews, written by the PR people of whoever the article quotes.
    She wrote “according to analysis *shared with* The Telegraph”
    ..so who gave her the analysis ?
    Conservative Environment Network are quoted in the article
    CEN tweet that promotes the article
    .. https://twitter.com/CEN_HQ/status/1502653145394069506

    • March 13, 2022 12:29 am

      There are 9 significant tweets of the article
      3 from CEN accounts
      2 from ECIU accounts
      1 from European Climate Foundation, 1 from Telegraph

      • Duker permalink
        March 13, 2022 1:54 am

        Good points . I looked it up and PRasnews is an actual ‘word’, Press releases as news and you are spot on. Its incoherent because shes mashed up a number of similar PR stories and put it out as her own work from whole cloth.

  9. March 13, 2022 12:22 am

    I did finally get to see the Telegraph readers comments
    – There are 84
    – Most are not coherent, but a few shout “green scam”
    – Someone posted a link to Paul’s article here

  10. March 13, 2022 12:53 am

    Another mad article

    • March 13, 2022 9:45 am

      Stew, I often quote this:

      “Calls for action have come from all generations and all parts of society – from Greta Thunberg to David Attenborough, from schoolchildren to the Women’s Institute.”

      Chris Skidmore MP moving the statutory order to replace the 80% target with Net Zero, UK Parliament, 24 June 2019, basing government policy on the opinions of a foreign teenager, while omitting to mention his boss, the electorate.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 13, 2022 9:45 am

      Not just mad but wholly false. If prices rise because of a supply/demand change then obviously a supply/demand change can reduce them. And none of this Green nonsense targets the poor. Energy prices are the same for everyone. The claim we are going Green to help the poor is an out and out lie. It is to reduce emissions. Anything that raises prices of essentials hits the poor the most. Saying that’s disinformation is another lie.

      Quite disgusting really.

      • March 13, 2022 10:51 am

        The Middle-Class Guardian Readers get the SAY
        The working class are made to PAY

        The Middle-Class Guardian Readers do the DREAMING
        The working class do the PAYING

  11. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:08 am

    There seem to be a lot of people who do not know how the CFD scheme works. It is administered by the Low Carbon Contracts Company and EMR Settlement Ltd. The amounts due to or from generators are calculated once the reconciled metering figures are in, based on the intermittent or base load market reference prices applicable and the indexed CFD strike price. IMRPs are hourly day ahead numbers, and base load is fixed per winter and summer. That means that Drax is still being subsidised, although wind and solar are paying out.

    Suppliers are charged an interim levy rate, based on the forecast for CFD payments for the quarter, per MWh on metered supply (less excluded industry supply). The regulations stipulate this can never be less than zero. A reconciliation after the quarter end takes place, but instead of squaring off the balance the LCC retains a reserve. The result is that the refunds are rather less than might be anticipated. For Q4 is was just £39m, despite a negative £133m on the CFDs. The net payments so far this year have been quite low (just £6.7m for Jan/Feb), and obviously where they go to from here will depend on just how crazy electricity prices become. But I have a strong suspicion that ECIU have got their sums badly wrong by not looking at the actual data and making assumptions of their own.

    I have argued that there should be a rather speedier transfer of cash through the system from generators back to suppliers, but that would take a change in the regulations. They can be accessed here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-cfd-supplier-obligation

    There is also a simple explanation of the operation of the scheme at the link. Anyone who want to check out the actual data can download it here:

    https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/data-portal/dataset/8a82caf8-3ec2-45a2-b1bd-581411d61cde/resource/ab7ea978-2f03-4ee4-99ef-f9cdf398b849/download/actual-cfd-generation-and-avoided-ghg-emissions.csv

    It helps to have a spreadsheet that can summarise the data using pivot tables.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      March 14, 2022 3:18 pm

      No wonder that I can’t understand the CfD scheme. It looks very reminiscent of derivatives trading: a “nice little earner” scam on the financial-world. The old CEGB system was beautifully simple: the generators set their cost / kWh and per kW available and were placed in a merit order. Non-generation when demanded incurred large penalties: now they are rewarded and paid not to supply!

