Energy: Minister of lies

By Richard North - November 6, 2024

Ed Miliband, energy and net-zero secretary, is a liar. In fact, he’s a multiple liar.

With most eyes focused on the US presidential elections, he took to Twitter to state that “we” – his department – “have received independent advice” from the National Energy System Operator (NESO) on the so-called “clean power mission”.

This took the form of an 84-page report entitled “Clean Power 2030 – Advice on achieving clean power for Great Britain by 2030” which, Miliband claimed, provided “conclusive proof that clean power by 2030 is not only achievable, but desirable, and can lead to cheaper electricity and a more secure energy system for Britain”.

His first lie was that the advice from NESO was independent. Formerly part of the National Grid, the system operator was transferred into public ownership, taking effect from 1 October, charged with the specific task of taking “a more strategic approach to achieving a net zero energy system by 2030”.

At the time of the transfer, Miliband – already in-post as energy secretary – actually said that the NESO would have “a huge role to play in delivering our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower”, in his terms by providing “impartial, whole-system expertise on building a network that is fit for the future”.

But, as the Companies House filing attests (illustrated), there is only one person with “significant control”, and that is “The Secretary Of State For Energy Security And Net Zero”, one Ed Miliband.

It is hardly in a position to give impartial advice as its very function is to work towards “achieving a net zero energy system by 2030”, and it certainly isn’t independent. It is wholly owned by the government, which paid £630 million for the operation.

Yet the delusion is shared by CEO Fintan Slye, who announced of the operation, “We are ready, and look forward to providing expert independent advice and working collaboratively across all parts of the energy sector, with government, the regulator and within our communities across Great Britain”.

Ironically, the decision to remove the system operator from National Grid’s ownership was made under the previous Conservative government because of concerns over a conflict of interest relating to the operator’s role providing strategic advice to government officials.

Having once been independent, it had been brought into the government fold to remove that conflict of interest.

But, if anything, Miliband’s second lie is even worse. He claims that the report provides “conclusive proof that clean power by 2030 is not only achievable, but desirable, and can lead to cheaper electricity and a more secure energy system for Britain”.

In terms of providing “conclusive proof” of anything, it does no such thing. Having made the statement that “clean power is a huge challenge”, at best all it does is make the condition assertion that it is “achievable for Great Britain by 2030”.

But, to achieve that, the report states, “several elements must deliver at the limit of what is feasible”. A key challenge, it adds, “will be making sure all deliver simultaneously, in full and at maximum pace, in a way that does not overheat supply chains, is sustainable and sets Great Britain on the right path beyond 2030”.

Furthermore, we are told, “clean power will require doing things differently. It will only be achieved with bold action and sustained momentum, across every area and every step of the way between now and 2030”.

Amongst those “different” things is the need to “harness the value of flexibility for households, businesses, suppliers and aggregators by unlocking markets, promoting engagement and removing wider barriers”.

In practice, the Telegraph tells us, “this means convincing larger numbers of households and businesses to voluntarily cut their electricity consumption during low-wind periods or times when the grid is otherwise constrained – either through higher prices or by paying them incentives”.

This paper goes on to say that some 2.6m households and businesses took part in schemes that paid rewards for cutting power use last winter, but to reach the new target, the amount of “flexibility” must rise from 2.5 GW today to at least 10.4 GWs – implying that millions more will need to sign up.

So far, the scheme has harvested the low-hanging fruit but, as the ambition expands, resistance will stiffen and it is hard to see how the target can be achieved without some form of coercion, which will immediately be seen as rationing.

But, on top of that, the grid must contract as much offshore wind capacity in the coming one to two years as in the last six combined, something never before achieved and, given the stresses in the wind industry, the chances of success are remote.

As if that was not enough, the industry must also deliver “first-of-a-kind clean dispatchable technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen to power”. Yet none of these technologies are proven, there is no commercial-scale plant in existence and given the track records, the chances of successful delivery are at vanishing point.

The report itself offers options. It is looking to see a four-to-fivefold increase in demand flexibility (excluding storage heaters), an increase in grid connected battery storage from 5 GW to over 22 GW, more pumped storage and major expansions in onshore wind (from 14 GW to 27 GW) and solar (from 15 GW to 47 GW) along with nuclear plant life extensions (which may not happen).

It then identifies “two primary clean power pathways”. In addition to the elements outlined, one pathway successfully builds 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, but no new dispatchable power from hydrogen or gas with CCS.

The other pathway delivers new dispatchable plants (totalling 2.7 GW) and 43 GW offshore wind. Either of these, NESO says. “requires a dramatic acceleration in progress compared to anything achieved historically and can only be achieved with a determined focus on pace and a huge collective effort across the industry”.

And so the pie-in-the-sky continues. The National Grid, engaged in a process of unprecedented scale, must also build all planned transmission network on time. This involves twice as much in the next five years as was built in total over the last decade. Anyone who has been following this sage will also know that such an ambition is pure moonshine.

Another fraught issue is the connection of all the new generators, many of them dispersed micro-generators, to the grid. So, on top of everything else, National Grid has to reform connection processes in 2025, to align with the clean power goal and future strategic plans.

Then, for the government, there is the task of reform planning and consenting processes and improving “community engagement”. Key decisions on funding, awarding contracts, consenting and policy have to be made within the next year to ensure construction on key projects starts as soon as possible.

But NESO saves the best almost until last. It tells us that the electricity markets have to be “reformed”, while ensuring a stable and attractive investment environment, “to secure over £40 billion of investment annually to 2030”.

That’s the price tag of Miliband’s fantasy, six years at £40 billion a year, requiring £240 billion, or nearly a quarter of a trillion pound. And yet, despite the cost of borrowing going up – imposing critical burdens on the wind industry – NESO is saying that the rush to clean power “can lead to cheaper electricity”. In a pig’s ear.

Unashamedly, however, Miliband embellishes his lies in an authored piece in the Guardian (where else?) headed: “A rebuke to those who said clean power by 2030 was unachievable: they were wrong, we were right”.

What the piece does, though, is give an insight into a demented mind. Says Miliband, the NESO report is so important because it shows that clean power by 2030 “is the right choice for Britain”, something which it simply doesn’t do.

And, by throwing £240 billion into the pot to create more expensive and unreliable energy, and systems of unknown capability, he argues that this will unlock cheaper electricity, a more secure country, the good industrial jobs we need and economic growth.

By acting on its conclusions, the government makes our choice: we choose investment over decline, Miliband says, offering a classic Orwellian inversion. By his intervention, he is set to accelerate our national decline as the world’s most expensive electricity is set to become even more expensive, while blackouts become routine.

What we now know, without risk of contradiction, is that we are now no longer dealing with rational government, but a special kind of madness. We are in the grip of the insane, led by a pathological liar, and we haven’t even had the result of the US presidential election yet, even as Trump leads in six of the seven “battleground states”.