Cost of Energy

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate. I declare that prior to being elected, I spent the better part of a decade in renewable energy finance. While I would not claim to be an expert, I hope to bring some useful insights to this debate.

The cost of energy remains one of the largest issues faced by households across the country, and nowhere is that more apparent than in rural communities like West Dorset. Fuel poverty is a dire issue. In 2023, 13% of households were in fuel poverty, and nearly 40% of households were spending more than 10% of their annual income on energy. The situation is even worse for vulnerable families: nationally, nearly 900,000 single-parent households are living in cold homes.

It is a much-cited statistic that the UK has the highest energy prices in the developed world, but that is misleading, and in no small part based on an accounting issue. In 2000, just 3% of the UK’s energy came from renewables; today that figure is 42%. Despite that progress, we are still paying energy bills tied to the price of fossil fuels because of the marginal pricing system, which means that all electricity is charged at the rate of the most expensive source, which is currently gas—a commodity that, like oil, is at the whim of international events and geopolitical fluctuations.

Between 2010 and 2021, the global average cost of electricity generated from a renewable energy source over its lifetime declined by 88% for solar, 68% for onshore wind and 60% for offshore wind. Yet, even as renewable energy has become drastically cheaper to generate, the wholesale cost of energy to consumers remains high. It is simply unacceptable that companies are making vast profits while households, particularly in rural areas, are struggling to afford the basic necessity of heating their home.

The Government could solve this problem by delinking fossil fuels and renewable energy pricing, as other countries do. Our wholesale energy price would then be the weighted average between the two, which would bring us on a par with the energy prices of other nations. Far more importantly, it would also reduce the cost to consumers. The Government must take decisive action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices. The previous Government promised to review electricity market arrangements, and this current Government should do so. Creating a separate market for renewables and fossil-fuel generated electricity would make energy fairer and more affordable to consumers.

I will make one other appeal for action by this Government. It is a trope often repeated that we need to put more solar panels on roofs and car parks, rather than farmland. I do not disagree, but the trope fails to recognise that doing so is commercially unviable. If utility-scale solar—this is an oversimplification—costs 50p per unit to build, commercial rooftop is double that, and carports double that again. The value paid by energy companies for exported renewable energy is often as little as 5p or 5½ p per unit, so utility scale is the only solar that works as a pure export model. That unit of electricity is then sold under a green energy tariff to consumers at a vastly inflated price. The only people who benefit are the energy companies.

Again, the Government have a relatively straightforward fix at their disposal: mandating a minimum export value. Yes, energy wholesalers will make less money, but I can live with that. More importantly, it would unlock investment in rooftop and carport solar, end the competition between food production and net zero, and ultimately reduce costs for consumers. Those are easy wins for a Government who claim to be committed to fighting climate change. Instead of following the advice of industry, the Government have chosen to axe winter fuel payments, stripping vital support for many of the poorest pensioners at a time when energy bills remain high—a decision that should be reversed.

The UK must take back control of its energy future. We cannot continue with a system where consumers are at the mercy of volatile international gas prices while energy companies rake in massive profits. We must end the outdated pricing model that ties renewables to the cost of fossil fuels, and we must unlock investment in rooftop and carport solar. We must ensure that the benefits of renewables reach the people who need them most and ensure that no family, child or pensioner is left struggling to heat their home when we have the tools to fix this at hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I am struggling with the argument of renewable energy not being cost-effective. For the cost of the amount of generation that Hinkley C would deliver, we could deliver twice as much renewable energy generation. The strike price for offshore wind is far below any other source of electricity. So I am at a loss—across every single form of renewable energy, the generation price is below that of fossil fuels.

The hon. Lady talks about the previous Government being at the forefront of renewable energy generation, when they signed off new drilling licences for North sea oil. I feel I am living in cloud cuckoo land. There is no connection between what she is saying and the reality of market forces. Ask any wholesale energy price provider what their strike price is for renewables, and they will say that it is lower than for fossil fuels.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I ask that I be allowed to make progress in my speech, during which I will address many of the excellent points he raised. Let me go back to my earlier point about density and some renewables being more affordable than others. For example, acres of agricultural land need to be covered with solar panels to produce a fraction of the power that could be generated by gas power plants or small nuclear reactors.

The time has come to have a much more sensible and serious conversation about the true cost of renewable-based systems, not just repeating again and again that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. That is why the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked the Department to produce a full-system cost of renewable-based systems. If we are intent on decarbonising the entire grid by 2030, as the Government want, we must have a detailed assessment of what it will cost, and what it will do to our constituents’ energy bills and our already high industrial energy prices. Since taking office, however, the current Secretary of State has scrapped that work. He is rushing headlong into renewable-based systems, without any idea of what it will cost the country and the economy.

