CHAPTER 2: investments and costs |
The scale of investment required
15. The European Commission indicated in 2010
that, by 2020, investment of around 1 trillion
would be required across the EU's energy system (generation, transmission,
distribution and demand) to replace obsolete capacity, modernise
and adapt infrastructure and to cater for increasing and changing
demand for low carbon energy.
Our witnesses supported this estimate, and it was even described
by Mr Martin Wolf as "rather low" in the context
of the EU's overall economy, a view echoed by EDF. Mr Wolf
estimated the suggested investment to be less than 1% of the EU's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over that period.
Investing in energy at a time
of economic crisis
16. Dr Robert Gross and Bloomberg New Energy
Finance (BNEF) were in agreement that the current economic climate
ought to be a favourable time to raise money cheaply for secure
investments. Mr Wolf
concurred. Both he and Mr Dimitri Zenghelis explained that
there are excess savings "of an extraordinary scale"
in the economy at the moment. According to Mr Zenghelis,
those resources, if invested, could attract a substantial multiplier
effect. Professor David Newbery agreed, observing that holding
other investment constant and increasing energy investment specifically
by shifting to less carbon-intensive solutions should stimulate
an under-employed economy.
17. While the economic crisis has in one way
created an ideal climate for investment, the Commission highlighted
the related sovereign debt problem in EU countries as an obstacle.
Financial institutions had indicated to the Commission that, until
the debt problem was resolved, they would not invest in at least
12 of the 27 Member States.
BNEF warned that regulatory changes to the financial sector introduced
to tackle the crisis, such as the Basel III rules on the amount
of liquidity that must be held,
may restrict the amount of available finance. In its recent Green
Paper on long-term financing of the European economy, the Commission
agreed with this point, highlighting prudential rules for banks
and for the insurance sector as particular obstacles.
As part of the solution to overcoming the economic crisis, the
EU has introduced the European Semester, a system which allows
the Commission to make annual recommendations to Member States
on their economic and fiscal policies. Recommendations are formulated
on the basis of the Commission's annual growth survey, setting
out in general terms the priorities on which Member States should
focus in their economic and fiscal policy. These recommendations
have included energy-related suggestions, particularly on energy
18. We recommend that the Commission includes
energy policy within its annual growth strategy and that Member
States be encouraged, through the European Semester, to consider
how their fiscal policies can contribute to unlocking investment
in the energy sector.
19. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
took the view that meeting the three key energy priorities of
security, decarbonisation and keeping costs competitive was in
itself good for growth: "by investing in energy you do not
just get the general benefits of investing in the economy; you
also get a more growth-positive environment in Europe".
ScottishPower agreed that "efficient investment" in
energy should have a beneficial impact on the economy and create
new jobs, making the distinction that investment in expensive
forms of renewable energy, for example, was less efficient than
investment in cheaper methods.
20. As a sector in which to invest, the Committee
heard from the Commission and others that it can offer steady
returns with low risk and offers a very stable credible yield.
Life times of assets can range from 30 to 60 years.
Mr Zenghelis acknowledged that energy investment was not
a panacea but thought that it was certainly part of the solution.
He observed that investment in infrastructure tended to have a
stronger domestic effect than other investment as "a lot
of it goes into domestic employment and a lot of it goes into
domestic supply chains".
Mr Wolf considered that "it would be incredibly sensible
to focus on investment in general, and energy investment in particular,
as one way of generating growth-oriented policies in the [eurozone]
countries that are now in difficulty".
He argued that, "without a supply of reasonably cheap energy,
future growth will be seriously constrained", an argument
supported by ABB Limited.
This point was further illustrated by an Ernst & Young report
for Energy UK, in which it was noted that "a pound spent
on investment in this sector has a larger indirect effect on the
rest of the economy than most others".
The only note of scepticism was struck by Mr Peter Atherton,
who questioned the contribution that energy investment could make
to boosting growth and argued for better macro-economic analysis
to support the debate about that contribution.
Low carbon energy investment
21. The Committee heard a substantial amount
of evidence to suggest that greater investment in low carbon energy
in particular could add economic value. Various reports, referenced
by our witnesses, have pointed to the added value of wind over
gas. Research by Cambridge Econometrics on behalf of World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) estimated that large-scale investment in offshore wind
energy as opposed to a power system more heavily dependent on
gas would increase UK GDP by 0.8% by 2030 (an additional £20
billion). The added
value to be derived from a technology such as wind energy compared
to gas depends on the level of imported gas, with the advantage
of wind increasing as the proportion of gas that is imported increases.
