Feeds

UK energy industry mugs customers

£32 billion? That'll do nicely

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

The future for UK energy may be smart technology, but the economics behind that decision are decidedly unsmart. Or possibly very very cunning, depending on whether or not you credit the beancounters at Ofgem with a degree of subtlety.

On the surface, this week’s story (pdf) on Ofgems smart grid plan was straightforward: in order to cover the infrastructure investment of £32bn that will be needed by 2020, consumers will pay an average of £6 per year extra for their energy (split evenly between gas and electricity).

This bland assurance hides the fact that the actual average increase, by 2020, in respect of infrastructure investment alone – not taking account of inflation or other factors such as hikes in raw fuel costs - will be £80 per household.

It also conceals the suspicion that, on figures provided by Ofgem itself, the energy companies will eventually be quids in. Against a proposed investment requirement of £32bn, they are actually proposing to raise £40bn from consumers and a comparable figure from business and commerce – or in other words, up to two-and-a-half times what they actually need to pay for network improvements.

Such investment cannot be raised within the current pricing framework, which allows energy companies to increase prices relative to inflation. Ofgem’s announcement therefore served both to highlight the scale of investment required and to herald the launch of a new pricing structure which will allow energy companies to raise funds that are specifically needed for infrastructure building.

No one is denying that such investment is needed. The UK’s energy supply infrastructure needs serious upgrading for a number of reasons, from energy security, through to carbon emissions reduction under the Kyoto agreement – and existing forecasts have come up with figures of at least £200bn for the task.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the energy industry needs to raise more cash. What is dubious is the way in which Ofgem have massaged this demand down to the innocuous-sounding "£6 a year".

Of course, what they mean is "£6 a year a year": it is a rate – not an increase. Applying that rate over a 10-year period, the average household will be paying some £60 a year extra at the end of the period compared to what it paid at the start. Or, to put it another way, it will hand over £330 more than it would have handed over had prices not increased.

This additional demand comes on top of an announcement last year of an extra "£6.5 billion investment proposal for 2010-2015", which "will deliver new and renewed regional networks" – all at the bargain cost of "£4 a year on average" on domestic electricity bills. Again, they really mean "£4 a year a year" – meaning another £20 a year on the average bill by 2015.

But hang on: even the £6 increase, over the 26 million household base that Ofgem uses for its calculations, only gives £8.6bn from consumers over the next decade.

At this point the discussion moves into surreal territory, as Ofgem explained to us that although £32bn is needed over the next decade, they would be raising the money from consumers over a longer period, approximating to the real life of the asset, which might be 20 to 30 years.

Aha! So bills will be going down after 2020? Because if the £60 a year increase (by 2020) is maintained, the energy industry will collect a further £31.2bn between 2020 and 2040.

Not exactly. A spokesman for Ofgem tells us that they "haven’t looked at what happens after the next decade".

Nonetheless, they "stand by" all their calculations.

If they genuinely haven’t looked at what happens after 2020, then that raises some serious question marks: that is so unlikely – so irresponsible, even – that the only alternative conclusion is that they are looking to raise far more than claimed, but spinning the news so that it looks less.

On the figures provided, Ofgem will be raising almost £40bn from consumers over the lifetime of their new infrastructure. Depending on whether they raise an additional £16bn from business (half of the stated total), or £40bn (matching the take from consumers), that means they will be raising somewhere between £56bn and £80bn to pay for a £32bn asset.

Nice investment if you can get it. ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
GRAV WAVE DRAMA: 'Big Bang echo' may have been grit on the scanner – boffins
Exit Planet Dust on faster-than-light expansion of universe
Mine Bitcoins with PENCIL and PAPER
Forget Sudoku, crunch SHA-256 algos
SpaceX Dragon cargo truck flies 3D printer to ISS: Clawdown in 3, 2...
Craft berths at space station with supplies, experiments, toys
'This BITE MARK is a SMOKING GUN': Boffins probe ancient assault
Tooth embedded in thigh bone may tell who pulled the trigger
DOLPHINS SMELL MAGNETS – did we hear that right, boffins?
Xavier's School for Gifted Magnetotaceans
Big dinosaur wowed females with its ENORMOUS HOOTER
That's right, Doris, I've got biggest snout in the prehistoric world
Japanese volcano eruption reportedly leaves 31 people presumed dead
Hopes fade of finding survivors on Mount Ontake
That glass of water you just drank? It was OLDER than the SUN
One MEELLION years older. Some of it anyway
Canberra drone team dances a samba in Outback Challenge
CSIRO's 'missing bushwalker' found and watered
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.