'Commenting on an open letter sent August 27 by the Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho to the Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh on a report on energy costs published by Onward last week, RenewableUK’s CEO Tara Singh said:
'I’m disappointed to be deliberately misquoted by the Conservatives. The claim that I said Onward’s plan saves £300 billion is completely false. I am always eager to debate energy policy on its merits, but Claire should correct her letter to the Energy Secretary rather than misrepresent a public post that anyone can read for themselves.
'Let’s set the record straight: £320 billion is Onward’s claimed saving, not mine. I wrote an open LinkedIn post asking energy experts to sense-check several assumptions in Onward’s model that looked strange to me. One specific point I made was that Onward’s unrealistic gas-price and power-plant cost assumptions alone inflated their numbers by around £30 billion. Somehow, Claire took my observation about a £30 billion discrepancy and twisted it into me endorsing the rest of their £320 billion figure. I said nothing of the sort.
'Having now examined Onward's analysis in much greater detail, the flaws in their headline £320 billion claim are far bigger than just gas:
- Underestimating gas costs: Onward relies on low gas prices (~70p/therm) and build costs (£650/kW) far below DESNZ evidence (£1,000–£1,500/kW). Using realistic market figures alone knocks around £30 billion off their headline saving.
- Unrealistic nuclear savings: assuming nuclear generation costs will drop from ~£150/MWh at Sizewell C to roughly £108/MWh for future builds is extraordinarily optimistic. If those savings fail to materialize, adding 7GW of nuclear will require £16 – £20 billion more capital than assumed.
- Questionable carbon tax claims: around £94 billion - 29% of the entire claimed saving - comes from pulling the power sector out of the UK ETS. Beyond potential conflicts with the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, simply erasing carbon-tax revenue isn't a genuine saving to the UK economy.
- Unrealistic network cuts: the largest slice - £137 billion (43%) - assumes vastly reduced grid investment. Yet Onward still projects massive growth in EVs, heat pumps, nuclear, and data centres. With Energy Networks Association data showing ~80% of post-2030 network expenditure goes toward maintaining existing infrastructure rather than expansion, these claimed savings don't match operational reality.
- Hidden fossil fuel costs: The model makes the electricity grid look cheaper partly by electrifying less, assuming 10 million fewer EVs by 2050. But it leaves the petrol and diesel motorists would have to buy instead outside the model. We estimate that omitted fuel bill alone costs drivers £65 - £95 billion between 2030 and 2050.
- Flawed System Modelling: Deeper analysis reveals low wind capacity-factor assumptions, battery storage effectively disappearing, zero new interconnectors after 2030, and a modelling approach that penalizes renewables with double-counted grid and constraint costs.
'?I am very happy to engage with the substance of the report as energy policy is always a question of understanding sometimes different assumptions. But I don't appreciate being deliberately weaponised and ask the Shadow Energy Secretary to retract this claim'.
Source: RenewableUK
