Communities with onshore wind farms have had the energy but not the benefits, according to Energy Secretary Ed Davey.

His comments came alongside a consultation aimed to help communities secure financial, social and environmental benefits from having wind farms.

This includes ways to help cut energy bills, maximise local businesses’ participation in wind projects and provide investment for local infrastructure.

Mr Davey said: “We know that two-thirds of people support the growth of onshore wind. But far too often, host communities have seen the wind farms but not the windfall. We are sensitive to the controversy around onshore wind and we want to ensure that people benefit from having wind farms sited near to them.

“This new call for evidence will look at ways to reward host communities and ensure that wider investment, employment and social benefits are felt locally.”

The Government will also be consulting on whether subsidies for onshore wind from April 2014 have been set at the correct level.

Trust and transparency are the two qualities that companies look for in energy and utility consultancies.

That’s according to a new survey conducted by British Independent Utilities (BIU) with responses from some of the UK’s leading organisations.

Cheaper energy supplies surprisingly came in second place, followed by companies wanting more innovation and new technologies. Firms also said they would want access to information on industry specific legislation.

Russ Priestley, BIU’s Founder and Senior Partner said: “I expected to see cost savings feature prominently in our survey responses but I was surprised to see that trust and transparency topped the table.

“We’re trading in a fiercely competitive market and it’s the consultancies that combine innovative energy products with unrivalled customer service and a rock solid work ethic that will stand the test of time.”

You are invited to attend a UK Trade & Investment Webinar, Shale Gas: Smoke & Mirrors

Tuesday, 25 September, 4.30 p.m.

UK Trade & Investment will be hosting a webinar focused on the shale gas market in the US and how UK companies can participate in the supply chain opportunities it offers. This webinar will inform you on the overall economy, production, industrial demand/manufacturing, employment, LNG vehicles, LNG exports and how this new technology can impact your operations in the UK.

Presenter:

Matt Smith is a global energy commodity analyst at Summit Energy (a subsidiary of Schneider Electric), who provides oil and natural gas analysis and commentary to national and international media outlets that include CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, Bloomberg, AFP, Reuters, and The Oil Daily.

Matt specializes in extracting key themes from technical and fundamental analysis of the market, communicating these through daily and weekly documents. He also writes about energy and financial markets on his blog, EnergyBurrito, and is a regular contributor to fuelfix.com, The Houston Chronicle’s energy blog. His posts have been featured on The Financial Times, Seeking Alpha, Energy Live News, and a number of trading and investment websites.

To RSVP and receive login details, please contact: haileigh.meyers@fco.gov.uk

The Government’s proposed new definition for fuel poverty is “flawed” and poor households will still lack affordable warmth.

That’s according to National Energy Action (NEA) which is “disappointed” about DECC’s plans to redefine fuel poverty in the UK.

Under the new proposals, the Government is expected to cut the number of people classified as living in fuel poverty and only people with low incomes and above average energy costs will be counted as fuel-poor.

Ron Campbell, Chief Policy Analyst at NEA said the new measures would not improve the situation.

He sad: “NEA is disappointed that after a protracted pre-consultation debate the Government has not listened to the unanimous voice of fuel poverty campaigners all of whom argued that the proposed new definition was flawed. The Government’s proposals mean that the number of fuel-poor households in England will reduce significantly without any actual improvement in their circumstances; in reality they will still lack access to affordable warmth.”

Environmental group Friends of the Earth is also concerned about the new proposals.

Dave Timms, the group’s Warm Homes campaigner said: “With one in five households unable to afford their energy bills, the Government’s priority should be urgent action to insulate homes and make them cheaper to heat, rather than re-defining the problem.

“The new definition of fuel poverty has a number of pros and cons and these must be carefully considered before it is introduced. Whatever the measurement, the Government must have a legal duty to rapidly end the scandal of vulnerable people shivering in cold and draughty homes that make them ill, cost a fortune to heat and contribute to climate change.”

Under the new measure, the number of people in fuel poverty is expected to reduce to 2.9million by 2016.

The new Energy Minister John Hayes is expected to trumpet the role of the energy industry in pulling the economy out of the doldrums at the opening of a new gas power station in Wales this morning.

On one of his first official visits since taking over the ministerial briefing from Charles Hendry in the reshuffle, Mr Hayes will meet with head of RWE npower Volker Beckers at Pembroke power station which officially opens today.

Mr Hayes is expected to say investment in energy is good for Britain’s economic recovery and in creating jobs.

The 2,000 megawatt (MW) power station has taken three years to build and is said to be one of the largest combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant in Europe, using technology which is more efficient than traditional gas plants. It will employ around 100 people.

Representing £1 billion worth of investment in the region, Pembroke is likely to be npower’s last multi-million pound investment in the UK economy until the completion of the Energy Bill, after the German firm pulled out its Horizon nuclear power project.

In the past few months, the supplier has said it is waiting on policy signals in the new legislation before committing more money to power projects in the UK.

Earlier this week npower announced it is closing two of its plants in the UK, the coal-fired Didcot A and oil plant Fawley, to fall in line with the EU Large Combustion Directive.

