23 Mar 2017
“I wouldn’t want to be the MP in Parliament who voted to oppose Hinkley C”.
With a very concerned look mixed with fear, this quote comes from an insider in the Halls of Power of the Energy Industry. Yet he works for a company that has chosen to put at the heart of its strategy the preparation and facilitation of the transition to a distributed network. This, in essence, is a bet on the proliferation of local renewable energy generation, and a move away from the inefficiency of centralised power stations. A distributed network is needed when there are lots of energy generators installed on rooftops, in the hills, in the sea and under the streets of our cities, towns and villages.
BHESCo estimates that there is almost 50GW worth of applications for battery storage facilities wanting to connect with the 8 Distribution Network Operators and the National Grid. This is about 10 times the power generation capacity of Hinkley C and Moorside combined, at a fraction of the price to the taxpayer and to future taxpayers. Granted, this is an emerging technology, as yet without a track record, however in the 10 years it will take for these nuclear power plants to be operational, battery storage will have become mainstream. As Steven Holliday, former CEO of the National Grid, announced in 2015, “base load power is obsolete.” Base load nuclear power is wasteful, where at present 60% of the electricity produced is lost in conversion, transmission and distribution.
This year’s national budget includes a ‘Solar Tax’ collected in the form of business rates. If you own a solar array less than 50kW, the value of your property for business rates will be increased by the nominal value of the solar array on your roof. This will have enormous implications on small businesses that have become solar generators because the tax is most likely to approximate or exceed any benefit that they receive for the free electricity they have purchased. Because any investment in energy generation requires a certain return in order for investors to commit their hard earned cash, a business rates tax on solar arrays eliminates any incentive to accelerate our transition from fossil fuels by investing in generating your own electricity.
Now consider the subsidies for investors in shale gas exploration, or ‘fracking’. This subsidy comes in the form of tax breaks called Enhanced Capital Allowances that permit firms that are investing in shale gas exploration to deduct the cost of the equipment directly against their taxable income, in many cases virtually eliminating any tax due. For companies like Centrica, who are a large investor in Cuadrilla, these tax breaks run into the millions  . Other similar tax breaks will be enjoyed by Ineos, who intend to invest £168 million in shale gas exploration (which at 40% tax relief, amount to £68 million) or IGas who invested £16 million in equipment in 2015. Nuclear power on the other hand costs the taxpayer billions each year for transport, storage and decommissioning of existing power plants alone, before we even being to count the cost of constructing new ones such as Hinkley C and Moorside, as each of these proposed plants are being constructed using unproven technologies.
For anyone who believes that we must take responsibility for our energy supply now for the sake of our climate and our energy security, we wonder: what is the difference in tax receipts for the Treasury if the money comes from the clean energy industry or from dirty fossil fuels or nuclear? Or do we really want to spend our money as taxpayers supporting a government that is afraid to make the decisions that we need to ensure that we have clean, affordable energy in the future? Wouldn’t we rather ensure that our schools have sufficient funds to properly educate our children, or that the NHS continues to thrive as an accessible customer service focused health care system?
Join the fight today by writing to your MP, signing an anti-fracking or anti-nuclear petition, or becoming an investor in Community Energy. Mostly make sure that you are informed, because the decisions that our politicians are making concerning important issues like what to tax, may have long term, damaging impacts on our quality of life.
 https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/national-grid-ceo-solar-on-the-rooftop-is-going-to-be-the-baseload  http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/25/oil-tax-how-the-uk-taxpayer-could-spend-millions-funding-the-hunt-for-fracked-gas/
BHESCo has helped more than 200 people switch their energy supplier from November 2014 to February 2015 to help them save money by switching energy suppliers. This process is made overly complex by energy suppliers who resist for reasons that are not obvious the customer. In this example, the customer was blocked from switching by the previous tenant’s supplier, First Utility, to the supplier of their choice.
What was the switching problem?
This person moved into a new flat in Hove at the beginning of March 2015 and approached EDF to be his energy supplier eleven days later. He wanted to change from the previous tenant’s energy supplier, First Utility. EDF informed them a couple of weeks later that this switch was unable to take place and stated “your current energy supplier isn’t allowing us to transfer you and we’re not sure why”.
First Utility was contacted and they stated that the account was not live. However, even after three subsequent attempts EDF had still not been allowed to make the switch by May 2015. This was two months after the initial attempt to change supplier.
Following this, First Utility was contacted numerous times by this person in an effort the make this switch possible. Each time a new excuse was given and his call was transferred to multiple teams, none of which were able to provide an explanation for the blocked switch or advice on how to proceed.
Finally, at the end of May there was a promise that the case would be escalated to the complaints department and they would receive the information they needed within the next five days.
How was it resolved?
Eventually, this person sought written communication from First Utility that they would be allowed to switch to the energy supplier they wanted. Additionally, he chose to pursue financial compensation to account for the five hours spent trying to resolve the issue which meant he was unable to complete paid freelance work.
Listen up First Utility!
Customers have a right to switch to an energy supplier of their choice. Attempts to block or complicate the switching process represents poor customer care will discourage customers from using your services in the future.
24 Oct 2013
This week, the Government announced that the taxpayer would be subsidising the construction of a £16 billion, 3.3GW new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The deal was stuck with EDF, the French state owned utility. In the wake of the disaster at Fukishima, with dangerous levels of radioactive Strontium entering into their water, any investment in the construction of a new nuclear facility is short-sighted, presenting a formidable threat to the economic health and potentially the physical well being of future generations.
The subsidy presents the threat of a dangerous economic legacy for us now and for future generations. The guaranteed strike price of £92.50 per MWh lasts for 35 years, and is twice the current price of electricity in the market today.
What this means is that every taxpayer, regardless of whether one benefits from it or not, will be financing the generation of this electricity for the next 35 years. Because of the base load nature of nuclear power, there may be times when no one is consuming this electricity yet, the taxpayer will still be paying EDF and the investor consortia for generating it.
Foreign investment could comprise more than 50% of the ownership of the plant, which means our taxpayers’ money is contributing to the wealth of foreign nations instead of being invested at home. It’s a no brainer for the Chinese to take up to a 40% stake in the consortium, because for them it is a guaranteed investment return with very little risk. The move creates distortions in the supplier market and sets a greedy precedent for other suppliers.
This graph, prepared by the EEG to analyse the level of subsidy to be provided for Hinckley Point demostrates that even when the taxpayer subsidy for decommissioning the plant and the long term storage of the nuclear waste is excluded, the subsidy for nuclear power far exceeds any subsidies for solar PV or Wind (either on or offshore).
It doesn’t make any sense to continue to invest good money into an expensive and dangerous source of electricity. The lion’s share of the budget for the Department of Energy and Climate Change is allocated to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to manage our legacy of radioactive nuclear waste.
The UK has the highest stockpile in the world of radioactive Plutonium buried in a temporary storage facility in Cumbria. The cost of managing our nuclear legacy is estimated to be about £100 billion, the equivalent of the entire investment required to upgrade our electricity network.
We must reject this plan to expand the facility at Hinkley and support investment in clean, renewable energy generation and energy efficiency investment. We must invest in a smart grid that would transform our network into a low carbon, clean energy generation, transmission and distribution network. Please contact your MP and let them know you do not support any subsidy for nuclear power.