Penelope Hope interview

Will Barber-Taylor: Hello, and welcome to the Centre Think Tank’s interview series. As always, I am your host, Will Barber-Taylor. In this episode, I am delighted to be joined by Penelope Hope. Penelope is the co-founder and non-executive director of Rebel Energy, an energy supplier with a mission to end fuel poverty. Since founding Rebel, she established her own consultancy, Patterson Hope, specialising in leadership, strategy and sustainability. 

She read Classics at UCL and recently graduated from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. She is passionate about the way in which society and the environment intersect, a passion which she now uses to inspire change as a speaker, board advisor and corporate consultant. Welcome to the interview, Penelope. 

Penelope Hope: Thank you, Will. It is such a pleasure to be here. 

Will Barber-Taylor: It is great to have you on. Now, the first question that I would like to ask is, are there any ways that the government could help businesses move towards renewable production and consumption?

Penelope Hope: I think there are many ways that the government could move towards renewable production and consumption. But if we are to have any hope of strategies taking root, then what we really need is the fertile ground of leadership, which is open to the possibility of a renewable future. For that to happen, I believe we need the leadership whereby leaders are able to set out a long-term vision based on their beliefs and their values, which would require us to agree on what our beliefs and values are with respect to renewable energy. I believe that net zero is not enough. The reason I believe net zero is not enough is that net zero essentially says that we can continue to emit harmful gases into our atmosphere and that we will endeavour to reduce or sequester those gases through carbon reduction mechanisms, carbon capture and sequestration projects, such as reforesting, rewilding, seagrass, peat bogs, all of those good biodiversity goals.

But all the while, those harmful gases are sitting in the atmosphere until they can be sequestered. They are continuing to damage our atmosphere. They are increasing the hole in the ozone layer. They are warming our planetary temperatures. And we are not actually getting the result that we need to secure our future, both for people, wildlife, and the planet. The first thing I think we need to do, based on our beliefs and values, is to set out a long-term vision for a total renewable future. If we have that vision in place, then it is very easy to unpack a set of strategies and tactics off the back of that, which line up with that vision, such as a major in renewable generation production that is empowering UK entrepreneurs to establish domestic renewable power plants supplying the UK grid. I think we need a big investment in research.

Research and Development tax credits for companies that want to innovate and explore very exciting new renewable technologies, such as raindrop energy, which is currently being researched at the University of Hong Kong. That could be a huge benefit for the UK, given how much rainfall we get. I think with our corporate sector, we are going to need what I would call a carrot and a stick strategy. On the one hand, we say, if you can commit to a total renewable future by a certain date (2030, 2035), we will give you tax breaks up until the point that you have completed that transition. The stick would be that if you do not complete that transition, we will revoke or reduce your license to operate because we believe that we need to go beyond net zero. You can see how that pans out for oil companies, for car companies that would be migrating to only selling electric vehicles, phasing out naturally aspirated engines. It can sound a little bit radical, but when it is factored off of that long-term vision based on beliefs and values, it makes sense. And the thing to keep in mind is that these business models are going to become obsolete anyway. The pace of innovation is outstripping the old way of thinking, such that business models will become obsolete. 

This is about stimulating that natural transition, which is happening with the strategies and tactics based on the long-term goal. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Historically, how forward-thinking do you think British governments have been in understanding the need to shift from the model that we have, the current relationship between the renewable sector and the government? And do you think that perhaps, regardless of party, the British government has been slower than other comparable governments or more forward-thinking? What are your thoughts? 

Penelope Hope: They have been woefully slow, which is why we have the energy crisis that we have at the moment. Crises come about because there is a catalyst to an already problematic situation. The catalyst in this equation, of course, has been Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But what we are lacking is a 10-year forward plan, which should have begun 10 years ago, whereby we could massively increase our expenditure and our investment, as I have mentioned, in renewable production and starting to shift our thinking. 

That is why I keep talking about leadership. It is so important that our leaders have the right beliefs and values and can pinpoint a long-term vision and then operationally execute against that vision to deliver the change that we need. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. In terms of the government’s plans to subsidise energy bills, which have changed recently in terms of how long they will be and how they will be exactly enacted, do you think it is the right way to go?? Or are there any better options that you would personally support and think would be better for both the public and the government’s understanding of the renewable sector? 

Penelope Hope: That is a great question. It really upsets me that we have come to the point where we have to resort to these short-term measures. 