Streaming through Welsh countryside past TATA Steel’s sprawling site in Port Talbot on the way to cover the launch of npower’s new gas plant at Pembroke yesterday, I was reminded of the Olympics opening ceremony.

From the angular arms of cranes to the tall cigarette-thin towers, the TATA plant was like that pre-sporting spectacle – but for real.

Whilst the opening ceremony was breathtaking, seeing industrial activity in a lovely green location somehow gives it far more punch than grimy smokestacks surrounded by grey urban blocks.

Out in a remote region of the British Isles where you have to ask the conductor for the train to stop at your station (unlucky residents of Narberth and co) it’s clear what a boon big energy projects can be.

One hundred jobs must go a long way in beautiful but quiet castle-scattered Pembrokeshire.

Which is one in a hundred reasons why there must be more decisiveness from the Government with the Energy Bill.

For investments to be made, the Government needs to give that “certainty” that everyone from the fossil fuel brigade to the sun worshippers has been crying out for.

Today at Pembroke Power Station as the new Energy Minister declares energy investment to be good for the UK’s economic recovery, he will surely be hoping it looks like he’s giving investors a bit more of that.

But with rumours that Charles Hendry got the boot for lack of decisiveness, many eyes on John Hayes will be wondering if he’ll fall into the same trap.

Let’s hope he doesn’t. Let’s hope his trip to Wales will inspire our new Energy Minister, because Britain’s economy – from the smallest villages near Pembroke to the metropolitan centres which rely on a consistent energy supply – depends on the right investment for the future and fast.

Due to increased interest TEAM has decided to offer an additional date to the schedule for Professor Tony Day’s Heat Metering for Renewable Heat Incentive Training Course. TEAM has been instrumental in the production of The Building & Engineering Services Association (B&ES) has launched a new “Guide to Good Practice: Heat Metering for the RHI”.

Our TEAM experts in the Renewable Heat Incentive, Professor Tony Day and Justine Grant have developed this one-day course to explain heat metering for RHI entitlement using case studies. Key learning points on metering will be shared with the view to highlight good practices and discuss pitfalls and how best to avoid them. This training course is CIBSE CPD (Continued Professional Development) accredited and equates to 5.5 hours CPD.

This course is ideal for Facilities and Energy Managers who need to ensure savings and claim RHI. Manufacturers, Designers and Consultants involved in specifying RHI compliant equipment and any other professional who wishes to understand how eligible installations benefit from RHI.

New Date: Tuesday 16th October 2012

Venue: CEREB, London

More information at http://www.teamenergy.com/events/heat-metering-for-rhi-training-course-16-oct-12/

Other links:

http://www.teamenergy.com/news/team-produces-heat-metering-guide/

http://www.teamenergy.com/about-us/our-people/professor-tony-day/

http://www.teamenergy.com/about-us/our-people/justine-grant/

Business speaks out on Feed in Tariff confusion

Okay, confusion may be a little strong. But the Feed in Tariff – or at least the way that business consumers pay for it – is causing concern. At a time when accurate budgeting is paramount to keeping costs under control, having so much uncertainty over what you’re going to have to pay for this government levy on energy consumption – and disparity between forecasted and actual costs – creates unwelcome challenges.

We’ve been talking to our large business customers and listening to their views and concerns. In the past few weeks, we hosted a working group with a combination of businesses and stakeholders who together represent 60% of consumption in the industrial and commercial market, plus a FiT specialist from DECC – of which more of in a minute.

But first, before I share the views of large energy users on the Feed in Tariff, I think it only fair to say this isn’t about bashing DECC or Ofgem. The Government is facing a huge challenge to administer what is a very complicated scheme, where costs have to be forecast then later adjusted to reflect actual take up of low-carbon technologies each year. But I think it’s worth sharing our findings, as these help to move the debate forwards.

The main issue, from what businesses have told us, is the significant uncertainty for both suppliers and businesses caused by the way in which FiT costs are currently administered. The total cost each year is only known months after year end, and there have been both marked increases in cost since the inception of the scheme and wide variations in estimates in each given year. For example, after a cost of 4.7p per MWh for 2010/11, estimates by DECC for the 2011/12 year started off at 26.5p before being amended upward to 56.5p and then finally coming in at 63.6p. The DECC forecasts for 2012/13 currently stand at £1.79/MWh.

For businesses consuming energy in the gigawatt league, these increases and cost ambiguity have a big impact. The key concerns expressed both by those who attended our working group, and also the many customers who contributed to our FiT survey, can be summarised as follows:

Increasing legislative costs may lead to operations moving abroad

In particular, the businesses attending the working group highlighted serious concerns that increasing legislative costs, in particular FiT charges, are making businesses less competitive on a global scale. Some are even – or certainly considering – moving operations abroad due to the crippling impact of energy costs.

Our survey results also reveal that eight out of ten businesses are concerned about the impact of FiT charges on their business’ bottom line, believing the introduction of FiT has made budgeting more difficult.

