THE WARREN REPORT Demand is just as important as supply


A reduction in energy consumption has played a big part in the UK’s progress to net zero, so how come the government appears so reluctant to encourage further efficiency gains? Andrew Warren looks at how decisions appear to be driven by those who are more interested in supplying more energy rather than reducing demand.


T


he global impact of wars in Ukraine and Iran is regularly labelled as energy-driven, but the more accurate


phrase is surely ‘fossil fuel’ driven. The conflict has resulted in extreme price volatility and the frequent scarcity of oil and gas supplies. However, such pressures are making little impact upon those who rely upon non-fossil fuel electricity. The world is increasingly dividing between those who want to electrify their economies to achieve greater energy security and sovereignty, like China and Europe, and those who persist with trying to deploy 20th- century thinking into the second quarter of the 21st century. Like Trump’s America. This despite the undeniable truth spelt out by the International Energy Agency that the vast bulk of new electricity investments worldwide are now concentrated on solar and wind sources – winning on both economic and security grounds.


Global objective But there is another compelling reason for seeking to electrify economies: to combat the threat of runaway climate change. This November will see the 31st UN annual Conference of the Parties (COP), with a headline global objective, dubbed ‘35 by 35’. It aims to raise the share of final energy demand met by electricity worldwide from just over 20% (also the current UK share) to 35% by 2035. The intention is to shift away


from direct fossil fuel usage and to transition to electric technologies. This of course is absolutely in line with the decade-old UK government policy of achieving ‘net zero by 2050’. It’s worth remembering this is also a legal objective for every other European government as well as for the overall European Union. Indeed for every OECD country – but one. Implementing this policy has


ramifications for every company, indeed every household. Logically, it is sensible initially to seek to achieve success within the easiest and most manageable sectors.


10


electricity usage? Although the actual reductions have not been as great as, for instance, for natural gas (down 34%), it is worth remembering that in 2005 our grids were coping with consumption levels up to 368 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity. Last year the equivalent electricity consumption figure had dropped to just 322 TWh. That is a 14% reduction over 20 years, even as we are well into electrifying the economy. Despite this real world experience,


The government is still creating policy based on absolutely enormous consumption growth


This is possibly why the only


short-term objective set by the present UK government is to seek to deliver a largely non-fossil fuel based electricity industry during this decade. Progress to date has been impressive: 30 years ago, 92% of British electricity was generated from fossil fuels. Now just one-third is.


Forecasting error How did this occur? One of the main contributory factors is that we are using so much less energy than we did before. 20 years ago, we were consuming 162,764 kilowatt tons of energy. By 2015, that had dropped 16% (to 140,122 ktoe). Last year it was down to 128,357 ktoe. Making a consumption drop of around 24%. A saving of over 1% p.a. It’s worth noting that back in 2005, official government forecasts were perversely projecting – as today – an enormous increase in consumption. Official planning was based on an increase of over 25% in energy usage by now. A quite stupendous forecasting error – almost 50% wrong! What has been happening with


the government is still creating policy based on absolutely enormous consumption growth. According to energy department deputy director Will Lochhead, from now on they believe demand will rise by 10% every year to 2030, by 50% by 2035, and over 100% by 2050.


Worth shouting about All told, the UK has delivered a remarkable record of long term reductions via improvements in product and building efficiency, greater commercial expertise and changing consumer habits. Strangely, it is leading to much


scoffing from doctrinaire climate change sceptics. Like the present Conservative energy spokeswoman Claire Coutinho, who perversely dismisses such achievements as “disastrous”. But surely only for purveyors of pollution? Even as he persistently attacks


current UK carbon reduction policy, Trump's US energy secretary Chris Wright does acknowledge the truth that “three-quarters of the reduction in greenhouse gas is because they just don’t use that energy anymore”. As the eminent Oxford professor


Nick Eyre frequently points out, this means that much of the easy , uncontroversial transition towards net zero is being achieved simply by expediting the more rational use of energy. And as every energy or facilities manager can attest, there remain thousands of cost-effective opportunities to reduce demand still further. This level of achievement is truly


one from which everybody involved should gain great satisfaction. It is a


proud record that those responsible for running public policy might be expected to be shouting from the rooftops.


But the official silence is deafening.


Delivery vacuum Symptomatic of this wilful neglect is the way that the UK government is now organised. There is no section of the UK industry department, or energy department, or transport department, or buildings department, mandated to consider delivering minimising energy waste from a strategic point of view. Instead the much touted Energy Efficiency Deployment Office has been quietly abandoned.


Official statistics show that energy efficiency has long been the largest employment provider in the green economy. But there is nobody within Whitehall yet taking any responsibility for the undeniable truth that – since the sudden decision last December to abandon all funding from energy companies for nationwide insulation or fuel poverty alleviation programmes – a delivery vacuum has been left, which has already led to over 17,000 job losses in the installation sector. Contrast that with the outcry when the motor industry or the steel industry even threatens less than one-tenth that number of redundancies. It is an unbelievable 12 years since


a UK government published any sort of long-term strategy paper considering the demand, rather than the supply side, of energy. The last one included a preface from the then Secretary of State ( Ed Davey), pointing out just how many power stations can avoid being built so long as we deliver on energy efficiency – quite so. We have been delivering. This


success should be built upon. And not constantly undermined by those anxious just to sell us more and more energy. ■


Andrew Warren


Chairs the British Energy Efficiency Federation


EIBI | JULY � AUGUST 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36