Emma Pinchbeck took over as CEO of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) in November. After a couple of months induction, she made two appearances in Parliament last month, one to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and the other to the Scottish Affairs Committee.

The Collins dictionary defines pinchbeck both as an alloy of copper and zinc used as imitation gold and as “a spurious or cheap imitation; sham.” We should bear this in mind when analysing Emma Pinchbeck’s testimony to Parliament.

Chirpy Chirpy Cheap Cheap

In Pinchbeck’s testimony to the Scottish Affairs Committee, she chirped the word “cheap” (or derivatives thereof) some 17 times. The first time she said:

“What we have said is, because of the overall efficiencies of renewables and their cost to build versus fossil plant, that they are a cheaper technology and the economy overall benefits.”

She then went on to say that a blanket recommendation to Government is that electricity can and should be cheaper. She then continued:

“It is absolutely essential that the Government look at how they can make electricity cheaper for consumers and businesses as soon as possible. It is absolutely clear that renewables are cheaper than fossil on this end of the system.”

Last week, reality rained on her parade as Orsted cut its investment programme because it no longer makes financial sense. Pinchbeck’s statements cannot be described as anything other than barefaced lies. If renewables are cheaper, why would the CCC need to be worrying about the cost of electricity?

Pinchbeck’s testimony to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee emphasised the CCC’s Trumpian commandment to make electricity cheap again. They want to make electricity cheaper because they want the running costs of heat pumps to come down so they are competitive with gas boilers.

In her Scottish Affairs testimony, Pinchbeck went on to say:

“One thing we have said previously that we will stick to is that, for domestic consumers, if the Government chose to not levy the policy costs of electricity bills, the price difference between gas and electricity would be far less, and electricity would be cheaper. That is a relatively straightforward thing to do.”

Wait a minute, now she is worried that the exorbitant cost of these “cheap” renewables has found its way on to our bills in the shape of policy costs. If renewables really were cheaper, then there would be no levies on our bills to pay for them. It is telling that the Government is being urged to think about how the costs of renewables are paid for, not how the savings from renewables are distributed. Pinchbeck’s position is inconsistent and incoherent. She is calling for renewables levies to be moved from electricity bills and either hidden in general taxation or transferred to our gas bills. This will do nothing to reduce the actual cost of electricity but just mask the true cost of renewables. Moreover, if they transfer the cost of renewables on to gas, where will the levies go when gas is phased out as they wish?

For the avoidance of doubt, as we have covered before, renewables are subsidised by three different schemes. The first is Renewables Obligations that the OBR says cost us £7.6bn in the year to end March 2024. The second is Contracts for Difference that cost us £2.4bn in 2024 and the third is Feed-in-Tariffs that cost us £1.9bn in the year to end March 2024. In addition, we pay about £2.5bn in grid balancing costs and a further £1bn for backup through the capacity market. The OBR forecasts that capacity market costs will rise to £4bn in 2027/28. That is a total of over £15bn in costs because we are running a generation system that is highly reliant upon intermittent renewables. In 2023, according to energy trends data (Table 6.1), we generated 135.8TWh from all renewables, mostly wind, solar and biomass. The subsidies and extra costs for this electricity cost us around £113/MWh. Adding the market price of electricity would mean the total cost of renewables is around £180/MWh. In addition, The National Grid ESO has announced £54bn of spending on the electricity network infrastructure up to 2030 and a further £58bn in the 2030-2035 period. Much of this spending is to connect remote windfarms to the grid and this cost will also find its way on to our bills.

In 2023, we used 205.7TWh of gas to generate 101.7TWh of electricity. Even at today’s prices of around 120p/therm that gas cost £8.4bn, or £83/MWh. Claims that renewables are cheap are simply a spurious sham.

We have the most expensive electricity in the IEA.

Just endlessly chirping the word “cheap” does not reduce electricity prices, just like repeating a lie does not make it true. Pinchbeck by name, pinchbeck by nature.

Wild Speculation

When asked a simple yes or no question on whether we are going to reach our climate change targets, Pinchbeck said she would “wildly speculate.” Hardly appropriate for the CEO of the supposedly sober and measured CCC. She simply blustered and did not answer the question. But she did claim that “internationally, the speed of the energy transition has been remarkable.” Pinchbeck’s wild speculation is spectacularly wide of the mark. She seems blissfully ignorant of record carbon dioxide emissions and record consumption of coal, oil and gas. The world is simply not transitioning to renewables, merely adding extra energy sources that are barely more than a rounding error in the global energy mix.

Passing the Buck

When challenged to explain how electricity prices would be brought down or how Government should be organised and communicate to deliver Net Zero, Pinchbeck passed the buck to Government saying such questions were outside her remit. She also ducked the question when asked how the spending on renewables compared to the lost investment in the oil and gas sector. Pinchbeck deferred answering another question about new oil and gas licenses until after the CCC publishes its new Carbon Budget later this month. It seems the CCC is content to sit in its ivory tower issuing missives but not take any responsibility for the practicality of achieving their commandments.

Share

Lunatics In Charge of the Asylum

One of the others giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee was Fraser Stewart, whose finest moment was apparently describing himself as a “proud Forfar loon.”

He was there talking about how we achieve a “Just Transition.” Much of the discussion in the committee was about this Just Transition; there is even a Just Transition Commission. However, both commissioners present were unable to tell the committee what outcome they would like to see from the consultation on new oil and gas licenses. It is rather odd that a Just Transition Commission exists at all; if renewables are cheaper and will lead us to the land of green nirvana, why do we need to worry about the transition at all?

Almost all the witnesses giving evidence to both Committees have arts or social sciences backgrounds. Only one of the “experts” has anything approaching a science background and that is Professor Emily Nurse, who is particle physicist. However, she has apparently never had a job outside academia or the CCC.

Surely, as a country we can find better energy and electricity experts than arts graduates, academics and self-confessed loons.

Ignorant Politicians

Stephen Flynn of the SNP asked a question about the “supply chain certainty” and the level of investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) which sounds like code for what subsidies are going to be provided. He did not appear concerned that CCS will make gas-fired electricity less efficient and so push up prices, damaging everyone.

In fact, the level of questioning from the politicians was very weak indeed. Not a single elected representative challenged Emma Pinchbeck’s assertions that renewables were cheap. Nobody asked the obvious question why we need to worry about moving green levies from electricity bills if renewables are cheaper, nor indeed why we need to subsidise renewables at all if they are so cheap. We are led by ignorant clowns being fed incoherent lies by a cheap imitation Climate Change Committee and the whole process is a sham. This does not bode well for the CCC’s new carbon budget to be released later this month.

---

This article (Pinchbeck Incoherent in Parliament) was created and published by David Turver and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Featured image: solstice.us, auroraer.com