Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to not provide power

10 hours ago Share Save Justin Rowlatt Environment Editor Share Save

BBC

It is 1am on 3 June. A near gale force wind is blasting into Scotland. Great weather for the Moray East and West offshore wind farms, you would have thought. The two farms are 13 miles off the north-east coast of Scotland and include some of the biggest wind turbines in the UK, at 257m high. With winds like that they should be operating at maximum capacity, generating what the developer, Ocean Winds, claims is enough power to meet the electricity needs of well over a million homes. Except they are not. That's because if you thought that once an electricity generator - whether it be a wind farm or a gas-powered plant - was connected to the national grid it could seamlessly send its electricity wherever it was needed in the country, you'd be wrong. The electricity grid was built to deliver power generated by coal and gas plants near the country's major cities and towns, and doesn't always have sufficient capacity in the wires that carry electricity around the country to get the new renewable electricity generated way out in the wild seas and rural areas. And this has major consequences.

Getty Images Ocean Winds was paid to turn the output of its wind farms in the Moray Firth

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output. It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day. At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity. Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network. It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity. Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills. But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

Getty Images

The proposals have sparked such bitter debate that one senior energy industry executive called it "the most vicious policy fight" he has ever known. He has, he says, "lost friends" over it. Meanwhile, political opponents who claim net zero is an expensive dead end are only too ready to pounce. It is reported that the Prime Minister has asked to review the details of what some newspapers are calling a "postcode pricing" plan. So is the government really ready to risk the most radical shake-up of the UK electricity market since privatisation 35 years ago? And what will it really mean for our bills?

Net zero under attack

The Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, is certainly in a fix. His net zero policy is under attack like never before. The Tories have come out against it, green politicians say it isn't delivering for ordinary people, and even Tony Blair has weighed in against it. Meanwhile Reform UK has identified the policy as a major Achilles heel for the Labour government. "The next election will be fought on two issues, immigration and net stupid zero," says Reform's deputy leader Richard Tice. "And we are going to win." Poll after poll says cost of living is a much more important for most people, and people often specifically cite concerns about rising energy prices.

Getty Images Ed Miliband's net zero policy is under attack like never before

Miliband sold his aggressive clean energy policies in part on cutting costs. He said that ensuring 95% of the country's electricity comes from low-carbon sources by 2030 would slash the average electricity bill by £300. But the potential for renewables to deliver lower costs just isn't coming through to consumers. Renewables now generate more than half the country's electricity, but because of the limits to how much electricity can be moved around the system, even on windy days some gas generation is almost always needed to top the system up. And because gas tends to be more expensive, it sets the wholesale price.

Could 'zonal' pricing lower bills?

Supporters of the government's plan argue that, as long as prices continue to be set at a national level, the hold gas has on the cost of electricity will be hard to break. Less so with regional – or, in the jargon, "zonal" - pricing. Think of Scotland, blessed with vast wind resources but just 5.5 million people. The argument goes that if prices were set locally, it wouldn't be necessary to pay wind farms to be turned down because there wasn't enough capacity in the cables to carry all the electricity into England. On a windy day like 3 June, they would have to sell that spare power to local people instead of into a national market. The theory is prices would fall dramatically – on some days Scottish customers might even get their electricity for free.

The grid was built to deliver power generated by coal and gas plants near the country's major cities and towns

Other areas with lots of renewable power - such as Yorkshire and the North East, as well as parts of Wales - would stand to benefit too. And, as solar investment increases in Lincolnshire and other parts of the east of England, they could also see prices tumble. All that cheap power could also transform the economics of industry. Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries. In London and much of the south of England, the price of electricity would sometimes be higher than in the windy north. But supporters say some of the hundreds of millions of pounds the system would save could be used to make sure no one pays more than they do now. And those higher prices could also encourage investors to build new wind farms and solar plants closer to where the demand is. The argument is that would lower prices in the long run and bring another benefit - less electricity would need to be carried around the country, so we would need fewer new pylons, saving everyone money and meaning less clutter in the countryside.

Getty Images Reform UK chairman Richard Tice, seen here with party leader Nigel Farage, says the next general election will be fought on immigration and "net stupid zero"

"Zonal pricing would make the energy system as a whole dramatically more efficient, slashing this waste and cutting bills for every family and business in the country," argues Greg Jackson, the CEO of Octopus Energy, one of the biggest energy suppliers in the UK. Research commissioned by the company estimates the savings could top £55 billion by 2050 - which it claims could knock £50 to £100 a year off the average bill. Octopus points out Sweden made the switch to regional pricing in just 18 months. The supporters of regional pricing include NESO, Citizens Advice and the head of the energy regulator, Ofgem. Last week a committee of the House of Lords recommended the country should switch to the system.