The measures that we have from the government are, ideologically speaking, the equivalent of issuing the poor with coupons to pay for what is an essential utility need. That is wrong because it deprives the populace of the empowerment that they should naturally feel from paying their taxes, even if that is a very small amount of tax for low-income households. Paying taxes basically says, I engage with my national life. I am paying towards my school, new homes being built, hospitals, and roads. To be issued coupons completely robs the electorate of their empowerment, and it upsets me very much. The real question then is, how do we make energy cheaper over the long term? In order to answer that question, we have to go right back down the value chain. We have to start with massively increasing our investment in renewable energy supply. We need to get more renewable generation plants coming online. The second thing we need to do as we move up the value chain is that once that energy is generated, it then needs to be sold in the wholesale markets. Again, the reason why we have the crisis at the moment is that we are beholden to fluctuations in wider energy wholesale markets over which we have no control. 

What I think could be an interesting solution would be to have an internal UK wholesale market whereby UK generators can trade with UK suppliers. We have that extra level of security, should something go wrong at an international level. The third thing I think we need moving from the generation to the wholesale markets is to nationalise the National Grid network, which is those unsightly pylons that we see when we are driving down the motorway, and is unfortunately owned by the National Grid plc. That is a listed investable company. And if you drill down into some of their shareholders, you will find that they have American investment firms as shareholders. They have Qatari investment firms as shareholders. These are the people whose interests are going to be misaligned with those of the UK household, the UK consumer. If we were to bring the network back into public ownership, then we would be setting out on this road of energy security, economic security, pointing toward that long-term goal of a total renewable future. And all of those measures coming right from the back end of the value chain would contribute to making it cheaper for the consumer. 

Will Barber-Taylor: I think that there is more that the large energy companies themselves can do without direct government intervention to reduce prices. Or do you think that you support consumers during this time of large-scale price increases, receiving more support from energy companies, maybe not necessarily in the reduction of prices, but perhaps better advice from them about using their energy? There was, for example, a nationwide plan that the business secretary was planning to roll out in terms of explaining how people can save money from the energy companies. But of course, that plan was not rolled out. Do you think there is something that the energy companies can do themselves in terms of information distribution? Or would you favour doing something more than just reducing prices? 

Penelope Hope: The wonderful thing about an energy supplier is that the energy supplier owns the relationship with the consumer. The consumer’s natural inclination is to go to the energy supplier with respect to their energy needs. And energy education, energy literacy, is part of a consumer’s energy needs. At my company, Rebel Energy, we have just rolled out a new app whereby people can manage their usage, their consumption, and can better understand the costs that they are paying for each of those things. And that is something that we can uniquely do because, of course, consumers are going to be turning to us if they are a customer of our company. Education is absolutely something that energy suppliers can and should be doing, and ramping up their efforts to help people understand how to manage their energy better. 

Another thing that energy suppliers can be doing is looking internally to manage their own cost bases more efficiently. Because, of course, the better one runs one’s own business, the more one can reduce the price for one’s potential customers. The strategy we took at Rebel was very interesting. We have employed a lot of artificial intelligence strategies, including robotic process automation. That means that we are taking a lot of the manual work away from our staff at call centres, so they have more time to spend with customers on the phone, which is essential at a time like this when people have more and more questions and more anxiety about the security of their energy supply. What is a blessing to us in respect of us having that relationship can also sometimes be a curse, of course. We used to receive very distressed calls from customers around once a week, but now energy suppliers are seeing this multiple times a day. Call centre staff are exhausted, and they are being asked to deal with a variety of requests for which they are not truly equipped. The energy supplier is, unfortunately, becoming like a second Citizens Advice. And again, that just shows you the pressure that has been put on the system by a lack of forward thinking, a lack of planning over the years, with respect to our energy.

I think suppliers can also gather together to lobby the government. This is a time when suppliers need to collaborate to pressure the government into implementing tactics throughout the value chain, stabilising consumer costs and strengthening the economy. 

Will Barber-Taylor: In terms of using artificial intelligence, which you mentioned, how effective did you find the changeover from when you had previously not used AI to using AI? Was it a smooth transition? 

