Confusion from the Times over climate targets
The Times suggests in a front page article today that Energy Secretary Ed Davey is trying to wriggle on the UK’s emissions reduction targets, allowing new fossil fuel plant to be built as long as it’s offset by “other parts of the economy, such as transport” in a bid to reduce energy bills.
But aside from a slightly misleading fudging of the UK’s emissions reduction targets – enshrined in law by the climate change act – with a prospective addition to the UK’s draft Energy Bill, which aims to put in place targets for decarbonising the energy sector, we’re not really sure what all the fuss is about.
Tim Webb writes in the Times today claiming:
“The Times can reveal that the Government want to sidestep climate change targets in an effort to stem soaring electricity prices. In an exclusive interview, Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said that he wanted to introduce a loophole which would allow new fossil fuel plants to be built”.
What target is the Times talking about?
DECC has reacted angrily to the suggestion that it wants to “sidestep climate change targets”, tweeting:
“Times story is inaccurate! There is no change in govt’s complete commitment to meeting climate change targets.”
So what’s going on? We think the Times article is slightly misleading. It is actually discussing the current debate over whether the government should take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and introduce an additional formal target to “virtually decarbonise” the UK power sector by 2030 as part of the forthcoming UK Energy Bill.
This target isn’t part of the UK Climate Change Act, which legally requires the country to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – it would be a way of reaching that legally binding target.
So the 2050 “climate change targets” are not in question – rather, the Times is reporting remarks from government on the scale of ambition on 2030 decarbonisation.
New gas
According to reports, the Treasury is opposed to the planned 2030 target because it fears it will undermine investment in new gas capacity. The Times elaborates on its view of the row in a second article:
“Environmental groups thought they had won a key victory with the Government considering plans to introduce new emissions targets, forcing electricity producers to reduce drastically their carbon footprint.
But now energy companies could be allowed to sidestep these restrictions because Treasury ministers are anxious about the high cost of building wind farms and nuclear reactors, and want to construct dozens of gas-fired power stations.
The Government’s own climate-change adviser has warned that the move would be illegal by making it impossible to meet targets.”
But this isn’t new news. Davey announced last week that he wants gas to be part of the picture in his new 2030 power decarbonisation target.
The CCC has advised that the power sector should reduce its emissions to 50 grammes of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour from the current level of 486 grammes. But under Davey’s suggested legislation, which Liberal Democrats approved at their party conference two weeks ago, this target would be changed to a range of between 50 and 100 grammes.
Davey says that this would allow the UK to build 20 gigawatts of new gas plant. This is apparently based on DECC modelling which shows that decarbonisation by 2030 will still be possible, as long as the UK has a diverse energy portfolio encompassing nuclear and renewables, with gas as backup.
This modelling isn’t public, however, so it’s hard to know how much confidence to have in this.
“Flexible target”
Clearly, this isn’t a new story, and Davey has already shared his view that a flexible target can adjust to new technological developments. As BusinessGreen reported last week:
“Davey hinted the bill could include a target range, rather than a specific decarbonisation figure, arguing that such an approach would allow for greater flexibility based on the pace of development of low carbon technologies.
‘The range that we aim for and how we ensure there’s flexibility in that to take account of technology changes and so on, all has to be looked at and discussed,’ he said. ‘That will be discussed across government.'”
Energy and environment journal the Ends Report covered the same thing on Wednesday, writing that any 2030 target is “likely to be lax”. A 100 gramme limit would allow unabated gas to provide 15-20 per cent of the UK’s electricity, it suggests.
The Times has also missed that the CCC is not against this flexible approach to decarbonisation, despite warning that too much use of unabated gas could cause the UK to break its emissions cutting commitments. Ends writes:
“In September, the body wrote to energy secretary Ed Davey warning that “extensive use of unabated gas… in 2030 and beyond would be incompatible with meeting legislated carbon budgets” ( ENDS Report, September 2012). It called for a 50gCO2/kWh target to prevent a dash for gas. However, an annex added there should be ‘some flexibility to review [that target] through a clear, transparent and evidence-based process’.”
The journal adds that the CCC’s chief executive David Kennedy supported a flexible 50-100 gramme limit at a National Grid conference last month, suggesting it should be included as part of “secondary legislation” that can be “adjusted as the costs of future low-carbon energy development become clear”.
There may be a deeper issue here around the feasibility of a target that would allow “offsetting” other sectors.
The CCC’s reason for wanting the power sector to be decarbonised in the first place is because it provides a way to reduce emissions at a “relatively low cost compared to other sectors”. Transport, on the other hand, looks like it could be a more difficult proposition.
In the Times article, Davey suggests hydrogen vehicles might help – but the electricity to make hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and that’s presumably from the same power sector that might end up with more fossil fuels in it.
Flaw in the argument
All that’s really new today is the news that British Gas has today announced a 6 per cent rise in its customers’ energy bills – amounting to another £80 a year on the average dual fuel bill .
The Times article uses this as a jumping off point to highlight Davey’s assertion that more gas power would allow UK energy prices to fall. But as British Gas has blamed around a third of the increase on rising wholesale gas prices, it’s an awkward way to get a front page story.
Although the article’s lack of discrimination between the different targets intended to help the UK reach its legal emissions cuts is confusing, Davey’s plans to introduce a flexible target raise some legitimate questions. At present, the government says building 20 gigawatts of new gas plant is consistent with the carbon budget’s guidance, but it still hasn’t released its working.
Until it does, it’ll be impossible to verify the calculation which suggest that new gas can be reconciled with ambitious 2030 decarbonisation.