^^am currently working on a project developing a proposal and estimating the impact. Overall, I'd say the NWF needs to be a lot bigger anyway (x4 increase to be on par with French/German equivalents). So imo there's no reason for it not to invest in fixed offshore, as well as networks and floating!

Meanwhile, on CfDs, if NWF could roll out a standardised credit guarantee or concessional loan offering to qualifying offshore wind projects, this could in theory lower WACC significantly and lead to lower bids across the board. A 5-10% lower strike price for 20 years would be a giant saving!

Ofgem's RIIO-3 framework makes assumptions for TNO cost of debt by taking a generic benchmark for corporate bonds, and compensates them accordingly from bills. So NWF intervention to reduce cost of debt won't necessarily translate directly to lower bills, even if it lowers TNO financing costs

Interestingly, the NWF is already co-investing with TNOs into transmission projects (e.g. recent £800m guarantee for SSEN). This will help projects get built faster, maybe reducing system balancing costs, but it won't directly reduce consumer network costs via a cost-of-capital effect

Still an 11% increase to this round! IMO it’s a missed opportunity for the National Wealth Fund to intervene and lower capital costs (a 150bps wacc reduction can bring LCOE down by >10%).

Btw I think it was £58.87 in 2012 prices for new fixed bottom floating in AR6 - £54.23 was for the permitted reductions I believe

2) The Bank of England cutting rates in November would lead to: more jobs for workers, lower interest payments for borrowers, more business investment (especially in the green transition), and less pressure on the government’s spending plans.

What does this all mean? 1) Prices are now rising at a low and acceptable level on average – this is great news for the millions of people still struggling from the cost of living crisis.

If you combine this with the recent data suggesting that the jobs market is suffering under the BoE’s high interest rates (i.e. the intended goal – hooray?) there is a convincing data-driven case for the Bank of England to lower interest rates when the Monetary Policy Committee meet in November.

The Apr-Sep metric is much more relevant than the 12-month figure for understanding: a) how quickly prices are actually rising at the moment [answer: in line with 2% target] , and b) how the 12-month CPI rate is likely to move going forwards [answer: on track for seeing a major drop in April 2026].

A lot of this difference is driven by the large bump in regulated prices (e.g. water and energy bills) in April this year. Once you set those aside by focusing only on April-September, CPI on the whole is actually increasing at around 1.9% per year i.e. in line with the BoE’s 2% target.

Current inflation is actually much lower than the headlines and most media commentary would seem to imply. Yes the CPI did rise by 3.8% in the 12 months from October 2024 to September 2025. But since April, CPI has only been rising at an annualised rate of 1.9%.

I'm glad NEF are are one of 11 NGOs calling today for the Bank of England to stop holding back the green transition.

IMHO the Bank's outdated narrow-mindedness has led to an intransigence which is undermining not only the transition, but the UK's chances of economic prosperity and stability.

Our framework for tackling inflation is damaging the economy - we need a more targeted and proactive approach.

@theoharris.bsky.social was on the Standard podcast to talk about interest rates, inflation and growth

If the BoE is serious about fulfilling its legal mandates to ensure financial stability and support government economic policy, it now has little excuse not to follow the ECB’s example and implement similar measures!

Meanwhile, @bankofengland.bsky.social has so far refused to implement similar measures on corporate bonds in its own collateral framework. In fact, heavy-emitting companies are effectively being subsidised by the BoE’s “carbon-bias”.

3) It will demonstrate to investors that EU regulators will align themselves with EU and international climate law. This message will affect the decisions of many financial actors far beyond those who are immediately impacted.

1) It will reduce its own losses in the event that these bonds suddenly lose value.

2) It will make it less attractive for financial institutions to buy these bonds in the first place, which in turn will make it more expensive for dirty companies to borrow money.

An example of this are fossil fuel companies like Shell and BP who are still expanding their fossil fuel operations in contradiction to the Paris agreement.

By saying it will loan less money in exchange for bonds issued by such companies, the ECB will achieve three things:

In referring to “climate-related transition risks”, the ECB is talking about the risks faced by companies who are not aligning themselves with the green transition, who could suddenly see a big drop in value when future climate legislation or behavioural shifts come into effect.

Greening the Eurosystem collateral framework How to decarbonise the ECB’s monetary policy

This is a huge step in reducing the risks that climate change poses to the financial system, that we have been calling for since 2021!

neweconomics.org/2021/03/gree...

ECB to adapt collateral framework to address climate-related transition risks The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.

Big climate news from the European Central Bank:

@ecb.europa.eu announced today that it will introduce a climate-factor into how it values the corporate bonds that financial institutions pledge as collateral in return for ECB loans.

I described exactly what I wanted to depict, and chatgpt produced the image. But am thinking a lot about whether, in general, it would be a more ethical practice to commission a human illustrator. Keen to hear thoughts!

Thought I would try my hand at AI-powered satirical cartooning, in reaction to this government's rhetoric about the role of the financial sector and the need to de-regulate.

So this time round, I’m holding back on praising the ECB until we see some concrete policy measures, particularly removing disproportionate fossil fuel support from the collateral framework and introducing green refinancing operations. More detail in the blog!

But though the ECB announced an ambitious climate roadmap back in 2021, since then it has had a chequered track record on how monetary policy decisions have affected the green transition.

Even better, the new language also includes reference to nature degradation – which poses huge financial and economic concerns, as much research has shown.

It was good to see that, in its updated strategy statement last week, the ECB stuck with scientific consensus and kept its strong language about climate change.

As Europe burns, can the ECB turn words into action on green policy? The European Central Bank’s updated strategy reaffirms its support for climate policy, but it has a mixed track record when it comes to concrete actions

I just published a blog for NEF on the European Central Bank’s track record on climate!

neweconomics.org/2025/07/as-e...

#climatepolicy #monetarypolicy #ECB

The ECB must turn its compelling arguments on climate and nature into concrete policy action. In the last few years we've seen:
⌚ constant delays on greening the collateral framework
🔻 high rates brutalising the renewables industry
💨 green tilting made redundant by QT

Time to put this right!