This was the clear conclusion of an Ernst & Young report for
RenewableUK, which concluded that, in all European countries analysed
(UK, Spain, Portugal, France and Germany), investment in wind
creates more GDP than gas. There was a marked difference, though,
between countries such as France, which imports 98% of its gas,
and the UK, which imports 37% of its gas.
22. According to the Cambridge Econometrics study,
the added value of wind to the economy, compared to gas, also
depended on the location of the wind power equipment supply chain.
The Scientific Alliance observed that wind turbines were
increasingly being sourced from China. Consequently, argued Mr Atherton,
"the vast bulk" of the money spent on the initially
high capital costs (see Appendix 7) to construct wind farms "will
go overseas anyway". Mr Antony Froggatt acknowledged
this issue but emphasised that installation and maintenance would
23. The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) and
EDF believed that low carbon generation has the capacity to deliver
a significant boost to economic growth.
The CBI agreed that an investment benefit could be derived from
investing in low carbon energy domestically rather than fossil
fuels, the prices of which are volatile and are currently rising.
EDF brought to our attention a report by the Institute for Public
Policy Research (IPPR) on behalf of EDF, which found that new
nuclear capacity could boost UK GDP by between 0.04% and 0.34%
per annum for 15 years, depending on the cost and timescale.
24. Sustained competitiveness of the EU economy
requires adequate investment and innovation to facilitate a competitive,
well-priced set of supply-side inputs, such as energy, to a growing
economy. We therefore agree with the evidence presented that
the time is right for infrastructure investment, including in
energy, because it can have a multiplier effect, it can provide
secure energy at a stable cost and it can boost technological
advance. Low carbon generation and system infrastructure in particular
can provide domestic energy production for decades at low and
stable operating costs but at a high capital cost. We conclude
that such investment is particularly appropriate at a time of
historically low interest rates and recession. The potential to
utilise underemployed financial resources, at low financing costs,
while providing a secure indigenous supply for future growth means
that investment, particularly in low carbon energy, could make
a material and enduring contribution to European economic recovery.
25. In terms of jobs, the IPPR report on nuclear
energy estimated that the delivery of additional nuclear energy
capacity could result in an extra 32,500 jobs in the UK. We heard
that the numbers employed in the renewable energy sector across
the EU are predicted to rise to two million by 2020 and to three
million by 2030. In the UK alone, the renewable energy sector
could support 400,000 jobs by 2020 according to the Renewable
26. There is, however, a lack of data on the
extent to which low carbon energy investment can create net new
jobs. On the one hand, the Ernst & Young report cited above
found that wind energy creates 21 job years per million Euros
invested compared to 13 for gas. On the other hand, Scientific
Alliance and Professor Newbery considered that many low carbon
jobs come at the expense of existing ones and may be relatively
short-term in nature, such as the erection of turbines or installation
of insulation. BNEF agreed that jobs in renewable energy tend
to be available during construction but not during the life of
the plant. A wind
turbine manufacturer, Vestas, addressed this issue and drew our
attention to a report
on the employment effects of the operation and maintenance of
offshore wind farms. This found that, if the expected 20.5 gigawatts
(GW) of offshore wind power were to be installed in the UK by
2020, 4,000 long-term jobs would be created, along with a further
3,000 indirect jobs. Most of these jobs would be in economically
fragile coastal areas, where the additional employment would be
27. It was put to us by Mr Stephen Tindale
that "the most sensible job rich approach is energy efficiency"
rather than renewable energy. BNEF and the Commission agreed that
energy efficiency could be an important source of new jobs, although
they offered no analysis as to the extent to which they might
be net new jobs.
The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE)
and Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) did not discuss
jobs specifically, but considered that further stimulation of
energy efficiency has the potential to maintain a significant
contribution to economic growth.
Dr Karsten Neuhoff added that grid infrastructure development,
leading to greater connectivity, could have a positive impact
28. Investment in low carbon energy will undoubtedly
create jobs, but we caution that the case is not yet clear as
to the extent to which net new jobs will be generated in the EU.
We recognise the significant job creation potential of energy
efficiency and energy connectivity developments.
