Renewable energy to save consumers between £25 and £100 billion

A new government report outlines the economic case for renewable energy, writes RenewableUK’s Gordon Edge.

An official report published today on the dangers of failing to invest in renewable energy represents a timely call for the Government to set clear long-term policies to boost the deployment of wind, wave and tidal power. The independent and highly authoritative study makes it clear that hard-pressed British consumers’ bills have shot up due to the UK’s dependence on imports of fossil fuels, and it therefore recommends measures to encourage investment in domestic low-carbon sources to bring the cost of electricity under control.

The official body which advises the Government on this issue, the Committee on Climate Change, says investing in low-carbon technologies between 2020 and 2030, such as wind and marine energy, will save UK consumers at least £25-£45bn over the lifetime of those projects, rising to £100bn if international gas prices continue to escalate.

The Committee says one of the best ways to stimulate investment in renewables is to set a carbon reduction target in the Energy Bill now going through Parliament, specifying a reduction to 10 per cent of 1990 levels by 2030 (from 500 grammes per kilowatt hour to 50g/kWh). MPs are due to vote on this issue in early June.

It also recommends that the Government should specify how much financial support will be available for low-carbon energy between now and 2030 – at present, the long-term vision for the power sector only goes as far as 2020. The report highlights the need to develop a specific strategy for the development of offshore wind, including ways to attract new sources of finance.

This thorough research by the most authoritative body in its field provides compelling evidence that investment in British renewables is cost-effective, whereas an unhealthy addiction to foreign fossil fuels is excruciatingly expensive, as well as being deeply irresponsible. RenewableUK’s own figures show that combined onshore and offshore wind are generating £2.5bn a year for the UK, and as such are one of the single biggest sources of investment into our economy – surely an opportunity we cannot afford to ignore. And with DECC’s own figures showing that 74 per cent of people are concerned about the UK’s reliance on imported fossil fuels, this is an issue the vast majority of the country is united on.

The Committee on Climate Change is also right to highlight the fact that the current lack of a long-term political vision is jeopardising investment in renewable energy projects – including the development of the supply chain which could create tens of thousands of jobs in wind and marine energy, with turbine factories opening around the UK.

Earlier this week the European Parliament voted in favour of setting a binding 2030 renewable energy target, to provide long-term clarity. The UK should be sending out similarly positive signals, so that we can maintain Britain’s global lead in the offshore wind, wave and tidal sectors, as well as maintaining our success in onshore wind which is the most cost effective way to generate large amounts of low carbon electricity to power our homes.

Photograph: CCC

Dr Gordon Edge is RenewableUK’s Director of Policy.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.