Labour has launched its Great British Energy policy – do we need it?
The establishment of Great British Energy is among the last remnants of the ‘green prosperity plan’ devised and championed by Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary of state for energy security and net zero, three years ago.
The former Labour leader’s vision was to spend £28bn per year in the first five years of an incoming Labour government on decarbonising the UK economy.
However, as the current leader Sir Keir Starmer recognised, the issue was swiftly weaponised by the Conservatives because all the money – as Mr Miliband himself had made clear – would have been borrowed.
More importantly, the plan did not survive contact with Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, who has made fiscal responsibility her priority.
The £28bn-a-year spending pledge was watered down in February this year to one of £23.7bn over the life of the next parliament.
A sizeable chunk of that will be on Great British Energy, described by Mr Miliband as “a new publicly owned clean power company”, which Labour has said will be initially capitalised at £8.3bn.
And, instead of the money being borrowed, Labour is now saying “it will be funded by asking the big oil and gas companies to pay their fair share through a proper windfall tax”.
What’s a windfall tax and what’s it got to do with green energy?
Before going further, it’s worth explaining what the current windfall tax is.
The existing ‘temporary energy profits levy‘ was launched by Rishi Sunak, as chancellor, in May 2022 and imposed an extra 25% tax on the profits earned by companies from the production of oil and gas in the UK and on the UK Continental Shelf in the North Sea.
Due to expire at the end of 2025, it raised £2.6bn during its first year.
Jeremy Hunt, as chancellor, raised the levy to 35% from the beginning of last year and extended its life to the end of March 2028. That ‘sunset clause’ was extended to the end of March 2029 in Mr Hunt’s spring budget earlier this year.
It effectively means that the total tax burden on North Sea oil and gas producers is now 75%.
Labour made clear in February this year that this would rise to 78%. It also plans to remove some of the investment incentives Mr Sunak put in place when it announced the current windfall tax.
That will undoubtedly have consequences.
Offshore Energies UK, the industry body, has said that, in its first year, the existing energy profits levy led to more than 90% of North Sea oil producers cutting spending. It has warned that Labour’s plans could cost 42,000 jobs in the North Sea and some £26bn in economic value.
Read more:
UK’s largest consumer-owned wind farm powering up in Scotland this month
Rapid steps needed for Britain to compete in green industrial revolution – IPPR says
So the increase in the windfall levy will have consequences for the overall tax take.
It is therefore important for Labour to make clear what changes in investment and hiring it is factoring in from companies operating in the North Sea as a result of higher taxation.
The big operators are already deserting the region. It was reported this week that Shell and Exxon Mobil are close to selling their jointly-controlled UK North Sea gas fields – marking the US giant’s final exit from the North Sea after 60 years.
And Harbour Energy, the biggest independent operator in the North Sea, has slashed investment in the region, along with hundreds of jobs, since the energy profits levy was introduced. It too is seeking to diversify away from the North Sea – having seen the energy profits levy wipe out its entire annual profits during the first year of the impost.
What will Great British Energy even own?
The second big question is what assets will be owned by Great British Energy.
Labour said overnight: “Great British Energy’s early investments will include wind and solar projects in communities up and down the country as well as making Scotland a world-leader in cutting edge technologies such as floating offshore wind, hydrogen, and CCS (carbon capture and storage).”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
What is unclear, though, is whether this will involve buying existing assets from private sector operators, building new assets from scratch or co-investing in new projects.
It is worth asking the question because only the latter of these two options will actually add to the UK’s energy generation and storage capacity.
And, if it is to be the second or third options, the question is what return on capital employed Great British Energy will be seeking to achieve.
A risk that money could be wasted
All commercial operators seek to achieve a return on capital which exceeds their cost of capital.
Now, as a sovereign debt issuer with a good credit rating, the UK government enjoys a lower cost of capital than most corporates. But there will still be a nagging concern – given the traditionally poor stewardship of state-owned enterprises in the UK – that, without the discipline imposed by having shareholders, some of the money will be wasted.
Investments of this kind are risky and volatile.
An example of this came last week when SSE, one of the UK’s biggest and best-run renewable energy generating companies, admitted that Dogger Bank A, its giant wind project off the Yorkshire coast, will not be fully operational until next year rather than this year.
Is it needed when billions are being spent on green investments?
A third question is why, precisely, Great British Energy is needed at all.
