People's Republic of South Devon » energy

Windpower, a cost-efective energy source?

Giles Chichester — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:21:04 +0000

Wind energy companies have received over £520 million in subsidies

I listened in disbelief to the radio as a Downing Street spokesman described windpower as a cost-effective energy source! If this is true, then why is it necessary for this Government to subsidise the construction and operation of these wind turbines?

In 2009-10, wind energy companies received over £520 million in subsidies, which came not from a special government fund but from a surcharge on our business and domestic electricity bills. This Renewable Obligation Charge currently adds £26 to everyone’s annual electricity bill and this is predicted to increase to £50 by 2016.

There could well be good environmental reasons for supporting windpower development – but in truth I am not able to think of all that many. Let us, however, not kid ourselves that it is a cost-effective source of electrical energy.

There are two major electricity generation projects proposed for the South West which bear comparison – the Atlantic Array offshore wind turbine farm and the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. Each will cost around £5 billion to construct and have the capacity to produce approximately 1,500 megawatts of electrical power. However, Hinkley C has a working life of up to 60 years and capacity for electrical energy output of over 80%, while the Atlantic Array will only have a working life of 25 years and struggle to achieve 20% electricity output.

If we are seeking a cost-effective investment then it is clear that the privately-financed Hinkley C nuclear power station has the edge over the Atlantic Array which will continue to require subsidies from electricity consumers. The answer is still not blowing in the wind even if the Downing Street spokesman is adding a puff!

(image: Some rights reserved by Andre Charland)

Too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables. Time to rethink energy policy! It's time to rethink our energy policy says South West...
Energy and Climate Change Committee looks into Euro ‘supergrid’ idea for renewable energy South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has been pushing for...
Lacking energy Responsibility, responsibility, responsibility. Yes, we all know that’s what we...

Competitiveness, security and sustainability: the aims of European energy policy

Giles Chichester — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:13:26 +0000

There are inherent contradictions in the European energy policy if pursued isolation

There have been three general aims for energy policy at the European level – competitiveness, security and sustainability. Over time, the order of their priority has changed as the desirability of achieving an open single market has given way to the perceived threat of climate change. There is, of course, an inherent contradiction between these policy objectives if pursued in isolation. There is also another important contradiction, the fact that energy policy remains a national responsibility whereas a single European energy policy remains an objective.

Security of our energy supply remains fundamental. Without energy, our society would disintegrate. I believe that responsibility for energy policies should remain with EU Member States, because of differences of energy supply requirements from one European country to another; also because the risk to security is greater if only one EU body is making the policy decisions. Imagine the reaction if policy was determined by public opinion in Germany or France and imposed on everyone else?

I believe security of supply is best maintained by diversity: diversity of energy mix, diversity of technology, diversity of fuels, diversity of sources of supply, diversity of suppliers, diversity of planning models.

This doesn’t mean we should forget about climate change or competitiveness. Competitiveness is crucial to maintain that diversity and to achieve CO2 emission reduction in the most efficient way. I think we should draw back from what I call the religion of renewables which prescribes the solution before the problem is defined.

I also think that if we really want to re-engineer our economy and society into a low carbon version, we should be realistic about targets and timing, especially in relation to our industrial competitors in the rest of the world. And we should be open about the costs of this transformation to the consumers who must foot the bill.

What does this mean in practical terms? Modern industrial societies are becoming increasingly dependent on electricity. Drawing on European Environment Agency (EEA) figures for electricity production by fuel, the shares were oil 3%; coal and lignite 26.3%; natural and derived gas 23.6%; nuclear 27.3%; renewables 18% and other fuels 1.8%. Although these are 2008 figures, they still give a good picture of the situation and an indication of the challenge we face.

The most significant change since 2008, in my view, has been the emergence of shale or unconventional gas as a major source of fuel. The other change has been the very mixed reaction to the powerful 2011 earth-quake and tsunami experienced in Japan. I remain astonished at the irrational response in Germany to the nuclear disaster, but fortunately other EU Member States have taken a more balanced position on the role of nuclear power in long-term energy supply.

It seems clear that we should be looking to reduce the share of coal, at least until we can demonstrate Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) on an industrial scale. We should continue to encourage a shift to renewables, but not at any price.