Energy firms push back

There are, however, many businesses involved in building and running renewable energy plants that oppose the move. "We're making billions of pounds of investments in renewable power in the UK every year," says Tom Glover, the UK chair of the giant German power company RWE. "I can't go to my board and say let's take a bet on billions of pounds of investment." He's worried changing the way energy is priced could undermine contracts and make revenues more uncertain. And he says it risks undermining the government's big push to switch to green energy.

AFP via Getty Images Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to Octopus Energy

The main cost of wind and solar plants is in the build. It means the price of the energy they produce is very closely tied to the cost of building and, because developers borrow most of the money, that means the interest rates they are charged. And we are talking a lot of money. The government is expecting power companies to spend £40bn pounds a year over the next five years on renewable projects in the UK. Glover says even a very small change in interest rates could have dramatic effects on how much renewable infrastructure is built and how much the power from it costs. "Those additional costs could quickly overwhelm any of the benefits of regional pricing," says Stephen Woodhouse, an economist with the consultancy firm AFRY, which has studied the impact of regional pricing for the power companies. That would come as already high interest rates have combined with rising prices for steel and other materials to push up the cost of renewables. Plans for a huge wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire were cancelled last month because the developer said it no longer made economic sense.

Getty Images

And there's another consideration, he says. The National Grid, which owns the pylons, substations and cables that move electricity around the country, is already rolling out a huge investment programme – some £60bn over the next five years - to upgrade the system ready for the new world of clean power. That new infrastructure will mean more capacity to bring electricity from our windy northern coasts down south, and therefore also mean fewer savings from a regional pricing system in the future. There are other arguments too. Critics warn introducing regional pricing could take years, that energy-intensive businesses like British Steel can't just up sticks and move, and that the system will be unfair because some customers will pay more than others. But according to Greg Jackson of Octopus, the power companies and their backers just want to protect their profits. "Unsurprisingly, it's the companies that enjoy attractive returns from this absurd system who are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo," he says.

Yet the power companies say Octopus has a vested interest too. It is the UK's biggest energy supplier with some seven million customers, and owns a sophisticated billing system it licenses to other suppliers, so could gain from changes to the way electricity is priced, they claim. And the clock is ticking. Whether the government meets its clean power targets will depend on how many new wind farms and solar plants are built. The companies who will build them say they need certainty around the future of the electricity market, so a decision must be taken soon. It's expected in the next couple of weeks. Over to you, Mr Miliband.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

When can a president deploy National Guard on US soil?

10 hours ago Share Save Brandon Drenon BBC News, Washington DC Share Save

Watch: Clashes continue in LA over immigration raids

US President Donald Trump says he has deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to uphold "very strong law and order", after violent protests against immigration raids erupted in America's second-biggest city. His decision to summon the National Guard overruled the authority of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move "purposefully inflammatory". At least 118 immigrants have been arrested in operations across the city over the past week, which led to clashes as demonstrators gathered outside businesses that were thought to have been raided. The LA County Sheriff's Department said crowds "became increasingly agitated, throwing objects and exhibiting violent behaviour", prompting police to use tear gas and stun grenades. Governor Newsom, along with the LA mayor and a California congresswoman, said in separate comments they believed local police could handle the protests. Twenty-nine people were arrested, according to local officials. Follow live coverage here

Trump's quick intervention in LA may thrill his base but inflame tensions

Can the president deploy the National Guard?

To quell the growing unrest, Trump issued a directive under a rarely used federal law that allows the president to federalise National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard acts as a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Typically, a state's National Guard force is activated at the request of the governor. In this case, Trump has circumvented that step by invoking a specific provision of the US Code of Armed Services titled 10 U.S.C. 12406, which lists three circumstances under which the president can federalise the National Guard. If the US "is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation"; "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government; or "the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States". Trump said in his memorandum requesting the National Guard that the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States". The National Guard's role in Los Angeles will be to protect federal agents, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) and Homeland Security, as they carry out their duties. The troops will not be conducting their own immigration raids or performing ordinary law enforcement activities against civilians. The law generally prohibits domestic use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement, outside of some exceptions like the Insurrection Act. Although Trump has threatened to invoke that act in the past, during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, for example, he has not done so here. According to experts, this is the first time the National Guard has been activated without request of the state's governor since 1965. In 1992, the National Guard was federalised in LA during riots after police officers were acquitted for the beating of black motorist Rodney King. Then-President George HW Bush sent troops at the request of California's governor at the time, Pete Wilson. In 2020, National Guard troops were deployed in some states in the wake of protests over the killing of George Floyd.