29. As highlighted in paragraph 15 above, at
least 1 trillion needs to be invested in the EU's energy
system over the period to 2020. It was clear from our witnesses
that the bulk of that would need to be sourced from the financial
markets, with an important leveraging role for the public sector.
30. We heard that the investment challenge is
an issue relating not to finance, but to risk. The Commission
has indicated that institutional investors
hold an estimated total of 13.8 trillion of assets.
Financing is therefore theoretically available, but there is caution
The CBI noted that money was available on the global financial
markets, but the challenge was to attract it to the UK and EU.
Mr Atherton warned that the share prices of European utilities
had tumbled since 2008 (see Appendix 5) and planned capital expenditure
by utilities companies was low, which was confirmed by the energy
industry. ScottishPower told us, for example, that its parent
company, Iberdrola, had committed to investing £3.5 billion
in the UK, an amount which represented 42% of its global investment
over the period 2012-14. While helpful, this did not amount to
the "many billions of pounds", which ScottishPower acknowledged
were required from the investment community.
31. According to Mr Atherton, bonds were
particularly important due to reduced capital expenditure by industry.
BNEF and Mr Wolf noted that pension and bond funds were keen
to identify investments yielding more than the maximum 2% currently
available for 10 year UK Government bonds, although pension funds
lacked appropriate knowledge. It was considered that policy makers
could make it easier for the industry to construct bonds and pool
investments. In its
Green Paper on long-term investment, the Commission also observed
that there was a lack of skills to support investment decisions
and suggested that it may be necessary to consider initiatives
designed to pool financial resources and to structure financing
packages according to different phases of risks.
New long term investment funds could be of some assistance in
32. The importance of using public funds to engage
in risk sharing in order to leverage private investment was highlighted.
Mr Froggatt asserted that "how the EU and Member States
can use their funds in a coherent way to leverage greater investment"
would be crucial.
According to witnesses, this could be through European Investment
Bank (EIB) lending and the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
Both the European Network of Transmission System Operators for
Electricity (ENTSO-E) and Mr Wolf observed that the EIB can
offer comfort to investors and encourage engagement in higher
33. The EIB signed loans in 2011 for energy and
energy-related lending of 12.8 billion. Since then, it has
been decided to increase the Bank's capital by 10 billion,
allowing it to spend an additional 20 billion in each of
the next three years. Its priorities derive from the policy priorities
of the Member States. One of the six priorities is a competitive
and secure energy supply. In addition, 25% of its lending should
be towards climate action, which includes renewable energy. Any
coal plants financed must be capable of being retro-fitted with
carbon capture and storage (CCS) (see Chapter 3 and Appendix 4).
A policy consultation on the EIB's criteria for supporting fossil
fuel-fired generation is currently underway, a development which
was welcomed by WWF.
34. Some of our witnesses considered that the
EIB could make an important contribution through the new Project
Bonds Initiative (see Box 2).
While acknowledging that this was still at an early stage, the
EIB confirmed interest by a number of institutional investors,
notably pension funds and insurance companies. The EIB was confident
that the degree of credit enhancement available would be sufficient
to take a project with a borderline investment grade
(such as BBB) to a higher grade, "so achieve a two to three-notch"
uplift in the credit quality of those bonds. Evidence suggests
that a single A rating is the "sweet spot" in terms
of the balance between risk and reward for the institutions. Initial
projects under the pilot phase would be limited by the relatively
small amount of available Commission funding and by the requirement
that projects be completed by the end of the pilot phase.
EU Project Bonds Initiative
A pilot phase (2012-13) of the Project Bonds Initiative
was agreed by the European Parliament and Council in July 2012.
Project Bonds are private debt issued by the sponsor(s) of a projecteither
a private company or a 'special purpose vehicle', created by one
or more companies to finance a specific project. The EU project
bonds initiative will provide credit enhancement for projects
in order to make it easier for their sponsor(s) to attract private
The debt issued by the sponsor(s) will consist of
both 'senior' and 'subordinated' tranches of debt. Initial losses
will be incurred on subordinated debt and it has been decided
that the EIB will take up the subordinated debt, up to the value
of 20% of the senior debt. The credit standing of the senior debt
is in this way enhanced because it carries less risk. The EIB's
contribution will be supported by a contribution from the EU budget.