We should intensify our efforts to replace ageing nuclear capacity and to increase it to a level where it provides virtually all base load demand. We are obliged to think long-term to achieve that low carbon economy. I offer my energy supply target of 40% nuclear, 30% renewables, 20% gas and 10% coal by 2050. These are ambitious but attainable.

The real difficulty of maintaining security of supply, while meeting climate change policy objectives, is how we tackle oil consumption in the transport sector. In 2009, oil comprised 41.9% of final EU energy consumption. In road passenger terms, vehicle transport oil supplies over 90% and the percentage for freight is in the high 80% range. Trains provide just under 10% of passenger traffic and just over 10% of freight, so that is a measure of the challenge. Yet change we must if the scientists are correct about climate change. A range of alternative solutions offer themselves such as electric cars, hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels.

Finally, let me touch on the other side of the equation, namely, energy efficiency. In this regard, I share the estimate of the European Commission that savings of 20% energy consumption are possible through energy efficiency. However, I differ from their approach of confusing energy savings with efficiency.

Energy savings as called for in the draft EU Energy Efficiency Directive just means consuming less. Efficiency means either producing a unit of gross domestic production (GDP) with less energy, or using the same amount of energy to produce higher GDP. Probably we will achieve increased efficiency through a mix of technologies, such as smart meters and smart grids, regulation to enforce higher standards of insulation and buildings efficiency, and the market price since as energy costs rise inexorably people will be more efficient in its use.

(image: Some rights reserved by paulinaclemente)

Energy and Climate Change Committee looks into Euro ‘supergrid’ idea for renewable energy South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has been pushing for...
Common policy on economy pushed in Euro-zone but few commitments to single market in energy After a weekend fighting piracy, in the European Parliament South...
South West’s Sir Graham Watson aims for presidency of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party South West Lib Dem MEP Sir Graham Watson is aiming...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Solar subsidy cuts legally flawed, high court rules

PRSD — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:28:25 +0000

The government has been 'clumsy' in its hasty cuts to the feed in tariff for solar energy

Transition Newton Abbot had been campaigning to stop the delay the government’s decision to cut the Feed in Tariff, but it seems the government may have been acting illegally in its much criticised hasty slashing of the subsidy.

South West MEP Giles Chichester wrote that too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables, and that it was time to rethink energy policy, and that the feed in tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy.

Meanwhile Friends of the Earth and two solar companies took issue with the government’s ‘clumsy’ policy.

Here’s the article…

This article titled “Solar subsidy cuts legally flawed, high court rules” was written by John Vidal, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 21st December 2011 16.46 UTC

Government plans to slash incentive payments for householders who install solar panels were on Wednesday ruled “legally flawed” by a high court judge. The ruling opens the door for a judicial review that could force the government to delay its plans, potentially allowing thousands more people to claim the higher subsidy.

The judgment comes after a challenge by Friends of the Earth and two solar companies who argued that the government’s decision to cut the feed-in tariff from 43.3p to 21p with only a few weeks’ notice was premature and unlawful, and had led to unfinished or planned projects being abandoned.

The judgment, made by Mr Justice Mitting after a two-day court hearing, comes hours before two powerful committees of MPs are due to release their report on the government’s handling of the solar subsidy. The environment audit committee and energy committee are expected to add to government’s humiliation by saying it was “clumsy” and had threatened the survival of a nascent industry promising thousands of jobs.

Many thousands of individuals, farmers, councils and community groups had applied to install solar PV to take advantage of the generous subsidy which had been set deliberately high when the scheme launched in April 2010, to encourage people to invest.

But the government announced in October that it would cut the subsidy with effect from 12 December. This was 11 days before the consultation ended.

The judge’s decision was hailed as a major victory by green campaigners and the solar industry, after firms warned that the scale and pace of the proposed cuts would have a crippling effect on the sector resulting in thousands of job losses.

Mitting said the minister was proposing to make an unlawful decision.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director, Andy Atkins, said: “These botched and illegal plans have cast a huge shadow over the solar industry, jeopardising thousands of jobs. We hope this ruling will prevent ministers rushing through damaging changes to clean energy subsidies – giving solar firms a much-needed confidence boost.

Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, said the high court decision gives hope to the 29,000 people currently employed in the industry throughout the country.

“The feed-in tariff cuts are madness. The facts are clear, the public want to see more solar power, but politicians have signed off proposals to deliver a lot less.”

“The government has acted unlawfully and it is right that they are held to account. Now they need to act to rectify the damage, raise the ambition and work with industry to get solar in the UK back on track. We are happy to have cuts but not if they kill the industry.”

