Energy policies should be decided by the market, not government ministers, according to Kemi's assertion.

In the realm of energy policy, the United Kingdom has been making headlines for its approach, which some argue is characterised as a fixed horse race. This approach, as evidenced by the billions of pounds in Contracts for Difference guarantees given to offshore wind, has favourited certain technologies over others.

However, the UK's energy landscape is not without controversy. Between 2002 and 2024, renewable electricity subsidy schemes have cost a staggering £220bn (in 2024 prices), adding about £280 to household energy bills per year. Biomass giants like Drax have enjoyed vast subsidies, despite growing doubts about their green credentials.

The support for grant schemes like the Rapid Charging Fund and fast-tracks for EV charge points is evident, but synthetic fuel infrastructure has received far less attention. This disparity in support has led to concerns about competition being distorted and innovators being discouraged.

The liberalization of the UK's electricity market in the 1990s spurred private investment and drove down costs, making household and business prices some of the most competitive in Europe. However, this competitive edge seems to have eroded over time. Businesses in the UK now face the highest electricity prices for industrial users among 24 comparable countries, a stark contrast to the past.

The high electricity cost has had a significant impact on the UK's manufacturing sector. With household electricity prices among the highest in developed countries, at $0.40/kWh, and industrial electricity prices in 2023 being 50% higher than in France and Germany, and four times higher than the US and Canada, manufacturing has been pushed abroad in search of lower costs.

The rigid Net Zero target, propped up by subsidies, has raised concerns that the economy could be locked into costly policies and undermine competition. Matthew Bowles, a senior policy researcher at the Prosperity Institute, warns that a narrow stable of favoured technologies with subsidies, tax breaks, and privileges could stifle innovation and growth.

In an effort to decarbonize home heating, heat pumps are championed as the only solution, while infrared and hybrid systems are often overlooked. This narrow focus on a single technology raises questions about the UK's commitment to fostering a diverse and competitive energy market.

In contrast, countries like Spain have rebooted their solar industry by scrapping fixed price subsidies and simplifying permitting, triggering a private investment boom. Sweden allows district heating operators to choose heat pumps, waste heat or geothermal according to local economic sense, demonstrating a more flexible and market-driven approach.

If innovative technologies truly work, they shouldn't require constant political and financial life support. The government's role should be to phase out technology-specific handouts and set neutral conditions where solutions can compete on cost and reliability. In doing so, the UK could once again become a leader in competitive and sustainable energy policy.

Recent developments in the political sphere have added to the debate. Kemi Badenoch, a British politician, declared that the UK should extract more oil and gas from the North Sea, raising questions about the government's commitment to a green future. The lack of information about the continuation plans for energy policy and any declarations about fully exploiting the North Sea's oil and gas reserves over the weekend further fuels these concerns.

As the UK navigates its energy future, striking a balance between competitiveness and sustainability will be key. The government must consider the long-term implications of its energy policies and ensure a level playing field for all technologies, fostering innovation and growth while meeting its commitment to a greener future.

Energy policies should be decided by the market, not government ministers, according to Kemi's assertion.