MPs don’t plan to cut electricity demand by a quarter by 2020
“MPs want to turn your lights off” says the Sunday Telegraph, in an article that claims MPs voted last week to introduce targets for a “mind-boggling” cut in the country’s electricity consumption. In fact, the targets didn’t make it into the new Energy Bill, and the Telegraph has had to correct its article. But are the targets needed – and could they be voted through in the future?
Until recently energy efficiency measures didn’t feature heavily in the government’s energy bill. This seemed a little strange, as the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) relies heavily on more efficient use of energy as a way of reducing consumers’ energy bills in the future. But earlier this year, energy minister Greg Barker remedied the matter by introducing a series of amendments designed to encourage consumers and businesses to use their energy more efficiently.
Caroline Lucas’s amendment – energy efficiency targets
According to an article by Telegraph columnist, Christopher Booker, the government took matters a step further last week:
“…Towards the end of a seven-hour debate on its virtually incomprehensible, 200-page Energy Bill, the Government slipped in a new amendment proposing something so utterly mad that, if anyone present had understood its implications, it might have made front-page news. What MPs were being asked to endorse was that, within just six years, we should all be forced by law to make a mind-boggling cut in how much electricity we are allowed to use.”
In technical terms, amendment NC2 would have required the country to reduce its total electricity use by 103 terrawatt hours (TWh) by 2020 – a reduction of about 27 per cent from current levels – and by another 154TWh by 2030.
The Telegraph got its story wrong, however. The government didn’t propose the amendment – instead Green MP, Caroline Lucas, proposed it. And although energy minister Greg Barker said in the debate that he “welcomed the principle behind the proposal”, MPs did not pass the measure. The Telegraph recognises this in a correction and apology at the end of its article.
Possible savings
So what was the logic behind the amendment – and does it still matter?
The targets proposed in the amendment were based on analysis by energy consultancy McKinsey. In a report for DECC published in November 2012, McKinsey concluded that the government could use energy efficiency measures to cut 103TWh off the country’s electricity demand by 2030. “[A]lmost all” of these savings “have net savings from a societal point of view”, it adds.
But, even if the government successfully enacts all of its policies on energy efficiency, it still won’t achieve the achieve these levels of savings. McKinsey says there is a significant “uncaptured potential” that the government’s policies are not reaching:
Image - Screen Shot 2013-06-10 At 13.11.06 (note)
The need for targets
Jenny Holland, from campaign group the Association for the Conservation of Energy, says the government’s policies on energy efficiency are inadequate. McKinsey’s analysis shows what could be achieved – and targets are needed to drive innovation to ensure that government creates a “comprehensive set of policies” on energy efficiency.
Lucas argues that a more ambitious approach to energy saving policies would deliver multiple benefits to the UK in terms of tackling fuel poverty and energy bills – and that energy efficiency targets are needed to make that happen.
“The idea that binding targets are good for innovation and growth in any particular sector is something is often heard from industry itself. To suggest that having a target is centralised planning is nonsense. It helps industrial competitiveness and provides investor certainty.”
But the government doesn’t agree that energy efficiency targets are a good idea. As with the debate around a possible decarbonisation target for the power sector the government doesn’t want to introduce targets when it’s not sure if it can meet them. Instead, it argues that its current policies are sufficient.
What happens now?
Despite the Telegraph’s erroneous – but quickly corrected – claim, Lucas’s amendment wasn’t passed. As with the 2030 decarbonisation target, there is a possibility that it will be discussed in the House of Lords. Without significant cross-party support, however, it’s unlikely the measure will be passed into law.