Lawyers for the Department of Energy and Climate Change immediately moved to apply for permission to appeal the judge’s ruling.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Solar system Plymouth’s Maplin Electronics (no, nothing to do with Hi-De-Hi) is...
Feed in Tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy The cut to the Feed in Tariff rate of subsidy...
Solar-PV grant and loans for Totnes and Dartington residents Residents of Totnes and Dartington can benefit from funds from...

And how did selling off the family silver work for you? 25 years since British Gas told Sid

PRSD — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:35:52 +0000

November 21, 2011 marks 25 years since British Gas was sold off

Ever wondered how governments became morally and financially bankrupt? Cast your mind back to 25 years… November 21 marks the 25 anniversary of the privatisation of British Gas.

The Tell Sid campaign helped inspire the campaign to sell 425.5 million shares

And, apparently if 100 British Gas shares were bought at floatation in December 1986 at a total cost of £135, today they would be worth £1,686.

The Thatcher era produced over 20 million new shareholders through its intensive programme of privatisations, employee share ownership schemes and demutualisations. And some would say is the root of the current economic problems…

Government expected to announce £5 billion Work Programme There's a new Work Programme in the offing, which aims...
South West MPs to be told they can’t pinch pennies when it comes to people’s lives Trade Union members are set to lobby their MPs about...
Funding affordability posted by Cptn Another of the affordable housing stories which...

EDF Energy called to extend Warm Home Discount

PRSD — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:00:12 +0000

EDF Energy's Warm Home Discount should be extended, says the South West Green Party

According to a a ‘now cast’ of Fuel Poverty in 2010 by the Centre for Sustainable Energy, 16.5% of families in the South West are suffering from fuel poverty; against the national average of 8.5% according to independent research, the South West Green Party tells us.

The figure for those living in rural areas is worse. This translates to around half a million homes in the South West facing a dilemma between heating and eating this winter.

The South West Green Party have asked French state-owned EDF Energy, developers of Hinckley Nuclear Power Station, to extend its Warm Home Discount to all customers living in fuel poverty, not just the first to apply.

This follows British Gas’ agreement to extend the Warm Home Discount payment of £120 to all vulnerable fuel poor families. At present EDF has capped the amount of families it will help to just 40,000 across the country, this in spite of a net income of £3.4bn last year.

Warm home grants are available to a variety of vulnerable groups. And EDF has partnered with organisations to identify those in need of support with their energy bills. Like this partnership with Plymouth CAB.

The Green Party also recommend checking to see if money can be saved by switching suppliers – a policy met with much derision when suggested by Coalition Lib Dem Environment Minister Chris Huhne.

If you fancy a switch, compare gas and electricity prices at energyhelpline.com or by calling 0800 074 0745

Warm reception This crimbo, some three million people in the UK will...
Over 10,000 Plymouth residents in fuel poverty Fuel poverty figures for Plymouth reveal that 3,700 people in...
Home Energy Saving Exhibition in Dawlish Dawlish Transition is hosting a home energy saving exhibition in...

Feed in Tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy

Giles Chichester — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:26:25 +0000

The Feed in Tariff rate of subsidy was unsustainable and it isn't going to solve the energy crisis, says Giles Chichester

It was inevitable that the Coalition Government would be forced to cut the Feed in Tariff (FiT) rate of subsidy. When the FiT scheme was launched by the Labour Government, the current ￡867m subsidy was deemed adequate according to Labour growth projections of installed solar power capacity.

However, these projections were totally inaccurate and, in fact, the actual solar capacity figure is now almost three times that projected, resulting in the subsidy level set by the Government being devoured at an unsustainable rate. Drastic action had to be taken if we were not to follow the failure of comparable FiT schemes in France and Spain whose demise was brought about by the availability of similar unrealistically generous government subsidies.

Despite protests from the environmental lobby, I am strongly of the view that this was an ill-thought and expensive green energy programme.

Those consumers who benefitted for the most part had cash available to purchase solar installations and rightly regarded the FiT as a good investment, giving a very high return on their money. Unfortunately, the burden of providing this financial return falls upon the vast majority of energy consumers who pay for the subsidy through the Renewable Obligation Tax on their domestic energy bills.

Now that the FiT subsidy has been halved, it will be interesting to see how many people will be adopting solar power and “going green” for the sake of the environment.

