The reason this is important is because the lead times for investment in electricity generation tend to

The reason this is important is because the lead times for investment in electricity generation tend to be exceptionally long ones ­ typically three years to get the plant built for a life expectancy of more than 20 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate, the upshot is a set of proposals which for planning purposes is completely useless to the electricity supply industry. Electricity companies haven't a clue, on the basis of what was published yesterday, what sort of a regime they will be operating under. Defra tends to bat for the green lobby, but the DTI worries about the effect of too onerous a regime on competitiveness. This extraordinarily wide range is largely down to a difference of opinion between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over how much might be needed to meet Britain's obligations under the trading scheme.

Now the Government expects it to bear the entire burden of reductions for Phase 2. Can this be right? It is no wonder that Mrs Beckett finds herself in such a muddle, for whether or not the proposals go far enough, they are being pursued in a particularly unhelpful way for electricity suppliers. The Phase 2 carbon reduction plans envisage a cut of between 3 and 8 million tonnes per annum between 2008 and 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. Nothing is ever good enough for the Greens, so their response was predictable enough Yet the industrial reaction was equally hostile.

The electricity generating industry bore the brunt of CO2 reductions in Phase 1 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, thundered the Association of Electricity Producers. Thus it was that the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, found herself under attack on all sides yesterday over the Government's new Climate Change Review Programme. Protracted negotiations with a private equity acquirer in the meantime will only slow the demerger process for no certain outcome. GUS has also sensibly opted for a London listing, rather than New York, where arguably Experian could have commanded a higher valuation.