The UK is already decarbonising more rapidly than any other major economy and is also investing heavily.
The Department for Energy and Net Zero recently estimated that there will be some £100bn worth of private investment put towards the UK’s energy transition by 2030.
National Grid announced only last week that it plans to invest £31bn in the UK on the transition between now and the end of the decade.
SSE is investing £18bn in renewable capacity in the five years to 2026-27. Scottish Power, another of the big renewable energy companies, recently announced plans to invest £12bn between now and 2028.
So it is not entirely obvious why a comparatively small state-owned company is even necessary.
Energy security and cost
Labour’s justification is partly based on energy security – Sir Keir has in the past queried why a Swedish state-owned power company, Vattenfall, should be the biggest investor in onshore wind in Wales – and partly on prices.
It said overnight: “Great British Energy is part of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 – helping families save £300 per year off their energy bills.”
Again, though, this raises further questions.
Mark McAllister, the chairman of energy regulator Ofgem, told the Financial Times this week that energy bills were unlikely to fall substantially over the decade partly due to the costs of building out the electricity network to support the transition to renewables.
He told the FT: said: “As we build in more and more renewables, we’re also building in the price, amortised over many years, of the networks as well.
“If we look at the forecasts for wholesale prices and then build on top of that the costs of the network going forward, I think we see something in our view that is relatively flat in the medium term.”
And that begs the biggest question of all, not just for Labour, but for all the parties: why is it being left to a regulator, rather than the politicians, to spell out the costs to households of the energy transition?
Business
Donald Trump has finally blinked – but it’s not the stock markets that have forced him to act
Chalk this one up to the bond vigilantes.
This is the term used periodically to describe investors who push back against what are perceived to be irresponsible fiscal or monetary policies by selling government bonds, in the process pushing up yields, or implied borrowing costs.
Most of the focus on markets in the wake of Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on the rest of the world has, in the last week, been about the calamitous stock market reaction.
This was previously something that was assumed to have been taken seriously by Mr Trump.
During his first term in the White House, the president took the strength of US equities – in particular the S&P 500 – as being a barometer of the success, or otherwise, of his administration.
Donald Trump in the Oval Office today. Pic: Reuters
He had, over the last week, brushed off the sour equity market reaction to his tariffs as being akin to “medicine” that had to be taken to rectify what he perceived as harmful trade imbalances around the world.
But, as ever, it is the bond markets that have forced Mr Trump to blink – and, make no mistake, blink is what he has done.
To begin with, following the imposition of his tariffs – which were justified by some cockamamie mathematics and a spurious equation complete with Greek characters – bond prices rose as equities sold off.
That was not unusual: big sell-offs in equities, such as those seen in 1987 and in 2008, tend to be accompanied by rallies in bonds.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What it’s like on the New York stock exchange floor
However, this week has seen something altogether different, with equities continuing to crater and US government bonds following suit.
At the beginning of the week yields on 10-year US Treasury bonds, traditionally seen as the safest of safe haven investments, were at 4.00%.
By early yesterday, they had risen to 4.51%, a huge jump by the standards of most investors. This is important.
The 10-year yield helps determine the interest rate on a whole clutch of financial products important to ordinary Americans, including mortgages, car loans and credit card borrowing.
By pushing up the yield on such a security, the bond investors were doing their stuff. It is not over-egging things to say that this was something akin to what Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng experienced when the latter unveiled his mini-budget in October 2022.
And, as with the aftermath to that event, the violent reaction in bonds was caused by forced selling.
Now part of the selling appears to have been down to investors concluding, probably rightly, that Mr Trump’s tariffs would inject a big dose of inflation into the US economy – and inflation is the enemy of all bond investors.
Part of it appears to be due to the fact the US Treasury had on Tuesday suffered the weakest demand in nearly 18 months for $58bn worth of three-year bonds that it was trying to sell.
But in this particular case, the selling appears to have been primarily due to investors, chiefly hedge funds, unwinding what are known as ‘basis trades’ – in simple terms a strategy used to profit from the difference between a bond priced at, say, $100 and a futures contract for that same bond priced at, say, $105.
In ordinary circumstances, a hedge fund might buy the bond at $100 and sell the futures contract at $105 and make a profit when the two prices converge, in what is normally a relatively risk-free trade.
So risk-free, in fact, that hedge funds will ‘leverage’ – or borrow heavily – themselves to maximise potential returns.