The FiT scheme has proved to be an expensive and unsustainable distraction from the need to develop an effective national energy policy. A prime task should be to endeavour to make our domestic, public and industrial buildings more energy efficient. We cannot afford to waste energy. Only when this is achieved should we encourage owners to tinker with subsidised solar, wind and other alternative energy systems.

We face an energy crisis that is not going to be resolved by what we put on our roofs.The green energy policies we inherited from the Labour Government must be radically reviewed and priority given to developing a sustainable power station network to serve the national grid. When we switch on the lights, we want them to stay on and not be dependent upon the vagaries of sun and wind. Being green at any price is not sustainable.

• Transition Newton Abbot calls for people to sign up to e-petition delaying change to Feed in Tariff.

(image: Some rights reserved by mattbuck4950)

Feed-in tariff transition dates changed – e-petition aims to persuade the government to stick to the original date With the government changing the date for the change of...
Too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables. Time to rethink energy policy! It's time to rethink our energy policy says South West...
Energy and Climate Change Committee looks into Euro ‘supergrid’ idea for renewable energy South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has been pushing for...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

North Devon campaign against sea-based wind turbines says no to Atlantic Array

PRSD — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:00:08 +0000

Atlantic Array: the windfarm has its problems says the Not To Atlantic Array campaign

The North Devon Say No to Atlantic Array campaign got in touch about the possibility of up to 417 wind turbines in the Bristol Channel. Each one, they say, will be twice the size of the 22 turbines at Fullabrook. Here are their issues with the project.

The efficiency of sea-based windmills is less than land-based wind turbines and they operate at less than 25% efficiency.
It will be situated right in the middle of the Bristol Channel, slap between four Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty – Exmoor, Gower, Pembrokeshire and Lundy. It will cover an area of sea similar in size to the Isle of Wight and effectively block the area to all shipping, both commercial and leisure. What will be the effect on marine and bird life? The effect of changes to the currents and coastal erosion which inevitably will be caused by the enormous turbines? With bases 30m² in diameter from sea floor to surface these will deflect the tide, causing a ‘washing machine’ effect and washing out the sea bed.
It will be far higher than Lundy – Up to 220 m high (Lundy is only 152 metres), visible from 50 miles all around the wind farm. The rotor diameters themselves will be up to 180 meters. It will be seen from the entire coast in this area from Hartland to Porlock, Bridgend to Milford Haven. Inland it will be seen from high points at Bude, Holworthy, Torrington, South Moulton, Hatherford West and almost over to the Rhondda Valley.
Noise is disregarded in the design of off-shore wind turbines. 417 turbines will make an awful lot of noise. How will affect wildlife and coastal residents?
Turbines are to be made in Europe, not the UK, with Chinese steel. Service vessels will operate from Wales. There will be no real North Devon or English jobs resulting from this development.
Plans are directly approved by UK Government, not our local, district and county councils.
It has an estimated cost £4.5 billion, heavily subsidised by tax payers money, resulting in more expensive electricity bills

And that is only Phase One, says the group, which goes on to comment that tide is calculable, measurable, and predictable, both long and short term. Wind is not. The Bristol Channel is one of the most tidal areas of the world. The Channel could be the world’s prime development site for tidal power, thus utilising natural resources without fouling the landscape. As a tidal power research area the Bristol Channel and coastal locations would attract both well paid employment and investment and be in the forefront of international technological developments.

• For or against the Atlantic Array? Comments below, please

Hold on to your hats Experiments in renewable energy are taking place in South Devon....
Green Devon Posted by Cptn Devon initiatives scooped two of the six...
Green Devon Posted by Cptn Devon has shown its environmental credentials by...

Too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables. Time to rethink energy policy!

Giles Chichester — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:00:14 +0000

Windpower is king? ‘it is obviously not a cost effective or efficient source of energy’

This winter as we struggle to heat our homes, we might take comfort from the fact that every unit of electricity we use will contribute to the development of renewable sources of energy.

This tax on electricity bills, the Renewable Obligation (RO), was devised by Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband to provide until 2037 a stealth subsidy to the renewable energy sector. The RO makes it mandatory for power suppliers to buy a percentage of their electricity at a higher price from renewable sources. Currently, this adds 7% to our domestic fuel bills but, if the target to build 10,000 wind turbines in Britain is achieved by 2020, this tax is predicted to increase to 30% and more.

Business also has to pay the RO tax but additionally they pay other green taxes, notably the carbon floor tax. It is levied on businesses, including power stations, and is currently charged at £16 per tonne of carbon emitted. However, over the next nine years, it will gradually increase to £30 per ton. These energy taxes increase the cost of domestic electricity supplied but also levy a crushing cost on our manufacturing industry, making their products less competitive internationally. It is estimated that by 2020, these green taxes will add 33% to industry’s energy costs.

The biggest bite of the Brown/Milliband stealth energy tax subsidies is devoured by the windpower and, increasingly, the solar power sectors.

By 2020, Tony Blair committed us to providing 15% of all our energy from renewables. Coal fired power stations, now providing over 30% of our electricity needs, must be phased out by 2016 and replaced by low carbon producing energy sources. Windpower is king. Anyone criticising their claims to be the solution to our energy needs is ridiculed. We have reason to be sceptical. The industry claims the 10,000 wind turbines to be built at a cost of £200 billion will have capacity to produce 25,000 MW of electricity, but the output measured over 12 months can only achieve 20% of that figure. Add production costs, pylons to link to the national grid and standby generators for when the wind doesn’t blow, and it is obviously not a cost effective or efficient source of energy.

We are on the brink of an energy crisis. Our current energy policy is inadequate and serves to increase the burden on industry, create unemployment and put thousands of households into fuel poverty.

We need to face economic reality and recognise the curbs on our economic growth that we face by following blindly the demands of Labour and the green lobby. The solution to our problems is not to “shop around for a cheaper fuel supplier” but to rethink the need for a new energy policy. Is the answer really “blowing in the wind”?

(image: Some rights reserved by twicepix)

More on renewables If only I had a carbon offset for every environmental...
Energy and Climate Change Committee looks into Euro ‘supergrid’ idea for renewable energy South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has been pushing for...
Feed in Tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy The cut to the Feed in Tariff rate of subsidy...

Home Energy Saving Exhibition in Dawlish

PRSD — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:38:41 +0000

Dawlish: a Home Energy Saving Exhbition is taking place in the town

Dawlish Transition are hosting a Home Energy Saving Exhibition in the town.

The Teignbridge Affordable Warmth Home Energy officer will be on hand with information about grants and low income loans to help with installing energy saving technologies such as loft insulation.

Eco energy businesses have also been invited along.

The exhibition takes place at the Strand Centre on Saturday, October 15 at 11am to 4pm

(image: Some rights reserved by Reading Tom)

Turn the now closed Dawlish recycling centre into a community-run facility, says councillor Dawlish Councillor looks to turn closed Devon County Council recycling...
EDF Energy called to extend Warm Home Discount The South West Green Party has called on the energy...
Anger at plans to close Dawlish recycling centre Dawlish Lib Dem councillor Derek Collins has reacted angrily over...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

China has been more efficient with its energy usage

Giles Chichester — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:17:35 +0000

Light Collector / Sun Valley at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo: energy efficiency is high on the Chinese industry agenda

It’s a common belief in the Western world that a major contributory factor to the growth of Chinese economic superpower status is the fact that their industry does not have to contend with the restrictions enforced by Western nations requiring a cut back on greenhouse gas emissions to address the threat of climate change.

Chinese industry, it is claimed, does not have to bear the costs of cutting emissions and, in consequence, its heavily polluting manufacturing industries can produce goods at lower prices than its Western competitors. Until 2005, this was an accurate assessment of the situation.

However, recent investigations by Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, reveal that since 2005 the Chinese Politburo has demanded its industry cut pollution by making a less energy intensive or more efficient use of energy sources and this is now mandated at a 15.6% annual improvement.

A plethora of initiatives were introduced to jump start this energy saving policy, including the Ten Key Projects with a $8 billion incentive budget and the Top Thousand Enterprise programme which covered 40% of energy consumption. In consequence, it is now believed that energy usage will not continue to grow and greenhouse gas emissions are expected in the 2030s to decline.

This means China is committed to energy efficiency on an unprecedented scale which will have a significant effect not only on combating the challenge of climate change but also indirectly on improving the competitiveness of British industry.

It is to be hoped that China’s energy saving policies will be emulated by India and other developing nations to help secure sustainable global energy supplies and a greener future for the planet. Making more efficient use of energy makes sense.

