A Labour government would not only lift the de facto ban on onshore wind farms in England but also force councils to “proactively identify” areas suitable for renewable generation, leader Sir Keir Starmer has announced.
Asked what would happen if a community did not want new onshore wind or solar power plants, Starmer told the BBC on Monday: “We have to have a mechanism where we can move forward.
“Otherwise you get to a situation where everybody says ‘there ought to be more renewables . . . but I just don’t want it near me’. We have to have a situation where we can resolve that.”
The Labour leader is in Edinburgh on Monday to announce a package of green policies that his party would adopt if it wins the general election, which is expected next year.
Labour had previously intended to borrow £28bn a year to spend on the transition to a net zero emissions economy but earlier this month said the figure would not be reached until halfway through the next five-year parliament.
Starmer has also announced that a proposed state-owned energy company called Great British Energy will be based in Scotland under a Labour government.
The party leader will on Monday emphasise how renewable energy projects could produce revenue that local authorities could use to cut council tax or invest in improving public services.
He has promised to use the net zero strategy to deliver investment “in the UK’s industrial heartlands”, in line with similar debt-fuelled green plans from US president Joe Biden.
“The whole world knows that the future of power is bound up with renewables,” he told the Radio 4 Today programme. “Look at what’s happening in America with the Inflation Reduction Act — it’s like a magnet for business and for investment. We can’t sit this out.”
Labour has committed to a target of Britain producing all of its electricity from low-carbon sources — such as nuclear, solar and wind — by 2030, an ambition seen as over-optimistic by many senior industry figures.
“That [target] will put us ahead of the world in developed economies, that is a massive plan,” he said. “Nobody in the sector is saying it’s not ambitious enough, if anything they are saying ‘it’s just about doable Keir but we’d have to work hard . . . and you’re going to have to take some tough decisions in relation to planning and the grid.”
The Labour leadership has faced a backlash from the oil industry and some trade unions for its pledge, first announced in November 2022, to stop granting new licences for the development of North Sea oil and gasfields.
However, under the policy Labour would not cancel existing licences in place at the time of the election. “Oil and gas will be part of the mix for decades to come under existing licences or licences that are granted in the near future,” Starmer said.
Equinor, the Norwegian state-owned energy company, is expecting approval for its Rosebank oilfield within weeks.
David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies, a body representing the UK offshore energies industry, told the BBC that the Labour plan would “create a cliff edge” for businesses, given that 180 of the North Sea’s active 283 fields are due to close by 2030.
But Philip Evans, a campaigner for Greenpeace, said the idea that ending new licences would “lead to an overnight shutdown of the industry” was merely a “scare story”.
I work very closely in renewables. The state in England is laughable, far too much NIMBY. They installed a turbine at Avonmouth, celebrate it as the biggest onshore yet, but it's tiny compared to Scotland.
However, it must be said that these are all commercial enterprises. They don't exist to be green, they are private businesses that exist to make money.
Aside from places like Awel Aman Tawe. That was a nice community funded twin turbine windfarm where all the money went to the local community. They had a local rugby player kick a ball over the blades to open it, and they have school groups visit with this janky exercise bike that kids can peddle to light a bulb or charge their phone.
But the rest of them are all about money. They should pay back more to community. They shouldn't be used as a selling point so you can pay more for your electricity while the provider is in fact paying less by getting the cheapest energy produced on the market.
The disassociation between generation and consumption in commercial markets only means that end users pay far more than they should.
That's capitalism though isn't it? All electricity generation exists in order to make money
Indeed it does. And in fact, renewable generation is some of the cheapest on the generation market - it is highly competitive while still being insanely profitable (fuel is by far the biggest cost over the total life of a traditional generator, and renewables have no fuel cost). My biggest issue is that this is not reflected at all in the consumer market - all of the savings is taken away from the consumer, who continues to pay ever increasing prices.