The sudden and violent fall in US Treasuries this week reflected the fact that hedge funds were having to close those trades by selling Treasuries.
More from Sky News:
What a global recession would mean
Is there method to the madness?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump freezes tariffs at 10% – except China
Confronted by a potential hike in borrowing costs for millions of American homeowners, consumers and businesses, the White House has decided to rein back its tariffs, rightly so.
It was immediately rewarded by a spectacular rally in equity markets – the Nasdaq enjoyed its second-best-ever day, and its best since 2001, while the S&P 500 enjoyed its third-best session since World War Two – and by a rally in US Treasuries.
The influential Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs immediately trimmed its forecast of the probability of a US recession this year from 65% to 45%.
Of course, Mr Trump will not admit he has blinked, claiming last night some investors had got “a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid”.
And it is perfectly possible that markets face more volatile days ahead: the spectre of Mr Trump’s tariffs being reinstated 90 days from now still looms and a full-blown trade war between the US and China is now raging.
But Mr Trump has blinked. The bond vigilantes have brought him to heel. This president, who by his aggressive use of emergency executive powers had appeared to be more powerful than any of his predecessors, will never seem quite so powerful again.
Is there method to the madness? Donald Trump and his acolytes would have you believe so.
The US president is standing firm among all the market chaos.
Just this weekend, after US stock markets suffered their sharpest falls since the onset of the pandemic, Trump reposted a video on his social media platform Truth Social. This was its title: “Trump is purposefully CRASHING the market.”
Tariffs latest: ‘BE COOL’, Trump says as trade war escalates
The video claimed the president was engineering a flight to US government bonds, also known as treasuries – a safe haven in turbulent times. The video suggested Trump was deliberately throwing the stock market into chaos so investors would take their money out and buy bonds instead.
Why? Because demand for treasuries pushes up the price of the bonds, and that, in turn, lowers the yield on those bonds.
The yield is the interest rate on the debt, so a lower yield pushes down government borrowing costs. That would provide some relief for a government that has $9.2trn of government debt to refinance this year. Consumers also stand to benefit as the US Federal Reserve, the US central bank, would likely follow suit, feeling the pressure to cut interest rates.
A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange. Pic: Reuters
Trump and his treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, have made it a key policy priority to lower yields. For a while, it looked like the plan was working. As stock markets tumbled in response to Trump’s tariffs agenda, investors ploughed their money into bonds instead.
However, Trump may have spoken too soon. On Monday, the markets had a change of heart and rapidly started selling government bonds. Thirty-year treasury yields hit 4.92% on Wednesday, their biggest three-day jump since 1982. That means government borrowing costs are rising – and not just in the US. The sell-off has spiralled to government bonds worldwide.
Rachel Reeves will be watching anxiously. Yields on Britain’s 30-year government bonds, also known as gilts, hit their highest level since May 1998. They registered a 27 basis point jump to 5.642% today – that’s on track to be the largest one-day move since the aftermath of former prime minister Liz Truss’ “mini-budget” in October 2022.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘These countries are dying to make a deal’
This is a big deal. It is the sharpest sell-off in the US bond market since the pandemic. Back then, investors also rushed into bonds before dumping them and the motivations, on one level, are similar.
In 2020, investors sold bonds because they had to cover losses elsewhere in their portfolios. When markets fall, as they have done over the past few days, lenders can demand that an investor who has borrowed money stump up more cash against the value of their loan because the collateral against those loans has fallen in value. This is known as a “margin call”. Government bonds are easy to sell as investors “dash for cash”.
There are signs that this may be happening again and central banks, which had to step in last time, are alert.
The Bank of England warned today of the growing risks to financial stability. “A sharp increase in government bond yields could crystallise relatively quickly,” it said.
There are other forces weighing on government bonds. With policy uncertainty unfolding in the US, investors could also be signalling that US debt isn’t the safe haven it once was. That loss of confidence also seems to have hurt the dollar, one of the world’s safest places to park your money. It’s had a turbulent journey but is down 1.15% against a basket of safe haven currencies since Trump announced widespread tariffs on 2 April.
Some are even wondering if China could be behind some of this, dumping US government debt as a revenge tactic to hurt a president who has explicitly said he wants bond yields to come down. The country holds $761bn of US government bonds, second only to Japan. If this is the case, then the US-China trade war could rapidly be evolving into a financial war.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway