Skip to main content

Don’t change horses midstream: the impact of EMR on low-carbon electricity producers

The way low-carbon electricity is supported by the government is changing drastically. For the last decade, electricity generators have used an emissions trading system known as the Renewable Obligations (RO) scheme. Current plans are to phase this scheme out completely by 2017, replacing it with a form of feed-in tariff scheme instead. These changes present the industry with an entirely new range of challenges and uncertainties.

On September 10th, Alon Carmel of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) presented their case for the new policies to the major players in the South West’s low carbon energy industry. The event, hosted by RegenSW and Osborne Clarke in Bristol, set out to allay the concerns of the industry, and to give electricity generators a chance to voice their opinions ahead of the final implementation of the new scheme in 12 months’ time.

Generators have a choice between 2014 and 2017, as both the RO scheme and the new Contract-for-Difference (CfD) feed-in tariff scheme will be in operation. Choosing between the two is potentially the most consequential decision generators can make in the next 3 years; the subsidy provided by both schemes is vital to the existence of many generators, and the profit margins of all of them.

Electricity bills are a huge issue for the next election, and choosing the degree of subsidy offered by the new CfD scheme will play a big part in keeping the cost to consumers low. That said, novel renewable energy technologies such as wave and tidal power count on a high level of subsidy in order to develop their technology and lower production costs. This event was the first chance for many to see the degree of subsidy their technologies would receive under the new scheme.

The government is braced for a great deal of criticism over the level of support offered in their new scheme, and are prepared to consider changes where appropriate. However, a panel of academics and consultant hired by DECC have concluded that too much attention is being paid to the industry in making energy policy decisions. This suggests that electricity producers should expect a cooler reception from the government when recommending changes to the new policy.


For now, the advice to electricity producers from Osborne Clarke is not to change to using the new scheme; there is a degree of mistrust in the scheme from banks and financial institutions, who don’t wish to risk using an untested policy. This makes borrowing more expensive, and impacts both the generator’s profits as well as the cost to consumers. There is a fear that most generators will follow this advice, creating a looming crisis in 2017 when the RO scheme ends.

This blog is written by Neeraj Oak, from the department of Complexity Sciences at the University of Bristol.

Neeraj Oak

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Diamond Battery – your ideas for future energy generation

On Friday 25th November, at the Cabot Institute Annual Lecture, a new energy technology was unveiled that uses diamonds to generate electricity from nuclear waste. Researchers at the University of Bristol, led by Prof. Tom Scott, have created a prototype battery that incorporates radioactive Nickel-63 into a diamond, which is then able to generate a small electrical current.
Details of this technology can be found in our official press release here: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/november/diamond-power.html.
Despite the low power of the batteries (relative to current technologies), they could have an exceptionally long lifespan, taking 5730 years to reach 50% battery power. Because of this, Professor Tom Scott explains:
“We envision these batteries to be used in situations where it is not feasible to charge or replace conventional batteries. Obvious applications would be in low-power electrical devices where long life of the energy source is needed, such as pacemakers, satellite…

Brexit: can research light the way?

What could Brexit mean for UK science? What impact will it have on UK fisheries? Could Brexit be bad news for emissions reductions? These were just some questions discussed at a Parliamentary conference last week, organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Commons Library and Parliament’s Universities Outreach team.

MPs researchers, Parliamentary staff and academic researchers from across the country came together to consider some of the key policy areas affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Why does academic research matter to Parliament? Given the unchartered waters that Parliament is facing as the UK prepares to withdraw from the EU, it is more important than ever that Parliamentary scrutiny and debate is informed by robust and reliable evidence.

Academic research is expected to meet rigorous standards of quality, independence and transparency. Although it is far from being the only source of evidence relevant to Parliament, it has vital ro…

A response to Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

The decision by President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change puts the United States at odds with both science and global geopolitical norms.  The fundamentals of climate change remain unambiguous: greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, they are increasing because of human action, the increase will cause warming, and that warming creates risks of extreme weather, food crises and sea level rise. That does not mean that scientists can predict all of the consequences of global warming, much work needs to be done, but the risks are both profound and clear. Nor do we know what the best solutions will be - there is need for a robust debate about the nature, fairness and efficacy of different decarbonisation policies and technologies as well as the balance of responsibility; the Paris Agreement, despite its faults with respect to obligation and enforcement, allowed great flexibility in that regard, which is why nearly every nation on Earth is a signatory.

Mor…