Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Government for their Statement on short-term support for large-scale biomass generation as part of the UK’s energy generation mix. The Government inherited from the Conservatives a system where large-scale state subsidies are provided for the burning of biomass. This form of energy generation currently plays an important role in our energy system, providing some 5% of our national energy needs. These subsidies are worth some £2 million a day. Over time, Drax has received billions of pounds in government subsidies and from bill payers because wood pellets are classed as a source of renewable energy. Lucrative government subsidies are due to come to an end in 2027, hence the Statement before us today. The new agreement reached with Drax will run from 2027 to 2031 and will see the power station used only as a back-up to cheaper renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.
We can have lots of arguments about the sustainability calculations used to justify Drax. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, speaking on the Great British Energy Bill on Report last night, and I am not a scientist and do not have the exact answers. What I will say is that shipping wood across the Atlantic has a carbon footprint. Repeated incidence of old-growth forest being felled and burned undermines credibility and must stop.
Finally, the very fact that the Government are looking at carbon capture and storage to prolong the life of Drax is telling. Labour’s new plan will allow for four more years of unabated wood burning, which produces 18% more CO2 than burning coal, according to the IPCC data. It takes nearly 100 years for this carbon to be pulled back from the atmosphere. Climate change driven by CO2 emissions is clearly the greatest threat to humanity’s survival. Even a 100-year, long-term carbon-neutral Drax is hardly beneficial to anything we need to achieve to effect any real change in the race for humanity’s survival.
The Liberal Democrats see biomass as a fundamentally inefficient method of producing electricity, and we strongly believe that it should not qualify as a form of renewable energy. The Government’s plan to continue to subsidise the Drax power plant causes environmental harm and is not beneficial compared to investment in renewable energy. It does not provide good value for money for our bill payers. We are concerned that, although this plan would cut the amount of wood Drax is burning by 50%, the price is still lucrative—indeed, I see in the news that Drax’s share price has risen by 11% this week.
We are deeply concerned about the destruction of primary forests. The new agreement states that the wood must be 100% sustainably sourced. How will the Government verify that this is the case, when it has not been in the past? Further, I ask the Minister to publish the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s record on claiming subsidies on a false basis. Are the Government prepared to publish that report?
The new proposals will see a halving in the use of Drax and a saving on subsidies of £147 million. Will those savings be redirected into other renewable projects? Under this proposal, Drax can step in to increase energy generation and provide flexibility where it is needed. Is this not just an energy marriage of convenience? Will the Government consider reclassifying Drax as being not a renewable source? It is time to stop calling it such; if the Government need that power generation for flexibility, clearer labels should be given.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that we would ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030—and that would not include biomass. When will the statutory instrument be published? I am pleased that the Government have halved the subsidies for Drax, but I hope that further progress is possible.
Finally, I wish to challenge the Minister. This Government should agree to ask NESO to write an independent report, to be produced relatively quickly, examining: the impacts of ending all subsidies to Drax; how those funds could be replaced and used for alternative renewables technologies; and what the resulting impact would be on our energy security and journey to net zero.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their comments. I understand, of course, that this is a sensitive area and that there are concerns, as noble Lords across the House have expressed. Equally, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator. It has advised us that Drax will play an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031. It is true that we could seek to replace Drax, but that would probably be with new gas-fired power stations. We believe that there would be significant risks in relying on that approach, and that what has been taken is a pragmatic decision.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said. I would point out, though, that it was the then Secretary of State for DESNZ who, under the Conservative Government, put their name on the planning approval for Drax’s plans for BECCS at the Selby site. The decision letter stated that the project would
“support the transition to Net Zero by 2050”.
I will respond to some of the points that noble Lords have made. The important thing is that the agreement reached ensures that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when that is really needed. Drax currently runs around two-thirds of the time; that means it provides power, even when other renewable sources are abundant. Under the new arrangement, Drax is being supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%, operating less than half as often as it currently does. This will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that has been agreed. What that means is that when renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
On cost, the new deal halves the subsidies for Drax compared with existing support. That is the equivalent of a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Our analysis shows that this will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement, compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market.
Your Lordships’ House has expressed a lot of concern about the obviously important questions on the measurement of sustainability over the past few months. I too was interested in the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—this was some time last night—as the chair of the challenge group that exists at Drax. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, as some noble Lords here have asked for, and exclude material sourced from primary forest and old-growth forest from receiving support payments. There are substantial penalties if these criteria are not met.
I know that there is concern about the regulatory system, but Ofgem has shown that it is prepared to act, and has acted. We will continue to make sure that our independent regulator has the support it needs to do what is necessary. We should have some faith in Ofgem’s ability to monitor and police this.
On the future of Drax, this new arrangement takes us from 2027 to 2031. We have not made any decisions post 2031, but we want to have proper options. We are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and DACS, can assist the UK in meeting our net-zero targets.
On the KPMG reports, Ofgem considered those as part of its detailed investigation into Drax. These are internal reports that the company commissioned and I cannot make a commitment on that, but I will take it away to see what I can do.
Overall, it seems to me that this is a—what is the word?—pragmatic response to a challenging question. The fact is that Drax makes an important contribution to our generating capacity. Equally, noble Lords will know that the Government have taken note of their concern about the general issue of sustainability by increasing the requirements. This is a four-year agreement and, clearly, we will come back to this important issue in the next few years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to following on from the Minister’s response about oversight of the source of the biomass going into Drax. He said he has confidence in the independent regulator, Ofgem. He alluded to the fact that, last year, Drax agreed to pay £25 million after Ofgem found that it had submitted inaccurate data on the sourcing of wood pellets. Does the Minister acknowledge that the problem there is that it is after the event? The trees have already been cut down and burned, and then, some years later, we get a fine. But the trees are no longer there and the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. There was a fine of £25 million, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to what is happening with Drax’s share price. Is there not a risk that Drax just regards this as part of the cost of doing business?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that Ministers do not comment on share prices at the Dispatch Box, for very good reasons.
We need to be clear that Ofgem’s investigation was thorough and rigorous. I have a great deal of trust in the work of Ofgem. The noble Baroness will know that there was no suggestion that Drax was awarded subsidies incorrectly under the existing renewables obligation or contracts for difference arrangements. It was more to with the documentation. The investigation found no evidence to suggest that Drax had been issued with subsidies incorrectly, and Ofgem was confident in its conclusions. Drax made a redress payment because there is a scheme within Ofgem for companies to do that. I must say that £25 million is substantial; I think it was a good indication to Drax that it needs to get its documents in order—and I very much hope that it has done so.
Of course, we will be looking to Ofgem to ensure that that happens, that everything is proper and that, under the new arrangements, we are satisfied that Drax can meet the criteria. This has not been an easy decision. In our debate yesterday, I was interested in the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who essentially said that she welcomed the progress; she was not overwhelmed with the decision, but there was an acknowledgement that we are making progress and understand the sensitivities.
One has to come back to the issue of biomass and its sustainability. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognise that bioenergy can play a significant role in decarbonising economies. We support the use of sustainable biomass generators only if it meets our sustainability criteria. I have said we are going to toughen that up. At the end of the day, it is a difficult question. I think we have come to a sensible arrangement, which, after all, is a short-term arrangement in the lifetime of the generators of four years from 2027 to 2031.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I would like to ask the Minister which issues will be taken into account for the decision after 2031. I welcome this as a first step towards reducing and hopefully eliminating our reliance on biomass as a sustainable fuel. I recognise that it is difficult at the moment to commit to what will happen in 2031. However, it might be useful to know from the Minister exactly what criteria will surround the decision about 2031, because it will take some time to make that decision. We will probably use up quite a lot of the time between now and then arguing about what the decision is going to be.
In particular, I would like some clarification on the Government’s position and expectation on the Drax carbon capture, utilisation and storage programme. Is that going to continue under the current arrangement, or will it be subject to a separate negotiation? Will it involve additional payments to Drax to fund that programme? How material will the outcome of that programme be on reaching a decision on what happens after 2031?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot say very much more about how we will review post 2031, but I am very happy to talk to my noble friend about her views. I am not unaware of her views about the continuation of the subsidy, as she spoke to me a few months ago.
We probably have to go back to the analysis of NESO and the advice we received on the impact on our electricity system covering the period 2027 to 2031 if support for Drax was withdrawn in 2027. It said that
“having large-scale biomass available in this period could have a significant impact in mitigating potential risks to electricity security of supply and could also support the delivery of clean power by 2030. The analysis showed that without large-scale biomass, security of supply would not be ensured in scenarios with additional supply losses. While alternative options could deliver the same outcomes, these options have greater delivery risks”.
That is clearly one of the factors that would have to be considered in any long-term review, and there will be other factors as well.
Having reached this agreement, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not know yet when the statutory instrument will be coming. Work has to be done on that. We also normally have to consult on a draft SI. I think it will probably be some months before we get to debate it, but I understand the importance of that debate.
We have made no decision about the deployment of large scale BECCS. I think I said earlier that we are going to have an independent review, looking at options for greenhouse gas removal, including how large-scale power BECCS and DACCS can assist us. Again, I cannot answer that question, but it is clearly something that we are giving very earnest consideration to at the moment. The noble Baroness speaks with great authority. If she and other noble Lords want to feed in ideas to the department about the long-term review, I would be very happy to take them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful for the direction of travel indicated in the Statement. Perhaps I could just ask a couple of questions.
First, I was struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, yesterday—as the Minister and other Members were—on the subtlety around whether biomass is making a negative or a positive contribution. At the moment it seems that, as long as it comes from the right sort of forest, it is almost always treated as being naturally positive. I wonder whether His Majesty’s Government will consider a more subtle understanding, based on the insights of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, of what should be counted as helping us towards a net zero and what is actually putting more carbon into the atmosphere.
On carbon capture and storage, I remember vividly going to a lecture for alumni at my old college in Cambridge. I am a mathematician and one of my former lecturers was at the cutting edge of carbon capture and storage technology. He was telling us about the work that he was doing with government and others and said that it was just about five or six years around the corner. I think it was probably about 25 years ago that I went to that lecture. It seems that carbon capture and storage is like cold nuclear fusion; it is always just around the corner but never actually comes. Could the Minister give any assessment of how much we can really take note of carbon capture and storage, or is it just another Cinderella that is never really going to happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is a very interesting question. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, were here, she would say that fusion is just around the corner. We have this STEP programme. We have global leadership here and my officials and people in the industry are very excited about the potential. When I was doing this job 14 or 16 years agreement, people were telling me it would be 20 years away. I emphasise to the right reverend Prelate that there is real optimism that we are seriously going to be able to make advances. It is the same with carbon capture, usage and storage. Again, we have been talking about this for years, but the Government are putting in some serious investment. We know the technology can work and we think it has great potential.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since we have time, I would like to go back to Drax. We have spoken about where the biomass comes from, in terms of the source of the trees and whether they are whole trees or trimmings. But have the Government given any consideration to what happens in wood pellet facilities, where the material is processed into pellets in the United States? There is evidence of a huge amount of harmful air pollution, including dust, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and, particularly, toxic or hazardous pollutants such as acrolein and methanol. These can cause problems such as asthma and respiratory illnesses in nearby communities. It is worth noting that many of these facilities are located near communities of colour, who already suffer serious economic disadvantages and health problems.
We know that regulation of environmental factors and environmental health in the US has always been poor. We are seeing every indication from the new US regime that it intends to make it much poorer still. Is this something the Government have considered, are considering or will talk to Drax about and put pressure on it? I come back to a phrase we became very familiar with during the Covid pandemic: no one is safe until everyone is safe. A terrible state of public health in the US—think about what is happening with the H5N1 virus—is of concern to all of us. Are the conditions under which these pellets are produced something the Government think about?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Yes, it is. We do rely on regulators, both here and in other countries, but the science underpinning biomass sustainability does continue to evolve. The Government have listened to feedback from the noble Baroness, and other parliamentarians and stakeholder groups, about ways in which we can strengthen the sustainability criteria. We are going to consult separately on developing a common sustainability framework, where we plan to gather views and evidence on strengthening wider aspects of biomass sustainability. The points the noble Baroness has raised could very much be embraced within that, and I will make sure that they are.