Penelope Hope: We were very fortunate, Will, in that we set up our company from the get-go using AI. But I can tell you that professionals in our company who have been in the industry for decades said that when we set up these automated processes, they could see that some processes, such as the onboarding process, think of all the backend interactions that have to happen to bring a customer on board as an energy supplier. What might have taken days at one of the incumbent suppliers took 20 minutes with us because of the processes that we designed. That is phenomenal, because every bit of money we save can either be passed back to consumers or reinvested in our business to better educate and supply customers regarding their energy needs. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. I would like to turn now to groups and sectors of society that have expressed opposition to renewable energy, whether it be support for gas because they have investments in those companies or simply that they are used to using oil and gas rather than renewable energies. There are sizable chunks of the population that do have some disagreement with renewable energy, whether it be building onshore wind farms near where they live or because they have investments in some of the oil and gas companies. Why do you think some groups are opposed to renewable energy? Do you think it is simply a case that there are certain sectors of the population that are overly NIMBYish towards new renewable energy infrastructures being near their homes because of property prices? 

Or do you think it is just a lack of understanding of how important they are for our future? 

Penelope Hope: I had a week’s holiday in Norfolk this summer, and I visited a friend who lives in a tiny village, and she said that recently a large American corporation had come in to make a bid for the surrounding land, and they intended to build the largest solar farm in the UK. 

And the batteries that would be required to harness the energy from such a solar farm would be of such a scale that they are actually untested. And there has been evidence to suggest that these batteries actually can catch fire; there is a fire risk. It is no surprise to me that that was hugely worrisome for the residents. And while I very much believe that we need to massively increase our renewable energy production. 

The way we do it is essential. It is about the approach. There is a writer who I think is very interesting, called Margaret J. Wheatley. She uses an analogy of a farmer and an engineer. Engineer-type thinking is results-driven, with a big outcome that needs to be produced; it is very orderly. It is the big American corporation coming in to industrialise the local farmland, regardless of anyone’s wishes or needs. In contrast to the engineer is the farmer. The farmer looks to build relationships with local stakeholders. The farmer is looking at what the existing trends are in this community that I can harness. The farmer is looking for ways to grow organically and incrementally. They can get to the same destination, but they are just going about it in a very different way. 

Let us run that same scenario for that small village in Norfolk. Had that been a UK company coming along to say, “We would like to partner with you to produce a local energy generation plant. We will start with one field at a time. We are going to look at ways to integrate what we are doing with local biodiversity and wildlife projects. We would like to run a programme for your local school, whereby your children can visit, so they can learn about renewable energy. We want to employ local people.” This is the community integration, the farmer’s approach, that is needed. If we want to roll out a big renewable generation scheme, we have to enlist local people in the task, make them feel at ease, respected and included. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. And I think you are right to focus on that need for balance because it is something that comes up time and time again regarding not only renewable energy but also rewilding projects. We recently hosted a rewilding event at Centre Think Tank and one of the great questions that came out of it, that was perhaps only partly answered, was the degree to which we can balance the need for sustaining biodiversity in particular parts of the UK, reintroducing species that have been lost, with a natural need for economic growth and also for building houses and other things and being able to find that perfect point that is a unique balance between the two. Do you think that there is any way in which the government can set a target on this? Because, as you say, you would prefer to take a more organic, more of a farmer’s approach. But if that is the case, how could you set particular targets if you are not sure which parts of the country you want to extend renewable energies in, because you are having to work on a more localised basis? 

Penelope Hope: I think that it needs to be nationwide, to be very clear about that. I think we are uniquely positioned as an island. We have hundreds of miles of coastline, which means we have a massive opportunity for offshore wind and tidal. Tidal is really not being made use of at the moment, nor is wave energy. Coupled with solar that we have on land, we have more than enough to fulfil both our energy needs and our agricultural needs, for that matter. In terms of the methodology of delivering the goal, I think we do need to set a target and set it in stone, a timeline. If we set a target of 2050, we might make it there by 2060. If we set a target of 2030, we might make it by 2035. I think we do have to be ambitious. The approach, however, the way that we get there needs to start within our local communities, it needs to be taking this organic and pragmatic approach which builds relationships with local stakeholders so that people do not feel usurped and excluded from the conversation by much larger corporates to whom they have absolutely no hope of expressing their wishes. And what makes it worse is that when these corporations are foreign, it becomes clear that they are not invested in benefiting local communities.

