This is a very interesting article, but assumes rather too much. For example, the assumption that CfD contracts would simply be ripped up is a stretch. Reform have been very careful to say that it's only AR7 and beyond that are under threat (and these generators would not be protected by the Energy Charter Treaty).
Similarly the claim that "the transition’s long-run logic is sound" is a statement of faith not of rationality. The painful fact is that the costs of the transition far outweigh the benefits.
Hi Andrew…Thank you for the thoughtful comment — genuinely appreciated when readers engage at this level.
On CfDs: You’re right that Reform has focused its warnings on AR7 and future rounds. My point was broader: existing CfD contracts (pre-AR7) are legally binding private-law agreements under the Energy Act 2013 framework. Even full repeal wouldn’t automatically cancel them — it would likely involve compensation, breach claims, or messy litigation. The Energy Charter Treaty adds another significant layer for many foreign-backed projects through its 20-year sunset clause. The practical unwind is slower and messier than some rhetoric suggests — that’s central to the article’s argument about honest accounting.
On the long-run logic: This is the deeper disagreement, and a fair challenge. I stand by the sentence in context: once capital costs are sunk, domestic renewables (with CfDs stabilising revenue) are often cheaper at the margin than volatile global gas, visible in recent generation shares and merit-order effects. But I agree this can sound like an article of faith if not caveated.
The article explicitly critiques the journey — dishonest cost disclosure, regressive bill impacts, foreign dividend extraction, institutional self-reinforcement, and suppressed debate on trade-offs. I don’t claim net costs are trivial or that every deployment has been optimal. Independent analyses differ sharply on whether societal benefits outweigh the costs over decades.
My core claim is that the destination (lower long-term import reliance via a diversified low-carbon mix) has a sound economic security logic if and only if managed with transparent costing, better sequencing, and without the self-justifying loop the series describes. Reasonable people can disagree on the net ledger.
The practical unwind *may* be slow - you are right about the CfD contracts and the ECT. But there may be ways around this, at least for parts of the renewables fleet.
I'm not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that is worth the time of day (apart from my own😀). The official ones use fake costs and a fake "carbon" cost (the target consistent price).
Thank you for your detailed comment on Part Three — and for the additional offline observations. We would be happy to engage further offline.
You are right that the practical unwind may be slow, given the CfD contracts and the ECT. Targeted approaches for parts of the renewables fleet — such as maturing contracts, voluntary renegotiations, or selective non-renewals — may offer some flexibility.
Your insightful observations on the shortcomings of official cost-benefit analyses, particularly their use of target-consistent carbon pricing, are much appreciated.
Article Four of the series, The Costs Parliament Was Not Shown, will be published tomorrow morning, Tuesday 16 June at 8am. It examines three further fiscal consequences that were absent from the June 3 parliamentary vote.
We value your continued engagement with the series.
The practical unwind *may* be slow - you are right about the CfD contracts and the ECT. But there may be ways around this, at least for parts of the renewables fleet.
I'm not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that is worth the time of day (apart from my own😀). The official ones use fake costs and a fake "carbon" cost (the target consistent price).
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
We’ve landed in a situation that. as you’ve said. will be very difficult to get out of. We need to make a start, any sort of start.
My great grandmother was born in the 1830’s still coming out of the little ice age.
There are many things I don’t know -
When and why was the little ice age supposed to end (1850-why?)?
What is the ideal climate ‘ “The best of all possible worlds” ?
Why make the perfect (net zero) be the enemy of the good?
Why are only one group of scientists believed to the exclusion of all other scientific opinion (and Peter Lilly)?
Too many questions to list here. The problem is that the BBC does not seem to question anything.
If I had decided to build a service station at the end of a motorway that hadn’t been constructed yet, I would not expect anyone to compensate me for not having any passing traffic. I am of course referring to constraint payments.
Surely there is a way to tax these companies (like the windfall tax on oil companies) that make profits when they built these windmills before the infrastructure was ready.
Perhaps we have the government that we deserve but it just feels like a conspiracy. Where were the cautious people or at the end of the day is it just the madness of crowds.
The conversation and examination have never happened - deliberately. Decarbonisation started by elites (Rockefellers. Kissinger, Maurice Strong, Club of Rome, UN Environment Programme etc.) - started deliberately. The ruin of ordinary people's lives - deliberate. Of course it will cost money to implement policies that encourage cheap energy, because a lot of money was spent (international NGOs, conferences, corrupt climate science, universities, mass media etc.) on ending the use of cheap energy. But as the old phrase has it: 'Better late than never.' So if we ever get a government with the repeal of all climate legislation and breach/termination of renewables contracts in its manifesto, I will wish them luck.
Thank you for following the money. Hopefully, your work will promote the long-awaited conversation and examination.
The contract holders are the citizens of the United Kingdom, via the elected assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and the Houses of Parliament in London.
The various contracts negotiated via NGOs on behalf of the electorate have deliberately either withheld costing information or been utterly incompetent.
This surely means there are no valid contracts.
Further, the select group of no more than a few hundred individuals have left themselves wide open to demands for transparency - which given what has taken place since 2008, means they are compromised.
The State can no longer hide anything.
No other country in the world has set up such a mechanism to defund its own people only for the benefit of entities outside the country. It is the most astounding 'open border' project yet.
It suggests all who were part of this have received cash, or were misled.