  12. Dick Goodwin permalink
    March 13, 2022 8:44 am

    1) How much is this lady paid?

    2) Do they have any vaccancies?

  13. March 13, 2022 9:07 am

    This is a problem with the media reporting misleading and downright inaccurate statements. Articles riddled with bias invested interests and unspecified sources. There seems to be no consequences this kind of reporting. The reoccurring themes in the media:
    -Renewable energy is cheap.
    -UK can effectively run on renewables with backup.
    -Concensus on Fracking without provision of evidence to back it up.
    -Planning rules have banned onshore wind in England.

    The problem is people take this as gospel and the cycle continues.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 13, 2022 11:07 am

      The problem is that people are ignorant – and in many cases unwilling to become informed – and still believe what the government tells them, still believes what the health service says, still has an incredible trust in the BBC, and believes what the media says.

  14. 2hmp permalink
    March 13, 2022 11:01 am

    The Telegraph is failing in many areas. A different paper from what it used to be when it could be relied upon.

  15. March 13, 2022 12:00 pm

    Twice she mixed up her conversion from Centigrade to Fahrenheit in past articles.

    At COP26

    The Telegraph’s Emma Gatten asked:
    “On MPs, what is your messages to voters who are alarmed by headlines that the Tory sleaze has returned?
    Do you want to say sorry for the way you handles the Owen Paterson case?”

    That anti-Paterson question is what I would expect from someone related to a Greenblob PR person

    She had an article 7 May 2021
    Electricity bills could be slashed in green drive to ditch gas boilers

    She seems to be an lots of CEN & Bright Blue events (Conservative Party greenBlob PR groups)

    • March 13, 2022 12:14 pm

      I’ve got her down as the external PR person for Conservative Party greenblob lobby groups

      BTW here’s a bubbleworld conversation
      Siegle “Unfortunately The Telegraph promotes climate denialism at every opportunity. I couldn’t work for them at this point.”
      .. https://twitter.com/emmagatten/status/1271050901210398721

      • Duker permalink
        March 13, 2022 9:59 pm

        Sounds like she isnt Telegraph staff but instead a casual ‘stringer’ for them and does PR work for other groups
        The fancy name the media use now is ‘correspondent’

  16. dennisambler permalink
    March 13, 2022 6:38 pm

    “Conservative Environment Network” https://www.cen.uk.com/our-ambassadors
    Leading the field, Stanley Johnson. However, they were a bit embarassed by his “hands on” approach: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/tory-group-distances-itself-from-stanley-johnson-after-groping-claims

    “The Conservative Environment Network (CEN), for which Stanley Johnson acts as international ambassador, said it was concerned about the the allegations, made by the former cabinet minister Caroline Nokes and the New Statesman journalist Ailbhe Rea.

    The group said in a statement: “We take all allegations of inappropriate behaviour very seriously. We have clear internal processes for managing allegations of this nature, and these are currently being followed. The alleged behaviour is not acceptable to CEN.”

    “The group is chaired by Ben Goldsmith, a close friend of the prime minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, who also acts as a non-executive board member of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Stanley Johnson remains listed on the group’s website as part of its steering group.” (No, Carrie isn’t at Defra, but her friend Ben is).

    Check out the Board of Governors at Defra, some interesting names, greenies to the hilt, including former WWF and FoE Juniper, appointed to head Natural England by Gove. They are going to be pushing back on any retreat from their “Net Zero” ambitions.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs/about/our-governance

  17. Thomas Stewart permalink
    March 13, 2022 8:00 pm

    The paymasters for the DT Our “Global Health Security coverage is partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This support comes without strings and we retain full editorial control over all the content we publish.” are allowed to publish articles fake news and climate hysteria without comments being allowed. These charlatans claim every weather event as evidence of their climate change propaganda.
    The so called writers are green loons who often write thinly disguised green advertising as a news article — the DT has sold out.

Comments are closed.