In the introduction to a report on the future of the energy system, shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: “Only a 10th of the UK’s emissions come from our electricity grid. The remaining 90% come from transport, heating and the rest of our economy.
“If we want those emissions to fall, then we need people to want to use electric cars and electric heating – then our priority should be to make electricity cheap.”
The report proposes a new path in order to reduce electricity costs. But this pathway sees a slower uptake of electric cars and heat pumps – a common form of electric heating – than the “business-as-usual” scenario under the current policy framework.
In a separate comment sent to the Press Association, Ms Coutinho recognised that “the adoption of electric technology is modelled as lower” in the alternative plan, but called the business-as-usual scenario “generous” in its assumptions.
The facts
The report was written by think tank Onward with advisory practice Transira Energy providing the system cost analysis which underpins parts of the argument.
The report explores two scenarios: One called “business-as-usual”, which it defines as “likely evolution of the power system under the current policy framework”. This explores what might happen if current policy is kept in place, but “taking account of real-world delivery constraints”.
The other scenario is the “alternative policy pathway” which Onward designed.
What do the scenarios assume about electric vehicles and heat pumps?
Both scenarios make a range of assumptions – such as the price of electricity – which could impact the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps. However, some are more directly linked to these electrification efforts.
In the business as usual scheme, a ban on new petrol and diesel cars comes into effect by 2030 and the rollout of heat pumps is supported by grants to households and requirements on manufacturers.
In the alternative scenario, these efforts are removed and uptake is dependent on “lower electricity prices and greater range of consumer choice”.
What impact do the scenarios have on EVs and heat pumps?
Ms Coutinho spoke of needing “people to want to use electric cars and electric heating” and that therefore the “priority should be to make electricity cheap”.
However, the analysis by Transira Energy says removing the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030 will reduce adoption of EVs “despite lower electricity costs” when compared with the business-as-usual scenario.
For heat pumps, it adds “lower electricity costs drive growth at a slower rate” than in the business-as-usual model.
Elsewhere in Transira’s analysis, it estimates the alternative plan results in about 10 million fewer EVs on roads in Britain by 2050 compared with the business-as-usual scenario (32 million compared with 42 million).
The analysis also estimates that between 2027 and 2050, the number of heat pumps will increase by 7.7 million in the business-as-usual scenario compared with 6.1 million in the alternative.
Both scenarios represent significant growth in heat pumps and EVs compared with current numbers.
When contacted by the Press Association, the Conservative Party forwarded a note from Ms Coutinho.
It recognised “electrification rates are assumed to be higher” in business-as-usual because it assumes that policies will work. She added the policies – such as the ban on petrol and diesel vehicles – could be rowed back on.
The report said the business-as-usual scenario has taken “account of real-world delivery constraints”.
The full explanation from Ms Coutinho reads: “Electrification rates are assumed to be higher in the net zero pathway because it (generously) assumes that forcing people to adopt electric technology through bans and mandates will work, even if those products add costs to people’s lives.
“This is generous because we have discerning consumers and a democratic system – and it is much more likely that public pressure will force U-turns on these kinds of bans. We only need to look at the Labour Government’s recent announcement that they will relax the ZEV mandate because demand is not arriving quickly enough.
“In the Cheap Power pathway, the adoption of electric technology is modelled as lower. But crucially, it is not compulsory. It is by choice because consumers have willingly adopted it. Adoption of new technology is most rapid when that technology makes consumers’ lives better – that is the story of the adoption of every single mass-market technology throughout history. That’s why the Cheap Power pathway is much better for electrification.”
Firm Foundations: The case for cheap and reliable power (archived)
Powering Britain: A comparison of policy pathways to 2050 (archived)
About PA’s fact checks
If you have any suggestions for future fact checks, objections or comments, please send them to factcheck@pamediagroup.com, including any relevant links. For more information on how to submit a correction or dispute a rating, please refer to our Corrections and complaints policy