Extracts from the May-June 2003 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

1. White Paper Reactions

The White Paper on Energy, published at the end of February, created quite a stir, not so much for what was in it but as a consequence of what was left out. Although it did adopt most of the proposals in last years Cabinet Office PIU report, there was some backsliding, some, at least according to the media, involving what might be seen as unsavoury political compromises. Thus, just before the White paper was published, the Independent on Sunday (Feb 16th) reported that Tony Blair ‘blocked plans to produce a fifth of Britain’s electricity from renewable sources, in revenge for his failure to push through a programme of new nuclear power stations’. It claimed that ‘in cabinet discussions the Treasury opposed the new renewable targets, but was overruled by an alliance of ministers including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, and Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They also agreed that no new nuclear power stations should be built in the immediate future. Sources close to Mrs Beckett say that Mr Blair insisted that the renewables target should be scrapped as the price for his accepting this.’

This may just be journalistic spin, and it certainly is a little hard to square with Blairs enthusiastic espousal of all things green in his key note speech on Sustainable Development at the launch of DEFRA’s latest report on Sutstainability Indicators- which co-incided with the launch of the White Paper. Blair was particularly positive about renewables, although it has to be said that the £60m extra actually allocated to renewables in the White Paper hardly lives up to his rhetoric about a green industrial revolution. We will be reviewing Blairs speech in Renew 144.

His political opponents waded in on the White Paper, as you might expect. Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat DTI Shadow, accused the Government of being indecisive ‘The white paper ducks important decisions about the future of the nuclear power industry, deferring yet again new build decisions until after the next election. It also sets no new targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy, rather relies on aspirational goals.’

The Lib Dems are anti nuclear, but otherwise there was not much difference in tone in the comments made at the same time by Tim Yeo, the Tory Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: "Ducking the hard decisions today risks the lights going out tomorrow. Dithering over the future of nuclear power makes it harder for Britain to meet its green commitments while maintaining security of supply. The gap cannot be made up just by renewables. Under Labour Britain’s energy industry is becoming more vulnerable than it has been for thirty years. A year after the PIU report we expect the White Paper to contain the answers the industry needs. Both consumers and producers will be watching anxiously. Further delay in addressing key questions will be damaging to everybody."

Most environmental groups were however pleased to see nuclear power marginalised even further. Brian Wilson had indicated to the House of Commons in late Jan. that the White paper ‘will not contain measures that are likely....to have a material impact on the financial position of British Energy’. And that certainly was the way it came out. But the nuclear option is still not finally closed off. The Observer Feb 23rd reported that the proposed new EU carbon trading arrangements, due to come into operation in 2005, ‘will for the first time give economic credit to atomic plants for not producing greenhouse gases’. The White paper indicated that the UK would join in this scheme and as a further sop to the nuclear lobby, it emphasised the need to maintain skills in the nuclear industry and develop new reactor designs through international collaboration, thus attempting to make credible the governments stance on ‘keeping the nuclear option open’ while focusing on increasing the renewable energy sources. That even led the Observer to speculate that we might see the ‘construction of two reactors after 2005. Emissions would be cut, and British Nuclear Fuels would be able to showcase its reactor design and start reducing the UK’s 55-tonne stockpile of plutonium’. But that seems a very long shot. As it stands it seem to be green lights all the way for renewables, with the White Paper looking in particular at the skill requirements and expertise that would be needed- the topic of the upcoming EERU/NATTA conference.

White paper at a glance

The White Paper backed a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 as part of a programme to limit climate change and set, as an aspiration, a goal of a 20% renewable energy contribution by 2020. Improved planning procedures were seen as necessary to attain this goal. The recommendation in last years Energy Review, carried out by the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), to improve domestic consumers’ energy efficiency by 20% between now and 2010, and by a further 20% between 2010 and 2020 was not taken up, although energy efficiency was seen as a major part of the programme for reducing emissions. Nuclear power by contrast was relegated to a ‘wait and see if we will need it’ slot.

The White Paper agreed with the PIU that gas supplies on the international market could be relied on as secure into the future, (with a bit of help from Norway) but noted that by 2020 the new policies will add 5-15% to household electricity prices, up to 25% to industrial electricity prices, and up to 30% to industrial gas prices.

Innovation was seen as a key to the future- a National Energy Research Centre was proposed, and £60m was added to the renewables allocation. Competition was seen as the way to move new technologies to new markets- no major changes were proposed for NETA, the New Electricity Trading Arrangement, but efforts would be made to reduce the impacts on renewables and CHP. In addition, there would be some support for Clean Coal technology and carbon sequestration would be assessed further. The transport section was a bit thin, focussing on voluntary approaches and leaving the issue of aircraft emissions to the upcoming Air transport White paper.

Tony Blair also announced the first projects going ahead under the Carbon Trusts programme- worth £70m. See later

* In parallel with the White Paper, DEFRA published a response to the 2000 report on Climate change by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (see later). Future Energy Systems (ETSU as was) and ICCEPT at Imperial College had produced some interesting scenarios on the RCEP’s proposed target of a 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 for the White Paper- it was seen as feasible but would increase energy prices. FES and ICCEPT are now working on the follow up programme to the White Paper, looking at delivery issues. And finally, there will be a new DTI energy review in 2005/6- looking at the Renewables Obligation in particular.