Correspondence Between the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and Various Publications (CE 36)

Correspondence between the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and various publications (CE 36) (CE 36a) Letter fro m the Cha ir to the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, The Observer, The Times, The Sun, The Sun on Sunday, the Sunday Express, the Sunday Mirror, The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times Concerns have been raised in evidence to the Committee’s inquiry into Consumer Engagement with Energy Markets that inaccurate reporting of the costs of ‘green’ energy policies, as levied on domestic energy bills, may be misleading the public. The Committee would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to these concerns in writing. For exa mp le, Carbon Brief, stated in its written evidence: Over the past nine months we have followed and analysed media coverage of ‘green’ policy measures and their impact on domestic energy bills in some detail. In particular, we have noted a series of newspaper articles which overstate the current impact of green policies (or ‘environmental and social costs’) on energy bills. Some appear to be the result of simple errors (for example, confusing electricity prices with energy bills, or ignoring the impact of gas prices on bills), others are the result of research being reported in a what seems to us a highly partial or selective way.1 This view was supported by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which stated that the impact of environmental and social policies in household energy bills had been “exaggerated” by some media reports when in fact the “costs of these policies represent around 7% of the current average household dual fuel bill”. 2 Ofgem analysis shows that Government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and tackle climate change currently make up around 4% of gas bills and 10% of electricity bills, 3 and that “higher gas prices have been the main driver of increasing energy bills over the last eight years.” 4 Similarly, Committee on Climate Change analysis has shown that “it is not the case that energy bills are currently high due to costs of low-carbon measures”, with the £455 increase in household energy bills between 2004 to 2010 being “primarily in response to increased wholesale gas costs”. 5 On future costs, the CCC has also found that “it is not the case that future investments in low-carbon capacity will drive very dramatic increases in energy bills by 2020”. 6 1 CE 23 paras 1 and 2 (Carbon Brief) written evidence to the Committee, March 2012. 2 CE 01, para 44 (DECC) written evidence to the Committee, March 2012. 3 Ofgem Updated household energy bills explained (31/ 05/ 12) Factsheet 97 4 Ofgem Why are energy prices rising? (14/ 10/ 11) Factsheet 108 5 Committee on Climate Change (December 2011) p. 14 Household energy bills - impacts of meeting carbon budgets 6 Committee on Climate Change (December 2011) p. 26 Household energy bills - impacts of meeting carbon budgets Concerns have also been raised about the “very polarised” nature of energy and climate coverage in the media and the possibility that this creates “a pressure to find facts which fit stories rather than the other way round.” 7 The Committee would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the concerns that have been raised in this inquiry before it considers its final report. Please find attached specific questions on which it would be particularly helpful to have your comments. In addition to these questions, the Committee would welcome your comments on the wider question, “What impact does the media have on public perceptions of energy bills?”, which forms part of the inquiry’s terms of reference. Please note that the Committee would normally expect to publish your response as written evidence to this inquiry. Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Questions on which the Committee would welcome your comme nts 1. The Committee has heard that energy and climate coverage in the media tends to be “very polarised” and that this “seems to create a pressure to find facts which fit stories rather than the other way round.” 8 How do you respond to the suggestion that the media “tends to favour and promote explanations or projections which fit with their editorial line” 9 when reporting on the cost to consumers, in their energy bills, of public investment in renewable energy? 2. Analysis from Ofgem and the Committee on Climate Change shows that the rising wholesale price of gas is the main driver pushing up consumer energy bills. 10 How do you respond to the suggestion that despite “clear and consistent evidence” that this is the case, “it is apparent from recent coverage that this message has failed to reach some sections of the UK media”?11 3. The Committee has received evidence that some news publications “have relied on unverifiable leaked reports or skewed research by think-tanks and individual consultants” when reporting on the effect of renewable energy policies on domestic energy bills, and that these news reports, “particularly the headlines, are highly selective in their use of facts and can often be open to accusations of bias.”12 What steps, if any, does your publication take to ensure that it complies with the Editors' Code of Practice and does not publish “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” when reporting on these issues? 4. What impact does the media have on public perceptions of energy bills? 17 October 2012 7 Christian Hunt (18/ 09/ 12) Uncorrected evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Q207 8 Christian Hunt (18/ 09/ 12) Uncorrected evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Q207 9 CE 23 para 36 (Carbon Brief) written evidence to the Committee, March 2012. 10 Ofgem Why are energy prices rising? (14/10/11) Factsheet 108; Committee on Climate Change (December 2011) p. 14 Household energy bills - impacts of meeting carbon budgets 11 CE 13 (Scottish Renewables) written evidence to the Committee, March 2012. 12 CE 13 (Scottish Renewables) written evidence to the Committee, March 2012. (CE 36 b) Letter from Jonathan Leake at The Sunday Times to the Chair Thank you for your letter requesting written evidence for your inquiry into Consumer Engagement with the Energy Markets. Your letter was prompted by concerns raised in your inquiry that inaccurate reporting of the costs of green energy policies could be misleading the public. You cited Carbon Brief and the Departme nt of Energy and C limate C hange as expressing such concerns. Your key point seemed to be that low carbon energy has added only 7% to the current average household dual fuel bill, whereas fluctuations in fossil fuel prices, especially gas, have had a far greater effect – but that this distinction has not been clearly made in the media. I note that The Sunday Times appears not to have been cited as a source of such reports so I am happy to make some general comments on that basis. I have also carried out a search o f our cuttings database and have attached a separate file containing 170+ articles published by us in the last two years. The search term used was simply “energy bills” so the results should represent all our stories on this topic since October 2010. As you will see, most of the more recent articles looking at energy bills are actually about the overall costs and increases. These have been highlighted in blue and there seem to be more than 50 of these. Many of them mention the cost of gas as a primary cause of recent price rises. Only a relatively small proportion focus on how low carbon generation might lead to increases in domestic energy bills. I have highlighted the headlines of these articles, including reports of the political debates on this issue, in ye llo w. There seem to be about 24 of these. Many other articles focus on the possible energy and money that could be saved by greening homes and energy systems. These have been highlighted in green. There seem to be more than 50 of these. As you will see, some articles do not fit easily into any of these categories. They have been left unhighlighted, as have readers’ letters. Overall then, you will see that that there are far more articles focusing on the benefits of green technologies, whether in people’s homes or in power generation, than there are articles about the costs. This suggests that the allegation put to you that media coverage of energy and climate is polarised does not apply in our case. In fact I would argue that, on the evidence of these articles, our coverage has been very balanced. You also raise suggestions that some sections of the media have an editorial ‘line’ on climate and energy-related issues. In our case there is no such thing as an editorial line in news reporting on such issues. Our reporting of climate change aims to follow the science and the debates generated by that science, especially on how society should respond to the threat of global warming. Columnists may express their own personal opinions but are expected to back up those opinions with good quality evidence where appropriate. Inevitably, different columnists may express very different opinions and we encourage this diversity rather than dictating any kind of editorial line. We feel that readers of The Sunday Times appreciate a range of opinions rather than being told what to think. Moving on, to the cause of energy price rises, our articles have made it clear that gas is the primary cause of recent increases.

Load more