By stewartb

It’s not often that I’m inclined to write anything positive about a BBC Scotland journalist’s contribution. But here goes!

The BBC’s ‘Business and Economy Editor, Scotland’, Douglas Fraser had an article (24 June) in the Scotland Business section of the BBC News website under this headline: ‘What would ‘GB Energy’ mean for Scotland’s green economy?’ (See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxxljq070o )

(Never unalloyed reaction to BBC Scotland tho’! Curiously, this article which attempts a critical appraisal did NOT appear in the Scotland Politics section despite this being six lines in: ‘Labour makes a big play of setting up GB Energy.’) – (my emphasis).

We know that Labour’s GB Energy has been a bit of a shapeshifter – an energy producer ‘in its own right’ to an investment vehicle and/or something in between or something else. So what can we learn from BBC Scotland ‘s ‘expert’ in this piece below the ‘neutral’ headline?

Firstly, tone iteration of Labour’s claim is repeated: ‘According to Scottish leader Anas Sarwar, this will be “a publicly-owned clean power company, to create good jobs and cut bills for good. And will be headquartered here in Scotland”.’

And then the first bollocks alert: ‘If this sounds like an energy supplier, to provide your home with electricity and gas more cheaply than big, profitable, private companies, then think again.’ And on the element likely to attract most voters, most, Mr Fraser indulges in understatement: ‘The route to cutting your bill is not as clear as the promise sounds.‘

In addition to the Labour manifesto’s statement that, in scope, GB Energy may invest in on- and offshore wind, in marine (wave/tide) and in nuclear energy generation (including big power stations and Small Modular Reactors), in carbon capture and storage, and in energy storage, Fraser reports also that: ‘GB Energy will partner with energy companies, local authorities, and co-operatives to install thousands of clean power projects, through a combination of onshore wind, solar and hydropower projects.” The target is for 20,000 such projects.

And then we get another understatement from the BBC Scotland ‘expert’: ‘Already, GB Energy’s remit is looking stretched and it’s some way from getting started. That £8.3bn over five years is expected to do some heavy lifting.’

Fraser asks the critical question in the appraisal of the business case for any government intervention: ‘But is GB Energy needed to make investment happen? Does it add value to the private funds already going into renewable power?

We’re told: ‘The UK Government says £300bn has already been pumped into low-carbon investment, a very large share of that private money. A further £100bn is expected by 2030. There’s no shortage of private funds available if the investment conditions are right. GB Energy’s contribution, after meeting its numerous other objectives, looks modest by comparison.’ Yet another massive understatement! But Fraser avoids nailing the obvious answer to the crucial ‘deadweight’ challenge!

He opines: ‘What developers are more likely to seek from government is co-ordination of much more grid capacity, consents to access the grid and the auctioned contracts which provide a floor price. They would also prefer more consistent policy-making. In recent years, they have seen Treasury support for carbon capture put on the table and removed, then put back out to competitive bids, as well as windfall tax on older windfarms.’ Notably, I can find nothing explicit or in ANY detail about Labour’s intentions towards investing in or otherwise incentivising the upgrading of the UK’s electricity power grid.

And to his credit, Fraser asks another big question: ‘What, though, of that claim that GB Energy will “cut bills for good”? That is a good selling point to voters, but it’s harder to make that connection. It seems to depend on the assertion that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. That depends, in turn, on the form of renewable energy, on the amount loaded on to bills in subsidy, and on the price of fossil fuels. The latter is volatile. The gas price has fallen a long way in the past two years, and it’s not certain that renewables will remain cheaper “for good”.’

‘There is no mechanism mentioned that indicates the power generated by a GB Energy turbine would be any cheaper for customers than any other turbine. Nor is it clear how this fits with Scottish Labour’s support for a new generation of nuclear power north of the Border. If it is priced like the new nuclear plants being built in England and Wales, it could put bills up – if not for good, then for a long time.’

And of Labour’s innovativeness: ‘Anas Sarwar and Sir Keir Starmer launched Labour’s “mission” on cheaper green energy in Edinburgh. So is this one area in which Labour is taking the state enterprise road in a way that Conservatives would not even contemplate?

And the answer: ‘Well, no. Twelve years ago, the Conservative-LibDem coalition set up the Green Investment Bank and headquartered it in Edinburgh, to “accelerate the UK’s transition to a greener, stronger economy” by investing in green projects. It committed more than £8 billion of co-investment funds to 100 projects, and by 2017, it had deployed £1.5 billion of that, attracting £2.50 of private funds for every £1 it committed.’

Was the Green Investment Bank HQ’d in Scotland worth voting for a Unionist party? The even more hyped GB Energy and the bauble of its HQ for Scotland may have even less to commend it! For Scotland’s sake, let’s hope Labour’s attempt at seduction fails miserably – it deserves to!

And to Mr Fraser and BBC Scotland – is it not good for the professional soul to engage in decent, objective, balanced journalism?