(from a press release)

(image: Sun Valley at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo funnels sunlight and rain water underground. There is supposedly a large garden underneath it. Some rights reserved by danielfoster437)

Too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables. Time to rethink energy policy! It's time to rethink our energy policy says South West...
Go slow on green energy South West MEP Giles Chichester urges caution when it comes...
Happy Energy! New symbol aims to be universal sign of sustainability Happy Energy is aiming to provide the first unified worldwide...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

EU’s dirty energy imports urgently need to be cleaned and greened

PRSD — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:28:11 +0000

EU Energy policy: “Up until now, the EU’s energy policy beyond its borders has often been a matter of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.”

Commenting on the EU external energy policy paper was published by the European Commission, Liberal Democrat MEP for South West England and Gibraltar Sir Graham Watson, who is also chairman of an international network of legislators working to promote renewable electricity supergrids called the Climate Parliament, said: “Up until now, the EU’s energy policy beyond its borders has often been a matter of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.”

“I welcome this new proposal that will make sure that EU authorities and countries are fully aware of each other’s energy deals with foreign countries.”

“One of the Tory MEPs for the South West – Giles Chichester – thinks it’s the ‘worst kind of meddling‘. Actually, it’s the EU at its best: coordinating 27 different energy policies to together achieve more.”

“But the Commission talks of the ‘urgency’ of putting in place new oil and gas supply routes. This is wrong.

“What is urgent is to rid ourselves of our unhealthy addiction to fossil fuels, and push ahead with the ‘cleaning and greening’ of our energy imports starting, as the Commission rightly says, by making the most of the limitless solar energy of the Sahara desert just across the border.”

(from a press release)

(image: Renewable Energy For The Earth? Abstract Art Some rights reserved by bterrycompton)

Too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables. Time to rethink energy policy! It's time to rethink our energy policy says South West...
Energy and Climate Change Committee looks into Euro ‘supergrid’ idea for renewable energy South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has been pushing for...
Tell Sid, shares to be offered in Totnes Renewable Energy Society! Totnes Renewable Energy Society shares are set to be offered...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

MEP Giles Chichester fights EU proposal to control energy deals

PRSD — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:36:27 +0000

South West MEP Giles Chichester: calls the energy deal proposal ‘the worst kind of meddling’.

Conservative MEPs have vowed to fight a European Commission bid to control and vet all major energy deals between EU states and other countries such as Libya or Russia.

Under new rules proposed by German Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger, European governments negotiating energy agreements with non-EU states would have to submit them to Brussels for approval by the Commission. EU officials are also demanding the right to sit in on negotiations.

MEP Giles Chichester, Conservative spokesperson on energy in the European Parliament, condemned the proposal as ‘the worst kind of meddling’.

He said: “Our energy arrangements are Britain’s own business, not the EU Commission’s. This is an attempt to control and interfere with our individual trading interests on a new and deeply worrying scale. The Commission is up to its old empire-building tricks. The proposals pose all sorts of worrying questions about business confidentiality, commercial sensitivity and the fairness of any bidding process.”

“Russia,” said Giles, “is the EU’s biggest source of gas and several European states including UK are already poised to compete for oil partnerships in the new Libya. Commissioner Oettinger’s scheme could also restrict British exports as a tenth of domestic oil production is currently exported outside the EU. And what about the new Nordstream gas pipeline which will link Russia to Germany?”

Commissioner Oettinger insisted that sweeping new EU powers were needed to ensure deals complied with EU law, especially as energy shortages now exert pressure on governments to accept regulatory concessions.

But Giles said: “It is the worst kind of meddling by the Commission’s control freaks.

“Given the depth of the Eurozone’s currency crisis, you would have thought the Commission would have had other priorities. But Mr Oettinger is fiddling while the Euro burns. This is on a par with the proposal from his predecessor in the Prodi Commission to intervene on oil stocks. Conservatives managed a majority in the Parliament to reject that draft Directive which was a solution looking for a problem that didn’t exist. I hope we won´t have to do it all over again.”

(from a press release)

Long-serving MEP Giles Chichester becomes Parliament’s newest Vice-President South West Conservative MEP Giles Chichester has been elected as...
As MEPs meet to elect their new President, Giles Chichester is certain to lose his position as Vice President Giles Chichester's role as vice president of the European Parliament...
EU’s dirty energy imports urgently need to be cleaned and greened South West MEP Sir Graham Watson has supported the EU...

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh