British Coal Power vs. British Renewable Power¹ — Which side are you on?

Ever since I was a young adult and started watching David Attenborough's documentaries about climate change I felt powerless in the face of a global issue where a single individual has little to no impact. I believed we have little choice in our daily lives that can make a difference. And probably this very idea stops many people from making the changes that cumulated can make a big impact. Let’s take choosing your electricity provider.

In the UK there are 74 electricity providers, out of which 32 provide 100% renewable energy. That’s not so bad one might think, but those 32 providers only account for about 12–15% of the market share. Given all the fuss about global warming and the climate crisis, the noise and disruption caused by Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, one might be led to believe that there are waiting lists for people to sign-up to these carbon-neutral energy providers and make a positive impact on the planet. While there is a move towards greener energy, that’s not the case. On the contrary, new companies that use coal and offer lower tariffs are on the rise. I spent my last weekend gathering data on the 74 electricity providers, including their fuel mix, CO2 emissions and market share. In this post, I will present my findings.

In 2004, the Big Six (British Gas, EDF, E.ON, npower, Scottish Power, SSE¹) had a market share of 100%. 16 years later, at the time of writing this article, they account for 70%. While their CO2 emissions have decreased, they are still among the worst providers one can choose. The new players that account for 30% of the market consist of Bulb (5%), Octopus (4%), Ovo Energy² (4%), Utilita (3%), Shell Energy (3%), Utility Warehouse (2%), Avro Energy (1%), Green Network Energy (1%) and other 59 that make up the rest 7%.

The companies with the green bar provide 100% renewable electricity. But let’s look at the fuel mix into more detail. The data is the latest I found on the suppliers' websites and in most cases, it refers to the 2018/2019 year.

The suppliers in the chart above are arranged by market share. What becomes apparent from this chart is that some of the new energy suppliers — Utilita, Utility Warehouse and Avro Energy — use more coal than the old Big Six. A new supplier, supposedly green by its name, Green Network Energy, actually uses coal in its fuel mix. A misleading name.

Why is coal bad? Burning coal emits 3 times more CO2 than gas, roughly 1kg per kWh. Let’s see who uses coal and in what amounts.

The light brown bars represent the Big Six. Again, new companies like Ampower, Places for People Energy (PFP), Nabuh Energy, Utilita, Utility Warehouse, Avro Energy, E, Together Energy are worse than the worst Big Six coal burner: npower. The best Big Six performers are British Gas and SSE. Let’s see next who uses more coal than renewables.

All of them are new suppliers. In the Hall of shame we find Nabuh Energy, Places for People Energy (PFP), Utilita, Utility Warehouse, Avro Energy, E, Together Energy. Ampower, the largest coal user percentage-wise (13.5%), uses 29.4% renewable sources. If you are are a fossil fuel lover these companies are your friends.

Next, let’s see who uses the least renewable energy, percentage-wise.

Again, the same result: some of the new small providers are worse than the worst Big Six: npower. All Big Six players, except British Gas use less renewable energy than the UK average.

Now let’s put everything together and see the worst CO2 emitters. I have to clarify first that I didn’t use the disclaimed figures provided by some of the companies — although the figure is the same in the majority of the cases — because some numbers seemed well off.

Nabuh Energy, Places for People Energy, Together Energy and Ampower have reported emissions smaller than what I calculated based on the provided fuel mix percentages. It could be the case they use cleaner sources for coal and gas but my guess is they made a mistake when they calculated the total CO2 emissions. Places for People Energy (PFP) actually provides the emissions per fuel source in its disclosure but the numbers just don’t add up. For the other suppliers, the error between the declared CO2 and my calculations is insignificant so there must be an error in the disclosures of the companies above. With that being said, let’s see the total CO2 emissions per supplier for companies above the UK average.

The brown bars represent the Big Six. As always, the worst performer among them is npower. But some of the new suppliers are worse. Here are the new energy suppliers emitting more CO2 than the Big Six:

• Nabuh Energy
• Places for People Energy (PFP)
• Utilita
• Together Energy
• Avro Energy
• Utility Warehouse
• E
• Ampower
• Powershop
• Sainsbury Energy

On the bright side we have 32 suppliers that provide 100% renewable energy. Out of these, three have a significant market share: Bulb, Octopus and Shell Energy.

Ovo Energy, which is soon to become the second-largest energy provider in the UK after it bought SSE is a mixed bag: they use gas and renewables, better than most of the Big Six — except British Gas and EDF — and than some small new competitors in terms of CO2 emissions but worse than the pure renewable companies above. Ovo’s CO2 emissions are slightly over the UK average (213 vs 208 g/kWh).

Let’s see how are the Big Six compare among themselves.