Poor forecasting for FiT charges causes frustration

The lack of certainty around future FiT charges makes budget planning very difficult during already tough economic times, and businesses were shocked at how drastically DECC’s original FiT cost forecasts have been revised upwards. This lack of forecasting accuracy only added to concerns about the future impact of FiT charges on their business operations.

Lack of uniform approach among suppliers creates confusion

Many businesses are perplexed by the lack of uniformity across energy suppliers in the way that FiT charges are applied. As a result businesses are baffled, with more than 80% stating that evaluating supplier offers has become more difficult due to the inconsistency in the way the FiT is charged and recovered.

Disbelief that the FiT scheme will help the UK to meet emissions targets

Finally, more than half of business customers surveyed don’t think the FiT scheme will actually help the UK to achieve its emissions reduction targets. And when it comes to expressing a view on whether the FIT scheme will help raise the increased investment needed for low-carbon generation, businesses are divided – 45% think it will and 43% think it won’t.

So what’s to be done? Both our working group and survey participants had similar suggestions for how DECC should amend the way that the FiT scheme is charged.

Set costs, rule out nasty surprises and introduce a level playing field

The key calls are for DECC to set projected FiT charges for the next five years to aid better budgetary forecasting, and to move to a system whereby any changes to FiT charges are not adjusted retrospectively, but instead added into the FiT charge for the following year. This takes out the current nasty surprise element. Businesses also want suppliers to adopt a transparent approach to how they bill customers for FiT charges to clear up current inequality and confusion.

Some businesses also suggested that the FiT scheme should be scrapped altogether and instead that all environmental policies are combined and charged to businesses as one simple tax.

So there you have it. DECC has also announced a FiT mini-consultation this week that will run until September 25, so you have an opportunity to give your views directly to DECC on the practical impact of current FiT scheme to business via www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx

And if you’d like to see more about our original findings, please email business@npower.com to request a copy of the npower FiT report.

If you would like to hear more from me, please find my blog archive here.

As our bizarre summer finally breaks into heat – the weekend’s mix of sunshine and downpour seems quintessentially British, i.e. totally bonkers – the turning weather has pushed my thoughts onto the next season.

Autumn, season of mists – and one of the biggest bits of policy to hit the energy sector in at least a decade. It doesn’t look likely to be a mellow few months.

The Lords’ working group on the draft Energy Bill has expressed “serious doubts” about some pretty major parts of it. They called reform a “Herculean” task.

Now virtually everyone under the sun has taken a pop at the Contracts for Difference, the mechanism which will set prices for energy depending on where it has come from. It’s almost easy to become numb to the voices of alarm.

But the Lords’ report finally gave me the chills.

The frightening bit is how much of the legislation could be drafted effectively behind closed doors and ministers could end up with the power to dictate prices – something the Lords say they do not see happening “in any credible way” even with help from the system operator.

Not to be rude about the current bunch at the control panel – Messrs Davey, Hendry and Barker – but if the LORDS can’t be sure they can do this CfD job, how on earth can we?

They’re not even the ones we should worry about. It’s the future ministers we should keep an eye on. Which potential politicians are being groomed as we speak by businesses looking to get the best price, in the hope one day they might make their way onto the Cabinet table?

Jeremy Paxman has written convincingly on how politics is now a profession, where good looks and media acumen often come at the expense of industry expertise.

When an MP actually has some experience in their field they can – conversely – be vilified for their “bias” – see Energy Select Committee chair Tim Yeo’s trolling by the Mail as the latest example.

British politics appeared to have turned a corner on the long and winding road to more transparency after the expenses scandal and the Leveson inquiry.

But if we put such ludicrous power into the hands of ministers without the proper checks offered by passage through Parliament, we can’t really be surprised when things go wrong.

Just got the fear? Welcome to the club.

The Government faces a “Herculean” task when overhauling the electricity market, according to the House of Lords’ working group charged with looking at the Draft Energy Bill.

The Government’s planned market reform is seen as the biggest change to the sector since privatisation and is meant to improve competition and accommodate new renewable forms of energy.

But in a report given to DECC, the Lords express “serious doubts” about key parts of the Bill.

They raise crucial questions about a central subsidy mechanism for energy, the Feed-in Tariff/Contracts for Difference (CfD), as well as the bigger responsibility put on Government ministers by the mechanism as it stands.

Not enough detail is included in the Bill, says the Lords, which means many rules for the CfD will have to be set outside the public eye, as the report states: “Much appears to be being left to secondary legislation not all aspects of which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.”

Their fears about transparency also apply to the role of ministers setting “strike prices” for electricity generated by each energy source: “If these proposals are implemented, the process for awarding contracts to supply electricity will… be largely at ministerial discretion…

“We do not see how the Government can do this in any credible way, even with the assistance of the System Operator (National Grid). Ministers would have few market benchmarks by which to set prices.”

The CfD mechanism has also caused ripples of unease among experts and energy suppliers alike, with suppliers unsure of investment signals for both renewables and nuclear energy. Others have criticised it as an indirect subsidy for nuclear power.

Some have suggested it might “skew” the market in favour of larger suppliers although officials dispute this.

The Energy Bill is due to be finalised in the Autumn.