There is also the issue of trust—trust for consumers and for those in industry. Throughout the general election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and around 50 Labour MPs promised across the country to cut energy bills by £300. As soon as they got into Government, they refused to commit to that promise. Even worse, they decided to take the same amount from millions of pensioners in poverty. It is difficult to think of a bigger betrayal committed by an incoming Government.

Six months on, Labour voted against an amendment to make the Government accountable for that promise through Great British Energy—their energy company that is not going to generate a single watt of energy. The new chair of that company says that it is not even within its remit to cut bills by £300. Labour cannot spend weeks and months repeating such an explicit, clear and simple promise only to row back on it the second it gets into Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell constituents in Beaconsfield and across the country when they can expect to see £300 off their energy bills, and how much their bills will increase to in the meantime.

It is not just households that are worried about the cost of energy, but industry too. The same energy-intensive industries that wrote to the Government to raise concerns about their plans to hike the carbon price to the highest rate in the world also share the despair at the UK having among the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. In fact, the Department’s data shows that we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the world, well above the International Energy Agency and EU average.

More than anything, our heavy and manufacturing industries need cheap energy. They need stable and reliable energy, which does not rely on the whims of the weather. As with the shutting down of the UK oil and gas industry, seeing British industry move overseas will not change demand. It just means that domestic production—with all the tax revenue, British jobs and the investment that it brings—will be replaced by higher-carbon imports from abroad. Ministers say that decarbonisation cannot mean de-industrialisation, but if our industries, which are the hardest to decarbonise, cannot cope with the high cost of energy and therefore move abroad, that will be a disaster for our economy, devastating for our workers and their families, and will do nothing to reduce global emissions.

Ministers say that they want us to be global leaders. They want us to convince other countries to decarbonise, which is a noble goal. Climate change is a global issue, and there is no sense in our going it alone to cut our emissions when we produce fewer than 1% of global emissions. That is exactly why the Government need to change tack and stop our industrial energy prices rising any further. Countries around the world, which care deeply about holding on to their industrial and manufacturing base, are looking to the UK and other western nations to see what happens next. If they look at us and see industries being gutted by a misguided energy policy and see our people suffering from higher and higher energy bills, they will not want to follow us down the path to decarbonisation. We will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world.

Our ceramics, automotive, cement, steel, minerals, glass, aluminium and chemical industries need, above all else, cheap energy. I urge the Minister to talk to those businesses that are struggling with high energy costs and ask them what a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2 would do to their businesses. The Minister might not like the answer, but the Government need to face the consequences of their policies.

The Government should be asking what arrangements will give us the cheapest, most reliable energy and how we get there. Instead, they are determined to decarbonise the grid by 2030 at any cost to meet a political target, even if that sends people’s bills through the roof, offshores our emissions to polluting countries and leaves us at the mercy of Chinese imports. When facing the electorate at the next election, they will not be able to say that they were not warned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission costs later, because it is important, particularly when it comes to how we grapple with constraint costs. The truth is that we will have to build more network infrastructure. I hope he will support the construction of that, although I suspect he will not. We also want to review energy market reforms to look at how we deal with some of these issues. I will come back to the important point, which a number of hon. Members raised, of how we build an energy system for the future. The question of balance is key. We do not want a renewables-only system, although renewables will be incredibly important. We announced last week our commitment to rolling out much more nuclear to provide the baseload and the security of supply. We have the ability to place small modular reactors across the country near centres of demand, such as the data centres that we will see in the future.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), representing the former Government, tried to mischaracterise the need to upgrade the grid as a cost of renewables, but does the Minister agree that we need to upgrade the grid regardless of what technology we use? We lose 10% of the energy we generate through transmission. It is an old grid and, regardless of the technology we use, we need to upgrade it.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Upgrading the grid is important for transmitting the clean power that we want to generate in the future, but it is already 50 or 60 years old, and it is creaking under the pressures it has operated under for a very long time.

There is real need to upgrade the grid right across the country. The truth is that the previous Government recognised that that was important. They launched the idea of the great grid upgrade before we did, but they are now running away from a lot of that. That is hugely disappointing, but it will not get in the way of our moving forward to make sure that we build the grid of the future. Yes, we need to meet the demand for now, but we know that by 2050 electricity demand is likely to double in this country. If we do not build the infrastructure now, it will be the weakest part of our economic strategy in the future. It is essential we build it now, but we want to bring communities with us.