The Big Six suppliers are ordered here by the CO2 emissions in g/kWh which are displayed at the top of their fuel mix bar. Although it uses little renewable energy, EDF is the lowest emitter of CO2. Next comes British Gas, which although uses 56% renewables is still under EDF with almost double the emissions, that is because of its reliance on gas (29%) and coal (4%). The rest are close to each other in their mix fuel and CO2 emissions.

Finally, let’s see the chart that considers CO2 emissions and market share. Say all suppliers provide 100 kWh to the UK households, this is how the total emissions would look like:

SSE and E.ON with 12% each market share are the biggest polluters. Utilita with 3% market share emits more CO2 than EDF with 11% market share, that is because EDF uses mostly nuclear energy. The rest of the players, the 7% for which OFGEM (government regulator for electricity) does not publish the exact market share because it’s under 1%, pollute much more than expected. This might be because the emission data uses the latest figures and the average value (208 g/kWh) used to calculate their carbon share is based on 2018/2019 average. Also between 2019 and now, there have been acquisitions and bankruptcies which changed the fuel mix of companies. Nevertheless, many small players are not clean energy providers as we’ve seen above. In fact, quite a few of them are worse than established ones.

Next, I’m charting suppliers according to their market share and CO2 emissions. On the x-axis we have market share and on the y-axis CO2 emissions.

This is the chart that tells the story I’m trying to convey best. Energy suppliers differ a lot by CO2 emissions and the worst polluters are all new players. Four of the Big Six lag slightly behind, SSE, E.ON, npower, Scottish Power. Middle ground CO2 emitters are led by OVO, Green Network Energy from the new suppliers and British Gas and EDF Energy from the old ones. Finally, we have three green new players: Bulb, Octopus and Shell Energy.

From a technological perspective, the switch of 6-7% of UK customers to worse CO2 polluters represents maintaining the status quo, rather than regressing as overall CO2 emissions fell considerably in the UK in the past decade. But how do these new players that emit more CO2 than the traditional suppliers manage to convince people to switch?

Looking at their taglines the most common keywords are price and simplicity. In truth, some of them probably offer a better service than the traditional players and in case of Utility Warehouse an innovative package, but more CO2.

Were these companies intentionally created to buy cheap, dirty energy and offer lower prices? Difficult to say. Do their customers know what are they buying? Are they aware that these companies pollute more than their existing supplier? Probably not. Unaware, cash squeezed or gullible customers are convinced by the cheaper price and decide to switch. The CO2 emissions and the fuel mix are not made clear when you switch providers.

What does this say about us and the fight against climate change? Who should we blame here? The companies? The government? The customers? The regulators? In a free society, companies are allowed to use any fuel they want as long as they respect the regulations and customers are allowed to choose what supplier they want. Can we trust educated citizens in a western democracy to take the right decisions for the future of our planet in due time? Are authoritarian countries more likely to act decisively when it comes to climate change? So far, there are no good examples.

In 2019, the UK generated under 2% of its energy from coal and this year, due to the corona lockdown the figure looks to be much lower. In 2010 this number was 28.9%. A fantastic improvement! The average emissions decreased from 475 g/kWh in 2006/2007 to 208 g/kWh in 2018/2019. But was this due to the people switching their energy provider to a greener one, the government increasing carbon taxes or because companies decided to invest in clean energy? Let’s see one last chart:

If customers were migrating en-masse worried about the environment we should have seen SSE and npower losing the most market share because they are the worst polluters but no, E.ON lost most customers. And British Gas, the biggest investor in renewables of the Big Six lost more that SSE or Scottish Power. EDF, the nuclear energy provider and lowest CO2 emitter, has lost more clients than fossil fuel companies like SSE and Scottish Power. Coupled with the rise of the small polluters it is clear that customer choice was not the primary driver of CO2 emissions reductions. The government played a fundamental role. Some companies too.

What gives? Most consumers when given the choice for greener energy do nothing, some choose the cheaper, dirty one by ignorance or because they want to optimise their finances and a slightly larger minority goes for renewables. It’s easy to blame the government, blame the companies, but first, we should look at ourselves.

Extinction Rebellion and Greta try to convince the government to change, but they miss the point, it’s not the government, it’s the people that are not with them. As sad at it is, that’s the reality. If the people of the UK were really concerned about climate change there would be waiting lists to switch to green energy. There are not.

Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious. — 1984, George Orwell

In order to rebel, one must believe his actions matter, that one can be an agent of change. While Extinction Rebellion members have rebelled they do not have a concrete plan and do not urge people to act in a positive way. They ask the government to: “be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice”. Basically, they don’t have a plan, they want to get to power.

If people in the UK were to abandon CO2 emitting companies en-masse, that will create a real revolution. No need for government intervention. Companies will be pushed to come up with solutions. The governments can create legislation, increase taxes but the real change comes from consumers and companies that serve them. In western democracies, politicians have diminishing powers. Corporations run the world, and they rise and fall according to market pressures and consumer demand. The UK government does not own coal plants, they are all private and exist because some of us pay them.

