Collective spirit required to ensure energy security

Energy efficiency is very much a personal choice, according to the Government’s energy security strategy. But shouldn’t it take a lead when there is a need for all of us to change our habits?

Energy policy is big news again. Initially, because fuel prices are rocketing, and set to rise even more this autumn. Plus the invasion of Ukraine has precipitated a determination to minimise the amount of gas and oil purchased in future from Russia. These two factors have prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to devise a new energy security strategy.

Published last month, its reception was uniformly dismissive. Not so much because of the energy supply sources it concentrated upon but mainly because it entirely omitted any serious consideration of the policy area deemed most capable of providing swift cost-effective solutions. Saving energy.

The Times’ editorial was unsparingly contemptuous. The UK government’s new energy security strategy amounted to “little more than a glorified press release.” The “eye-catching announcement” of eight new nuclear power plants offers “no analysis of why Britain had succeeded in starting construction on just one new reactor in the 16 years since Tony Blair announced a nuclear renaissance.”

It added: “What is certain is this new nuclear programme will not bring energy bills down any time soon. If ever. Instead, it will push bills up as the costs of construction are passed on to consumers. Nor will it do much in the near term to reduce Britain’s reliance on Russian oil and gas given that it takes at least a decade to build a nuclear power station.”

Yet, “what was most striking about the strategy was what was left out”, the paper concluded. “It had little to say about reducing energy demand.”

“What is needed are innovative policies to accelerate domestic insulation and take-up of clean technologies, by reducing the expense for homeowners and allow the costs to be recouped via energy bills. Instead the government has left improving energy efficiency up to individual households. That is not a strategy. It’s a cop-out.”

The Financial Times reached a similar conclusion. The “most glaring gap,” its editorial stated, “is the lack of initiatives to cut energy use.” The paper concluded: “The Treasury is understandably resistant to new spending…yet such investment would have huge long-term benefits. An insulation effort starting with the neediest households could reduce energy costs long-term, unlike one-off help with bills. With signs that the war in Ukraine has made consumers more willing to turn down thermostats and lag their lofts, failure to follow up with ambitious efficiency plans would be a big missed opportunity.”

The Guardian editorial also pointed to the “missed opportunities” in the strategy, warning that it “carries some of the hallmarks of his flawed government: a prime ministerial penchant for grand projects that may or may not be deliverable; a tendency to be unduly influenced by vocal lobby groups on the right of the Conservative party; and a propensity to set targets without doing the necessary work to enable them to be met.”

The government had missed a “golden chance” to fund “greater energy efficiency and better insulation in Britain’s leaky housing stock”, despite “the relief this would afford the less well-off in particular.”

And then the Daily Telegraph stated it was patently clear the strategy “will achieve little in the short-term.” Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, had admitted it was “more of a medium-term three, four, five-year answer”. Michael Lewis, UK chief executive of Eon, was less vague. He said there was little in there that would “deliver a solution this decade, let alone this year”.

The Telegraph continued: “What appears remiss now will look positively negligent when prices spike yet further. What we are dealing with is a supply shock. And the only way to counter that in the short term is by reducing demand. The Government knows this full well…unfortunately, it conspicuously failed to address the issue again.

“This is the definition of a false economy. Eon’s Lewis describes energy efficiency as the ‘fabled silver bullet’ because “it will help cut bills and carbon emissions while reducing reliance on foreign gas. It is a genuine triple whammy.

“While no doubt well-intentioned, Rishi Sunak’s attempts to alleviate the cost of living – including through a £150 council tax rebate for most homes and a £200 loan towards energy bills – have been overly complicated and badly targeted. And, as Helen Barnard of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has pointed out, the £2.4bn the Treasury lost cutting fuel duty would have covered the cost of insulating a third of all social housing in the country.

“The consultancy E3G has calculated that new energy efficiency measures could reduce the heating bills for poorly insulated homes by an average of £500 and end the UK’s dependence on Russian gas (which is admittedly quite limited) within a year.

The Telegraph concluded: “In the past the Treasury has opposed efficiency drives on the grounds that industry would struggle to summon up the necessary manpower and supplies. Well, sorry, but if you’re trusting industry to build eight nuclear reactors in double-quick time, you can certainly trust it to fill the nation’s wall cavities.”

To be fair, in the introduction to the strategy there is a reference to energy efficiency being a “first step.” The strategy does concede that “the majority of our homes are energy inefficient. Improving the efficiency of our homes could reduce our heating bills by around 20 per cent and reduce our dependency on foreign gas.We want to continue making UK homes more comfortable and cheaper to run. Every therm (sic) of gas saved grows our energy security and brings jobs to the UK.”

But there is a very revealing explanation for why no new plans are being proposed. It is that “this is not being imposed on people and is a gradual transition following the grain of behaviour. The British people are no-nonsense pragmatists who can make decisions based on the information.”

But if an Englishman’s home really is his castle, then why did fears for COVID 19 lock everybody inside their castle?If we want people to support delivery of a collective good like energy security or climate mitigation, then it is sensible to see it as collective action. And for Government to lead it. The parallel with the pandemic is spot on.

• Andrew Warren is chairman of the British Energy Efficiency Federation