This is a very interesting article, but assumes rather too much. For example, the assumption that CfD contracts would simply be ripped up is a stretch. Reform have been very careful to say that it's only AR7 and beyond that are under threat (and these generators would not be protected by the Energy Charter Treaty).
Similarly the claim that "the transition’s long-run logic is sound" is a statement of faith not of rationality. The painful fact is that the costs of the transition far outweigh the benefits.
Hi Andrew…Thank you for the thoughtful comment — genuinely appreciated when readers engage at this level.
On CfDs: You’re right that Reform has focused its warnings on AR7 and future rounds. My point was broader: existing CfD contracts (pre-AR7) are legally binding private-law agreements under the Energy Act 2013 framework. Even full repeal wouldn’t automatically cancel them — it would likely involve compensation, breach claims, or messy litigation. The Energy Charter Treaty adds another significant layer for many foreign-backed projects through its 20-year sunset clause. The practical unwind is slower and messier than some rhetoric suggests — that’s central to the article’s argument about honest accounting.
On the long-run logic: This is the deeper disagreement, and a fair challenge. I stand by the sentence in context: once capital costs are sunk, domestic renewables (with CfDs stabilising revenue) are often cheaper at the margin than volatile global gas, visible in recent generation shares and merit-order effects. But I agree this can sound like an article of faith if not caveated.
The article explicitly critiques the journey — dishonest cost disclosure, regressive bill impacts, foreign dividend extraction, institutional self-reinforcement, and suppressed debate on trade-offs. I don’t claim net costs are trivial or that every deployment has been optimal. Independent analyses differ sharply on whether societal benefits outweigh the costs over decades.
My core claim is that the destination (lower long-term import reliance via a diversified low-carbon mix) has a sound economic security logic if and only if managed with transparent costing, better sequencing, and without the self-justifying loop the series describes. Reasonable people can disagree on the net ledger.
Happy to discuss specifics or sources further
The Rationals.
The practical unwind *may* be slow - you are right about the CfD contracts and the ECT. But there may be ways around this, at least for parts of the renewables fleet.
I'm not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that is worth the time of day (apart from my own😀). The official ones use fake costs and a fake "carbon" cost (the target consistent price).
Andrew,
Thank you for your detailed comment on Part Three — and for the additional offline observations. We would be happy to engage further offline.
You are right that the practical unwind may be slow, given the CfD contracts and the ECT. Targeted approaches for parts of the renewables fleet — such as maturing contracts, voluntary renegotiations, or selective non-renewals — may offer some flexibility.
Your insightful observations on the shortcomings of official cost-benefit analyses, particularly their use of target-consistent carbon pricing, are much appreciated.
Article Four of the series, The Costs Parliament Was Not Shown, will be published tomorrow morning, Tuesday 16 June at 8am. It examines three further fiscal consequences that were absent from the June 3 parliamentary vote.
We value your continued engagement with the series.
The Rationals
Drop me a line at Net Zero Watch if you'd like to engage offline.
The practical unwind *may* be slow - you are right about the CfD contracts and the ECT. But there may be ways around this, at least for parts of the renewables fleet.
I'm not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that is worth the time of day (apart from my own😀). The official ones use fake costs and a fake "carbon" cost (the target consistent price).
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
We’ve landed in a situation that. as you’ve said. will be very difficult to get out of. We need to make a start, any sort of start.
My great grandmother was born in the 1830’s still coming out of the little ice age.
There are many things I don’t know -
When and why was the little ice age supposed to end (1850-why?)?
What is the ideal climate ‘ “The best of all possible worlds” ?
Why make the perfect (net zero) be the enemy of the good?
Why are only one group of scientists believed to the exclusion of all other scientific opinion (and Peter Lilly)?
Too many questions to list here. The problem is that the BBC does not seem to question anything.
If I had decided to build a service station at the end of a motorway that hadn’t been constructed yet, I would not expect anyone to compensate me for not having any passing traffic. I am of course referring to constraint payments.
Surely there is a way to tax these companies (like the windfall tax on oil companies) that make profits when they built these windmills before the infrastructure was ready.
Perhaps we have the government that we deserve but it just feels like a conspiracy. Where were the cautious people or at the end of the day is it just the madness of crowds.
The conversation and examination have never happened - deliberately. Decarbonisation started by elites (Rockefellers. Kissinger, Maurice Strong, Club of Rome, UN Environment Programme etc.) - started deliberately. The ruin of ordinary people's lives - deliberate. Of course it will cost money to implement policies that encourage cheap energy, because a lot of money was spent (international NGOs, conferences, corrupt climate science, universities, mass media etc.) on ending the use of cheap energy. But as the old phrase has it: 'Better late than never.' So if we ever get a government with the repeal of all climate legislation and breach/termination of renewables contracts in its manifesto, I will wish them luck.
Thank you for following the money. Hopefully, your work will promote the long-awaited conversation and examination.
Wow.
Several rather awkward questions arise....
The contract holders are the citizens of the United Kingdom, via the elected assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and the Houses of Parliament in London.
The various contracts negotiated via NGOs on behalf of the electorate have deliberately either withheld costing information or been utterly incompetent.
This surely means there are no valid contracts.
Further, the select group of no more than a few hundred individuals have left themselves wide open to demands for transparency - which given what has taken place since 2008, means they are compromised.
The State can no longer hide anything.
No other country in the world has set up such a mechanism to defund its own people only for the benefit of entities outside the country. It is the most astounding 'open border' project yet.
It suggests all who were part of this have received cash, or were misled.