Energy: What we should be doing post-Brexit

The EU has long been committed to “the fight against global warming”.  In this context it has created a series of measures, most of which increase energy costs for industry and for households.  The result has been to force millions of UK households into fuel poverty, and to drive energy-intensive industries off-shore.  Industries which have borne the brunt of these policies have included steel, aluminium, chemicals and fertilisers, petroleum refining, cement, glass and ceramics.

Plant closures are only part of the problem: we should also bear in mind potential new investment, which is driven offshore by these measures.  We are in fact exporting industries and jobs, while worsening our balance of payments as we import materials previously made in Europe.  And the real irony is that the production often goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, so the result is an increase in global emissions.

Measures have included aggressive targets for renewable energy, and for emissions.  These are overlapping and conflicting provisions.  In particular, nuclear energy contributes to emissions targets but not to renewable targets, so policy, which ideally should be technology-neutral, is biased in favour of wind and solar and against nuclear.  All these technologies have attracted subsidies.  They have also created the need for additional levels of subsidy, since intermittent renewables require back-up.  The back-up, typically gas, has to be run intermittently to complement intermittent renewables.  But there is no economic or investment case to build gas-fired plants to run intermittently, so they require “capacity payments”: a whole new level of subsidy.

Then we have the Large Combustion Plant Directive, which has resulted in the closure of perfectly good coal plants across the UK, threatening both price and availability of electricity.  But perhaps the greatest folly is the Emissions Trading Scheme.  It has been sold as a “market mechanism” designed to allocate emissions permits where they will be most efficient and to incentivise investment in low-carbon and energy-saving technologies.  It has largely failed over ten years and more.  The price of a ton of CO2 emitted has generally been below €10, which the level generally accepted as necessary to send signals to the market would be €30 plus.  The Commission and parliament come back to the issue every few years with a sticking-plaster solution – which never delivers.  Moreover a “market mechanism” which requires constant regulatory intervention is not really a market mechanism at all: it is a very complicated tax.

The additional problem is “carbon leakage” – an EU euphemism for driving energy-intensive businesses offshore.  The plan is to establish a level of “free allocation” of carbon permits to industries at risk – but to reduce the total allocation each year in order to drive down emissions.  But the level is not sufficient to start with.  And some industries are based on chemical processes that emit CO2 as part of their fundamental chemistry which no amount of efficiency savings can eliminate.  The policy amounts to a slow suffocation of heavy industry.  Indeed former Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani has said “EU Energy Policy is creating an industrial massacre in Europe”.  UKIP agrees.

Regulatory uncertainty:  We have created such a complex cat’s-cradle (or dog’s breakfast) of regulation, taxation and subsidy, subject to constant change at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats, that it has become almost impossible for the market to make rational investment decisions on multi-billion pound projects with time scales in decades.  This is why incentives designed to promote gas-fired power stations have had the perverse effect of promoting diesel generators instead, and why the government had to accept an eye-watering guaranteed price to EDF for Hinckley C.

Not just an EU problem

It would be nice to promise that this energy policy chaos could be unwound immediately after Brexit.  But if the problem with Brussels is bad enough, Westminster has made it worse.  The Climate Change Act (2008), one of the most expensive pieces of peace-time legislation, was passed almost unanimously in Westminster, by MPs who had little or no idea of the consequences of their actions.  It even includes statutory emissions targets for 2050 – something no other country in the world has.  So after the Brexit battle, we have another battle here at home to deliver a rational UK energy policy.

What the UK should do post-Brexit

  1. On repeal of the European Communities Act (1972) HM Government should repeal the Climate Change Act as a priority number one for Energy Policy.  It should also announce our withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty.
  2. Repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from UK law.
  3. Repeal the Large Combustion Plant Directive (though given that most coal plants are closed, or are running down ahead of closure, most will be beyond rescue).
  4. Withdraw all subsidies from new wind, solar and anaerobic digestion projects. Make operators of wind and solar responsible for the additional costs of intermittency.  UKIP recognises that future increases in efficiency, plus the development of viable and efficient large-scale energy storage, may make wind and solar viable sometime in the next decade or two.  Subject to planning and environmental considerations, we would not oppose new investment in renewables, but we would not subsidise it.
  5. Dismantle constraints on the industry:  remove emissions and renewables targets (while maintaining controls on genuine pollutants, like SOx NOx & particulates).  Scrap George Osborne’s Carbon Floor Price.
  6. Ensure security of supply: given that we are close to a crisis situation in electricity supply, HM Government should discuss with the industry how we could incentivise major energy infrastructure investment.  We would renegotiate the use of Interconnectors with continental countries, on an arm’s-length, independent nation basis.

UKIP energy policy will be expanded in detail in our next Manifesto, and this will include our positions on Shale Gas, and Nuclear Power.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Energy: What we should be doing post-Brexit

  1. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Two pieces elaborate here:


  2. Patrick Dearsley says:

    Beautifully clear and concise, thanks Roger.

    Patrick Dearsley Chairman UKIP Horsham Branch


  3. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Roger Helmer MEP enlarges on current UKIP energy policy

  4. KennieD says:

    Your ideas and energy policy projections make absolute sense, mainly due to the fact that you are educated in and know about such things.
    This is such an outrageous situation for a political party. Whoever heard of a Minister for Energy actually knowing about the subject and not after lining his own pockets?

  5. Dung says:

    11/10 for this piece Roger it was accurate, detailed and perfectly reasoned. An even more hard hitting version of this should be out for the public to read ASAP, UKIP may then still have a chance in the election.
    Great work.

  6. Shieldsman says:

    Logic and common sense are not part of the curriculum for aspiring politicians. The Social Sciences indoctrination is that Politically Correct GREEN environmental policies must be followed regardless of the costs in money and lost jobs.

  7. Jane Davies says:

    Oh and this……
    Did anyone switch everything off on earth day? What a laughable waste of time, a bit like going to confession to cleanse the conscience before carrying on doing the same ‘bad stuff’ for another year. Can the worlds stupid people get any more stupid? Answers on a postcard please!

  8. SMS says:

    Sound thoughts that need to be shouted out to the rest of the industrialised nations. With an initial stop in South Australia.

    The Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, and his Labor government have been dismantling the states coal fired plants to make way for expensive and unreliable renewable energy. After a series of energy disruptions across the state the Premier came up with a plan that he believes will provide more reliable power but which will instead drive the residents of South Australia into fuel poverty and drive light and heavy industries from the state.

    Premier Weatherill is going to supplement the states renewable power using a very inefficient Open Cycle Gas Generator, and numerous diesel generators. To provide power until the OCGG can be brought up to line power, there are going to be a massive bank of batteries employed.

    Sound cheap?

    South Australians are currently paying one of the highest rates for power in the world and the Premiers plan is going to devastate the economy. South Australia already has the highest unemployment in Australia and this is only going to compound the problem.

    I would not buy beach property in Adelaide. Wait, the price will be going down as South Australia declines into a deep depression.

    • Jane Davies says:

      Isn’t the battery industry a dirty industry?

      • KennieD says:

        Mostly a self-destruct industry, as the Lithium batteries go out of control on recharge. Witness Boeing 787 (nightmareliner) and galaxy 7 phones.

  9. AlecM says:

    I anticipated thee issues 16 years ago and warned key people that the renewables’ policy plus smart meters was designed to enrich the elite at the expense of the poor. As a consequence my factory whose purpose was to transplant a Russian technology for CCS was closed down.

    15 1/2 years ago I was met by some FoE people near Westminster Hall. The young man who talked over the EU renewables’ plan accepted my analysis that we also needed 80% nuclear and pump storage – the proposed EU virtual power station based on windmills could never work. He was taken away by a couple of harpies, presumably for re-education.

    In early 2010 I warned executives of large power generator companies what the problems were. However, the decision by Cameron to give DECC to Huhne meant chaos and eventual failure. In 2012 Huhne’s successor Davey decided against scientific advice to install Diesel STOR thus creating an earning’s stream with enormous pollution for Government owned buildings.

    We now face power cuts: the only solution is to reduce power prices by installing gas fired fuel cells into 15 GW electrical domestic plus small businesses. This will reduce Grid prices and by 40% reduction of standby gas use for heat and electricity when the electricity is used as standby, allow government to meet pledges by technically incompetent Bliar. If the electricity is used to power heat pumps, there is a 70% reduction. This is allowing the Sainted Theresa to her pledge – to reduce energy prices for the Just Managing whilst meeting those Bliar commitments.

  10. says:

    a UKIP member in crawley has stated that UKIPs stance is to oppose fracking–is this so?

    • catweazle666 says:

      You could always consult the UKIP manifesto, where it clearly states:

      We will:

      Scrap the 2008 Climate Change Act and the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive
      Support ‘fracking’ for shale gas
      End subsidies for wind turbines and solar photovoltaic arrays
      Support renewable energy where it can deliver electricity at competitive prices
      Seek to rejuvenate the coal industry
      Abolish ‘green levies’ to cut the cost of fuel bills
      Force energy companies to end higher charges for pre-payment meters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s