In the energy sector, that will amount to a total of 10
million, from which the EIB can then raise a further 120-140
If successful, the pilot phase will be followed by
an operational phase during 2014-2020 under the EU's CEF at a
35. The CEF is the EU's new instrument over the
period 2014-20 to finance new energy, transport and telecommunications
infrastructure identified as Projects of Common Interest (PCI).
At the European Council meeting of 7-8 February 2013, it was agreed
that the budget for PCI in the energy sector over the period 2014-20
will be 5.1 billion. The Secretary of State for Energy and
Climate Change, the Rt Hon Mr Edward Davey MP, expressed
satisfaction with this decision, though it should be noted that
spending for 2014-20 might still be agreed between the Council
and the European Parliament.
This funding will partly support the operational phase of project
bonds (see Box 2), but will also support grants and other financial
instruments. Several of our witnesses identified the CEF as very
important, but Dr Neuhoff warned that its relatively modest
size suggested that it should focus on innovative projects.
36. A number of obstacles to the provision of
finance were raised. The most significant of those was considered
to be uncertainty over the future direction of EU energy and climate
policy. According to witnesses, investment would not be forthcoming
without some clarity as to what policies the EU would put in place
beyond 2020. Mr Zenghelis
emphasised that the policy framework must also be credible to
the private sector in order to ensure confidence in the framework.
37. Inconsistency by governments in regard to
the fiscal environment was an additional aspect of uncertainty
raised by Mr Wolf.
The UK Government taxed oil companies making what the public considered
to be excess profits when bills were also rising.
U-turns in Spain and Bulgaria in relation to financial support
to the solar industry were other examples of governments causing
As a result, Mr Atherton argued that investors were now suspicious
that future governments may choose to continue this destabilising
38. We conclude that there is a crisis of
investment, which needs to be overcome if the estimated 1
trillion of investment required in the EU's energy system to 2020
is to be released. The balance sheets of utility companies have
slumped. Public funding can make a small but catalytic contribution.
The bulk of the financing will therefore rely on institutional
39. We recommend that the Commission and Member
States work urgently with investors, including pension funds,
to ensure their awareness of the opportunities, to identify obstacles
and to propose solutions, such as the development of instruments
to allow the pooling of resources in order to mitigate risk and
encourage investment. Initiatives such as the EIB's Project Bond
Initiative should be appropriately financed and promoted within
the investment community. The EIB has a particular role in that
promotion, but responsibility falls also to the Commission and
40. It is evident to us that a clear and credible
EU energy and climate change policy through to 2030 is a pre-requisite
for attracting investment and must therefore be adopted as a matter
of urgency. Failure to invest, or investment at high financing
costs due to perceived policy risk, could push up the overall
cost of energy to consumers.
Costs and pricing
41. The Commission was clear that there was growing
political interest in energy prices as a factor in competitiveness,
a position reflected in the Conclusions of the March 2013 European
Council. It has also
risen to political prominence recently in light of the fall of
the Bulgarian government, a consequence of high energy costs.
42. Comparing the energy costs of different technologies
is complex. Nevertheless, a 'levelised cost' can be established,
representing the average cost over the lifetime of a plant, per
megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated. This takes into
account the fact that certain technologies, such as renewable
energies and nuclear, are capital intensive while others, such
as coal and gas, are fuel-intensive. These calculations are based
on a high degree of uncertainty but they are nevertheless helpful
to illustrate potential trends between technologies. Recent levelised
costs published by the UK Government are set out in Appendix 7.
43. Key uncertainties in the levelised costs
include the cost of fuel and capital. The IEA found in its World
Energy Outlook 2012 that fossil fuel price rises would be likely
over the period to 2035 in a Business as Usual scenario, and that
they would be likely to stabilise if a low carbon path is taken.
Similarly, the cost of capital will depend on the cost of lending
to support the investment, a particularly important concern for
renewable and nuclear energy. We were told that the extremely
low running costs of nuclear and renewable energy mean that, in
short-run competitive markets, they can induce periods of very
low wholesale energy prices when the output from low carbon sources
is sufficient to meet all electricity demand. This is known as
the merit order effect.
Whilst an attractive proposition for consumers, this in turn risks
undermining the investment case.