How have officials responded to Trump's order?

Senior figures in the Trump administration have backed the president's decision to mobilise the National Guard. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media it was "COMMON SENSE", adding: "Violence & destruction against federal agents & federal facilities will NOT be tolerated." Hegseth also said that active duty US Marines stationed at nearby Camp Pendleton would be sent if needed and were on "high alert". Senator Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican, told CNN: "Does it look like it's [the protests] under control? Absolutely not." However, several Californian officials insist city police are equipped to deal with the unrest, and the military's involvement is unnecessary. California congresswoman Nanette Barragán, a Democrat who represents the city of Paramount in LA's suburbs where the protests have taken place, told CNN: "We don't need the help." The National Guard is "only going to make things worse", she said. Her words echo Governor Newsom, who also spoke against National Guard troops being sent to his state. "The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles - not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle," Newsom wrote on X. LA Mayor Karen Bass told ABC7 the National Guard was not needed.

What has ICE been doing in LA?

Ice officers conducted raids in heavily Latino parts of LA on Friday, as part of Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Forty-four people were arrested, said a spokesperson for Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of ICE. The efforts are a part of the president's aim to enact the "biggest deportation operation" in US history. Los Angeles, where over one-third of the population is foreign-born, has been a big target. In early May, Ice announced it had arrested 239 undocumented migrants during a weeklong operation in the LA area, as overall arrests and deportations lagged behind Trump's expectations. The following month, the White House increased its goal for Ice officials to make at least 3,000 arrests per day. Authorities have expanded their search increasingly to include workplaces such as restaurants and retail shops. The LA raids that sparked the protests occurred at a wholesale clothing supplier and a Home Depot outlet. "You're going to see more work site enforcement than you've ever seen in the history of this nation," Trump's border official Thomas Homan said. The ambitious deportation campaign has included rounding up migrants on military planes and sending them to Guantanamo Bay before bringing them back to Louisiana. Other migrants have been deported to a mega-prison in El Salvador, including at least one who was in the US legally. Some migrants have been sent to countries where they are not from. Many of these actions have been met by legal challenges in court.

How has LA responded to the raids?

British photographer injured by 'plastic bullet' in LA protests

26 minutes ago Share Save James Gregory BBC News Share Save

Associated Press

A British news photographer has undergone emergency surgery after being hit by a non-lethal bullet while documenting the stand-off between police and protesters in the US city of Los Angeles. Nick Stern was covering the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Sunday when he said a three-inch "plastic bullet" tore into his thigh. "There was something hard sticking out of the back of my leg and my leg was getting wet from blood," he told the BBC. Demonstrations against immigration raids have been raging in LA for three days, with protests on Sunday erupting outside a Home Depot store in Paramount, south of LA.

Stern, originally from Hertfordshire before relocating to the US in 2007, said he had been standing in the middle of the road all day taking photos when at 21:00 local time he was struck by a bullet. "I suddenly got this terrific pain on my leg," he told the BBC's Three Counties Radio. "I tried hobbling away [but] I couldn't put any weight on my leg." He said that up to eight protesters rushed up to him to carry him away from the "danger area" before a medic cut his trousers off, put a pressure pad on the wound and tied a tourniquet. "From the moment I was hit I felt incredibly faint." He is now recovering at Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre following emergency surgery to remove the bullet from his leg. Stern has a long history of covering protests and riots around the world and said he typically makes a point of being "very deliberate and very obvious". "I was out there wearing a press card around my neck, a big camera around my neck as well," he told the BBC. Despite his injury, Stern said he was eager to return to work. "I intend, as soon as I am well enough, to get back out there," he said. "This is too important and it needs documenting." An Australian journalist, Lauren Tomasi, was also struck by a non-lethal round, shot by a police officer, while filming a piece to camera in LA for 9 News.

Channel Nine's Lauren Tomasi hit by non-lethal round while reporting from LA

Since his return to the White House, US President Donald Trump has promised mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. Arrests made by ICE officers have increased during Trump's second term. Trump said he had deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to California to deal with the unrest over the immigration raids, saying the federal government would "step in and solve the problem". But the Democratic governor of California has appealed to Trump to pull National Guard units out of the city, accusing the White House of inflaming tensions. Stern said: "The communities in LA are very tight and very close-knit. "So an outside organisation like ICE coming in and removing - whatever you want to call it, removing, kidnapping, abducting people from the community - is not going to go down well at all."

Getty Images Demonstrations against immigration raids have been taking place in LA since Friday