Will Barber-Taylor: In my previous question, I mentioned houses and building houses. You may have partly answered this with your response to the question, but how do we ensure that there is a balance in terms of building more houses and having a better source of sustainable energy? And how can we actually use the building of houses to generate renewable energy? 

Penelope Hope: Housebuilding is an integral part of our journey toward a fully renewable future. What we are seeing, of course, is the shift from us being energy consumers to our households being energy prosumers. So that is where every household has solar panels on the roof, potentially a turbine in the garden, an electric vehicle on the front lawn, which we know acts essentially as a giant battery. We have to think about heat pumps, electric boilers. We have to think about energy-efficient devices and appliances in the home. Does everyone have an induction cooker, or are some people still using gas? It is an essential part of that journey. And it is another area where, if we can succeed in rolling this out with good operational leadership, each household can become energy self-sufficient in and of itself. And we also need to make sure that some of our populace who are living in council homes or housing association homes, come on that journey as well. The government needs to partner with those local councils to make sure that they have money in their budget so that low-income households, social housing can also be tooled and equipped, so that everybody comes on the energy transition together. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. Just turning now to REGOs and REGO certificates, they show that energy comes from a renewable source, yet they do not increase the amount of renewable energy on the grid, as you are simply buying existing energy supplies. How are power purchase agreements different from them? 

Penelope Hope: REGO stands for a Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin. And what that certificate does is that it is issued against a megawatt hour of electricity emanating from a renewable source. But what has been unfortunately allowed to happen, in a process that the industry refers to as unbundling, is that the certificate can be decoupled from the underlying megawatt-hour of renewable generation. And then it can be traded. 

If we take a working example, I could be an energy supplier with a fixed-term contract to supply you with a year’s worth of your energy needs. And I could source your energy using the money that you have paid me from the wholesale markets, buying from coal, oil, and gas. And at the end of the year, I could purchase a commensurate number of REGO certificates against the energy that I have supplied you. And I could tell you that you have been on a green tariff. It is duplicitous. It is wrong. And it is completely depleting any trust that there was in the energy sector. The thing to remember is that only a very small fraction of the amount paid for the REGO certificate actually makes it back to the renewable energy generation power plant. So it completely fails to stimulate the growth and the investment that these generation plants desperately need to increase their supply. Power Purchase Agreements, or PPAs for short, are different. That is a direct contract between an energy supplier and a specific renewable generation plant. They come together, they negotiate a contract, they agree on the length, the terms, and the price. 

And it means that the supplier can then offer the consumer what is known as traceability. Will, I can guarantee you that the money you have given me has been spent at such and such a solar farm in Norfolk. And that is wonderful. It creates transparency. It builds trust, and it is helping to increase the renewable generation economy. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. And I think it is also important that people are not only aware of these distinctions, but also are aware of, as you say, the amount of duplicity involved with the certificates as they stand. Do you think this is something that a great many people are actually aware of at the moment in the general populace? 

Penelope Hope: No, of course not. I think even if you work in the energy sector, some of these concepts can be quite opaque. Again, it is the responsibility, I believe, of a renewable energy supplier to educate customers. Of course, some of the big suppliers are not going to be incentivised to provide this education because it does not work in their favour. So we are relying on the small suppliers to carry the weight of that. And we need integrity of journalism, we need integrity in our media, and in our TV companies, to make sure that this message gets across and helps people to wake up and see where their money is going. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. I would like to now turn to how businesses, both large and small, can balance making a profit with ensuring that they support their employees and create a positive impact. How best do you think that they can do that in terms of their energy consumption, particularly if they want to use renewable energy? 

Penelope Hope: I am asked this question often in my capacity as a consultant, and I find it quite a strange one because, for me, all efforts that are made to increase a company’s impact or money that is spent on increasing impact have a self-reflexive benefit; it comes back to the business in the form of trade. With Rebel, as a great example, we set out with a vision to alleviate fuel poverty. And we orchestrated everything about our company to hinge on that long-term goal. It filtered through to our hiring policy. We would interview people on the basis of their beliefs and their values. 