44. It was clear from our evidence that costs
evolve with innovation and industrial development, as illustrated
dramatically by the swift expansion of shale gas exploitation
in the US (see paragraphs 8 and 73). US gas prices dropped from
a June 2008 high of $12.69 per million BTUs
to a low of $1.95 in April 2012, and had risen to $3.33 by February
2013. We heard from
BNEF that industrial development has led to a 50% reduction in
solar photovoltaic costs over the last three years. The offshore
wind industry is confident that it can reach a levelised cost
of £100 per MWh (see paragraph 42 above) for projects contracting
in 2020, from a price of around £130-140 per MWh at current
prices. That objective assumes further technological development
and the creation of a stable market and regulatory environment.
45. Some witnesses considered that, while the
internal market was containing prices, bills were likely to rise,
at least in the short-term. The extent of that rise would be dependent
on a range of factors, including energy mix, but particularly
on the ability to attract low cost investment into the energy
system and on levels of energy efficiency. Sir Donald Miller
warned of consumer bill rises of up to 58% by 2020 if no changes
were made to energy policy.
Statistics on energy prices across the EU are only available until
the second half of 2011 (see Appendix 8). They demonstrate that
prices paid by industrial customers were significantly lower than
those paid by domestic customers, a point highlighted to us by
Mr Froggatt in relation to Germany.
The levels of taxes applied had a significant impact on the differences
between Member States.
46. All of the Commission's Energy Roadmap 2050
scenarios involve a substantial move towards renewable energy.
It is therefore interesting to assess the German experience, as
Germany is already moving in that direction. Germany subsidises
producers of renewable energy such as solar and wind power in
part by imposing a supplement on household electricity bills.
As the industry has grown, demand for the subsidy has increased,
driving the surcharge up. In January 2013, the surcharge, which
amounts to about 14% of electricity prices, almost doubled to
5.28 per kilowatt hour (KWh). The German government has
proposed to put a cap on this surcharge until the end of 2014
and then restrict any rise in the surcharge after that to no more
than 2.5% a year. It also plans to tighten exemptions, which would
force more companies to pay the surcharge, thus helping to balance
out the burden between industry and consumers.
Dr Neuhoff explained that, in 2013, German consumers "will
pay on average about 2.5% of their expenditure bill for their
power", compared to an average expenditure of 2.3% for power
in the mid-1980s.
47. In examining the extent to which industrial
and consumer bills may need to rise, we noted that fossil fuel
and network costs still account for the great majority of the
electricity price in almost all Member States (see Appendix 8).
This demonstrates that the price of the commodity affects the
majority of the bill, with the remainder consisting of costs to
cover distribution, transmission, storage and margin. If, therefore,
surcharges were to be applied to bills to cover the costs of a
transition to greater renewable energy or development of CCS,
its impact would be small compared to the impact of changes in
commodity prices. A number of witnesses emphasised that a move
towards low carbon generation and away from volatile fossil fuels
could certainly stabilise bills rather than force increases,
particularly if the costs of extraction of fossil fuels rose dramatically
in future years.
WWF cited a study by Oxford Economics for the Department of Energy
and Climate Change (DECC), which found that the impact on UK economic
output from fossil fuel price shocks could be reduced by around
60% in 2050 through the introduction of climate policies, such
as a greater focus on energy efficiency and the large-scale deployment
of renewable energy.
48. The risk of fuel poverty
as a result of rising energy bills was explored with some witnesses.
The Commission was clear that the issue "fully justifies"
Member State intervention. Indeed, EU internal energy market legislation
allows Member States to define vulnerable groups of consumers
and to regulate prices for those consumers. Several witnesses
pointed to energy efficiency as an important part of the solution
to fuel poverty.
In its Energy Roadmap 2050, the Commission noted that specific
measures needed to be defined at national and local levels to
avoid energy poverty. One such example was that of Flanders, where
consumers unable to pay their energy bills are supplied by the
energy distributors on the basis of an agreed payment plan.
49. Energy pricing is, rightly, attracting
attention as a factor of competitiveness and affordable energy
should certainly be a goal of policy makers. The impact of the
required energy transformation on retail bills, for industry and
consumers, is uncertain. Ultimately, retail bills depend on a
combination of taxation, energy efficiency and, most significantly,
potentially volatile energy costs driven by business cycles and
uncertainty. Policy makers cannot totally control volatility but
their actions can mitigate its impact. We consider that bills
are more likely to increase long-term if delays in developing
a clear policy framework fail to ensure adequate and timely investment,
including and particularly relating to low carbon sources which
do not depend on global fossil fuel markets.
