Dr. David McGrogan of the Northumbria Law School has published an excellent piece on the 2023 Energy Bill that succinctly outlines the obvious implications of the 2023 Energy Bill, and the worrying direction of government legislation.
"The explanatory notes to the Bill suggest this will be done to “help consumers save money on their energy bills” by “shifting electricity usage to times when it is beneficial for the energy system” and thus “smartly and flexibly… control consumption”. Sceptics may wonder if this is the only reason why it will be done – and will also have their eyes unavoidably drawn to clause 237 (5) of the Bill, which will “allow enforcement authorities to impose requirements by written notice on persons to… make appliances compliant with energy smart regulations” (i.e., to ensure that their dishwashers, washing machines, etc. can receive load control signals). These sceptics may, if they are capable of parsing modern Parliamentary drafting, also have their eyes drawn to to clause 235 (4) (c) and clause 236 (3) of the Bill, which seem to give the Secretary of State the power to ban the sale of non-smart appliances.
Why would the Secretary of State need to ban the sale of non-smart appliances if their only purpose was to “help consumers save money on their energy bills”? Why would he or she need to require people to make sure their appliances are “energy smart”? I won’t insult your intelligence by spelling it out, but I don’t think “helping consumers save money on their energy bills” is the end of the story."
"We are not going to like where that leads. Having our energy consumption governed through ad hoc micromanagement of the electricity flow to our compulsorily purchased energy smart appliances on a moment to moment basis is dystopian enough. I invite you, though, to consider the other areas of life – both public and private – which are currently likely being eyed up by our legislators for the Law 3.0 treatment. It’s not about, and never has been about, mere golf carts on greens. It is about the fusion of law and technology in every sphere of our lives, and everything that will entail."
The full piece:
Deliberately Hard to Understand.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the complexity of the Act and its consequent opacity to the lay reader and sheer unwieldiness for the commentator is deliberate."
The deliberate use of texts that are too long, too wordy to read or understand is typical of government with only contempt for the population. It seems plausible that AI engines such as ChatGPI would be able to summarise such texts in approachable language; there is certainly plenty of drafted parliamentary language for them to learn on. This is something that should be investigated.
Common Law
To challenge the current order, requires a robust account of what is wrong, and of what should replace it. Common Law - law made by judges reasoning from precedent - is the basis of English and Welsh legal system. In theory, this ensures that the law reflects the accumulated moral consensus of the population ruled by it. As Dr. McGrogan's piece makes very clear, this is far from the case at the moment. Nevertheless, this conception of Common Law remains a compelling ideal that would give an independent judicary somewhere to stand if they are to challenge authoritarian diktat. It would be hopeful to imagine that this will magically replace what we currently have, but if we are to imagine a time when our current tyranny does not apply, better guiding principles must be readily available.
Time to buy a wood burning stove.
And a dolly tub with mangel.
Well this wasn't the 21st Century we were expecting.