Caught up in our petty worlds we rarely see beyond our immediate concerns or think that our decisions matter in the big picture. But clustered together they do.

The conclusion that most people are passive when it comes to climate change is unsettling. Even with lower tariffs available — some green companies are cheaper than the Big 6 — most people do nothing. If we start from the hypothesis that humans are rational actors this can only be explained by the fact that people lack awareness.

It is not a coincidence that among the most valuable companies in the world we have two advertising giants: Google and Facebook. Constant subliminal messages and associations make people act. Considering that both Octopus and Bulb, the leading renewable energy providers, are loss-making companies that bet on becoming dominant to make a profit — the recipe of Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley VCs — it will take some time until enough capital will be deployed to convince people to switch.

In a free society, people need to be nudged to make the right decisions. Who’s going to nudge the slumbering masses? To win the fight against global warming we need to reduce our consumption and make better decisions about what we consume. Because we need to reduce our consumption, corporations have no incentive to do it. They make money when you consume more. Governments? They get reelected when the GDP grows.

Some are proposing to reduce our numbers by having fewer or no children. This is already happening, birth rates have plummeted in the western world, but immigration from high fertility areas such as Africa, India, South East Asia is increasing. What good is to have fewer children in the west and bring immigrants from less developed countries to live a high CO2 lifestyle? This can only lead to social tensions. There are other ways to reduce the CO2 footprint like changing one's diet and lifestyle. That requires sacrifice, inhibition. You won’t see ads for that.

The coronavirus lockdown has shed light on an important fact that most people are aware of, but do not know they control. If companies lose their customers for a few months they go bankrupt or need to adjust their business. It is said that companies are slaves to their customers and employees are slaves to the companies. If consumers want to bankrupt a company they can. All it takes is concentrated consumer action or a pandemic.

With the rise of capitalism and markets, power has moved away from the political realm to the financial realm. In capitalism, power is where capital is. But who controls the capital? You may think banks, hedge funds, pension funds, rich people. While that is partly true, the ultimate ruler of capital is you. Capital goes where it can grow and leaves areas that diminish it. All these owners of capital mentioned above move their capital where they see growth opportunity because they want earnings not losses. How do you have the power over this? Through your everyday choices. Let’s say that from tomorrow you will stop buying from company XYZ for a few months because you do not agree with their policies. And let’s say that 50% of their customers do the same as you. What will happen to company XYZ and the capital invested in it? XYZ will have losses, its share price will fall — if it’s listed on a stock exchange, it will not be able to raise more capital through corporate bonds or bank loans. XYZ will have to change its course, restructure or go bankrupt. Who caused this? You did. And let’s say that from tomorrow you start buying from company ABC, together with a significant percentage of people. What will happen with ABC? ABC will raise more capital through VC, corporate bonds, bank loans, it may even list itself on the stock market. Capital will flow into ABC because it’s in demand. Who caused this? You did.

If consumers were to use this power in an organized fashion to get a company to change course they could have a tremendous impact on the world. But the effort needs to be coordinated and concentrated. Anything that is not economically viable in capitalism disappears. Paying customers of a company make it economically viable. What does this mean? We have the ultimate power, but we don’t use it wisely. Each purchase decision you make is a vote for the company you bought from and what it stands for.

While the UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% in the past decade and 80% of its people declare themselves to be concerned about global warming, they have failed to act. In the last 16 years, 7–8% of UK households have moved to new energy providers that pollute more than their previous ones, 70% have remained passive, and only 10–12% have embraced renewable energy. We’ve moved towards the good with the help of the government and some companies but the mass mobilization needed to reach the climate goals has not happened. If the people of UK, more educated and informed compared to the rest of the world have not voted with their feet for a greener world what hope is there for the presumably less ‘woke’ people of eastern Europe or South East Asia? “Knowledge that does not change behaviour is useless” says Harari in Homo Deus.

In the draft version of this article, the last paragraph was on the lines of Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech: I have a dream that energy companies will have to use waiting lists because they cannot take more customers on green tariffs. But this, as Martin Luther King’s dream will not happen anytime soon. History has been made by a few people, the masses are just following, slowly. The solution in case of global warming will have to come from the thing which brought us here in the first place: technology. We can accelerate that through our choices. If you have not switched to a renewable provider and want to be an early adopter I urge you to act. If you believe in nuclear, act accordingly. Every purchase decision you make is a vote, make it count.

As an ending note, I want to say that I have no associations with any of the companies mentioned in the article and no personal or financial interest. The views expressed above are my own.

If you are interested in the CO2 emissions of your supplier check this table. Some plans will differ from the provider’s overall fuel mix.

¹The title is a play on British Sea Power — a band dear to me.

² Ovo Energy acquired SSE in 2020, so their new combined market share is 16%