50. Failure to stabilise bills
could provoke a serious political backlash. This underlines
the need for governments and energy suppliers to convey a transparent
and credible narrative to their consumers about the objectives
of energy policy. As recommended by the Commission, specific measures
must be defined at national and local levels to tackle fuel poverty.
20 1 trillion=1,000,000,000,000 Back
COM(2010) 639 Back
Q 57, Q 178, Q 194, Q 211, DECC Back
Q 94, Q 176 Back
QQ 206-207, Professor David Newbery Back
Q 265 Back
Basel III: International framework for liquidity risk measurement,
standards and monitoring, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,
December 2010 Back
COM(2013) 150 Back
Q 179, Q 236 Back
Q 305 Back
Q 189, Q 192 Back
Q 64, Q 182, EESC, SEC(2011) 1565 Back
Q 209, Q 216 Back
Q 217 Back
Q 208, ABB Limited Back
Powering the UK: Investing for the future of the Energy Sector
and the UK, Ernst & Young, 2012, a report for Energy UK Back
Q 176 Back
A Study into the Economics of Gas and Offshore Wind, Cambridge
Econometrics, November 2012, a report for Greenpeace and WWF-UK Back
Analysis of the value creation potential of wind energy policies:
A comparative study of the macroeconomic benefits of wind and
CCGT power generation, Ernst & Young, July 2012 Back
op. cit. Back
Q 44, Q 176, Scientific Alliance Back
Q 189, ETI Back
Q 305, Q 321 Back
Benefits from Infrastructure Investment: A Case Study in Nuclear
Energy, IPPR Trading Ltd, June 2012, a report for EDF Back
Renewable Energy-Made in Britain, Renewable Energy Association,
Professor David Newbery, Scientific Alliance Back
Analysis of the Employment Effects of the operation and maintenance
of Offshore Wind Parks in the UK, Oxford Economics, June 2010,
a report for Vestas Offshore Back
Q 7, Q 64, BNEF Back
CIBSE, IET Back
Q 8 Back
Life insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds and endowments Back
COM(2013) 150 Back
Q 179, Q 292, ETI Back
Q 305 Back
Q 172, ScottishPower supplementary evidence Back
Q 179 Back
Q 182, Q 211 Back
COM(2013) 150 Back
Q 57 Back
Q 20, Q 49, Q 66, Q 170, Q 219, Q 237, Q 293 Back
Q 161, Q 316 Back
Q 20, Q 166, Q 237 Back
Credit ratings are opinions about credit risk published by a rating
agency. Investment grades range from BBB- to AAA, with the latter
being the highest rating and most likely to attract investment Back
QQ 165-166 Back
Q 166, Council of the European Union Memo 12331/12 Back
Regulation 670/2012 Back
Q 359 Back
Q 20, Q 49, Q 237, Q 330, EESC, Dr Karsten Neuhoff supplementary
Q 2, Q 189, Q 190, Q 192, Q 211, Q 315, CER, DECC, ETI, WWF Back
Q 209 Back
Q 211 Back
For example, March 2011 increase in the UK's supplementary charge
on oil and gas profits Back
Q 176, Q 189, Q 197, Q 262 Back
Q 183 Back
Q 216, European Council Conclusions 14-15 March 2013 Back
Bulgarian government resigns amid protests over high electricity
costs, The Guardian, 20 February 2013; Back
Q 94, RenewableUK, Fiona Hall MEP Back
British Thermal Units (worldwide measurement of gas) Back
Henry Hub Gold Coast Natural Gas Spot Price, US
Energy Information Administration Back
EIT, IET, Vestas Back
Q 60, Q 94, Q 194, Q 321, CIBSE, IET, Sir Donald Miller, Oil &
Gas UK Back
Q 36 Back
Germany to curb green energy supports, Energy Market Price.com,
15 February 2013 Back
Q 5 Back
Q 94, EDF, SSE, WWF Back
Q 57, Q 89, Q 267, DECC, EDF, Fiona Hall MEP, SSE, WWF Back
Fossil fuel price shocks and a low carbon economy, Oxford
Economics, December 2011, a report for DECC Back
A household is currently said by DECC to be in fuel poverty if
it needs to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain
a satisfactory heating regime Back
Q 7, Q 23, Q 260, Q 379, E.ON supplementary evidence Back
An introduction to fuel poverty in Belgium, EU Fuel Poverty
Network, 2 November 2012 Back