It filtered through to branding and our messaging, our marketing strategy. We would constantly talk about the problems that fuel poverty was creating for people. And it helped us with our capital raising needs. We attracted the most wonderful kinds of investors who were with our company for the long term because they, too, believe what we believe. It makes it very easy to do business when you have a clear vision set out. That is what leadership’s all about. Let us take a look at how that leadership methodology has benefited us in the last 12 months. There has been the biggest price shock to wholesale markets that we have ever seen in the energy markets. So many small suppliers have fallen by the wayside. They have gone under for a variety of reasons, but our little company is still going strong. Not only has that leadership methodology protected us from a period of market volatility, but it has also enabled us to grow and to scale when prices are high. Leading with impact is what will secure your business. It will increase your profits. And I am not talking about impact for impact’s sake, which is where we get greenwashing from. I am talking about having a true belief in what you are doing and having those beliefs emanate and infiltrate the entirety of your leadership methodology within your business and without. 

Will Barber-Taylor: We have been discussing government leadership in businesses and how energy has become so central to leadership, particularly over the past few months, with the rising cost of it. Do you think that the government are adequately equipped to govern on this topic? 

Penelope Hope: In short, no, I do not. And that is not necessarily a problem if we had a better system of leadership. So what we are lacking at the moment in government is real sector expertise. And when I look at the set-up of government, we have got the Prime Minister at the top, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer next door. I think we have to put new solutions on the table with respect to our energy governance. We could set up, for instance, a Chancellor of Energy in which you would have a triangular structure, Prime Minister at the top, Chancellor, Exchequer on one side, Chancellor of Energy on the other side. They need a little bit more jurisdiction and room to operate and to get results.

They need to have a serious pedigree of time spent in the industry. It is essential. This is so complex, and our economy is so reliant on the security of our energy needs. We cannot afford to get it wrong. Another way to do it could potentially be setting up an energy committee, an operational energy committee, to operationalise this energy transition. We had the committee to deliver the London Olympics, and that got a lot of bad press at the time, but it was highly effective. We had a fantastic Olympics. It was a great result for us. It does not matter if the Prime Minister, or Members of Parliament, an energy experts or not. What matters is that we have some office, a special office for energy leadership, where people are meritocratically hired into those roles so that we have a grip on energy management in this country. We need a different form of governance.

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely. We are coming towards the end of the interview. It has been great to speak to you, Penelope. And I have one final question. Viewing this energy crisis from the perspective of the last 70-odd years of post-war politics, how do you feel about the future?

Penelope Hope: I am a sceptical optimist. I think we have got a couple of issues. The first issue is that we are lacking integrity in leadership, in our government leadership. I think we need to start asking tougher questions about the people that we are allowing to govern us. 

We need to agree again on a set of beliefs and values for what qualifies a leader. I believe that the only quality that can qualify a leader is humility. In order to screen for humility, we need to look beyond simple political rhetoric. We need to look at their track record. We need to look at how they have governed and stewarded themselves in respect of their personal affairs. 

These are really important issues. As we do with one thing, so we do with all things. I think that is the first thing we have to do. We need to take a look at our media landscape. Regardless of the leaders that we have had in power over the last however many decades, the media is sensationalist, which does not help cultivate the intellectual debate that is necessary to bring about the right outcomes. We also need to make sure that the right things are being reported. I can think of quite a few marches that have happened recently in London about oil companies, for instance, which simply have not made it to the news. That is really worrying in 2022 in a Western society and democracy. So, integrity of leadership, integrity of the media landscape, we need to take a thorough look at those pieces. In terms of building on those two parts for our future, I think of Winston Churchill when he said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” That is really important for us now. If we get this energy transition right, leveraging on the back of the huge volatility and the crisis that we have seen in the energy market, leveraging on the back of the chaos that Brexit has created administratively for our country, the fuel poverty crisis, and the cost of living crisis. This is an opportunity to get it right. To get it right, we have to look rigorously at the issues that we are facing. We need to set a long-term goal based on a set of agreed-upon beliefs and values. We can maximise this crisis to our advantage. We can rebuild our society. Our economy and our energy network can undergo enormous economic renewal if we bring the housing aspect, the wholesale price aspect, and the international aspect under control. I think this is our moment to secure our energy future for the long term, but we need the right leadership to do it. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Absolutely, thank you once again for coming on, Penelope. If people want to find out more about you, where should they go? 

Penelope Hope: Twitter, or website to find out more about me. I am on LinkedIn, and I welcome all approaches. 

Will Barber-Taylor: Fantastic. Thank you once again for coming to the interview. 

Penelope Hope: Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure. 

Note: This interview has been edited for grammar, clarity, and flow. The original recording is the final and definitive version.