Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 46 in my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, clearly set out, this group of amendments is trying to implement something that the Government themselves have established: the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard: Guidance on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting and Sustainability Criteria, which I believe dates originally to April and was updated in July. I find myself in the unusual position of saying that I want to enforce something that the Government have established. Experts in this area tell me that the conditions set out in these standards are: the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of hydrogen for it to be considered low carbon; the emissions being considered up to the point of production; and, very importantly, the risk mitigation plan for fugitive hydrogen emissions. There is perhaps not much public awareness of the risk of that, but we need to share and understand it. The criteria are set out there.

I am not particularly attached to the way this is done in my amendment; I was simply trying to put Amendment 46 down to say that, for the subsidies to be available, it must meet the Government’s own standard. That seems the simplest way, but I am very happy to be convinced that there are various other ways; other amendments are going in the same direction. I am happy should we still need to get to this on Report to talk to people about what the best way of doing it is, but surely the Government want to enforce their own standards.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 47 in my name. I find myself in the unusual position of being more environmentally ambitious than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in that the standard that my amendment would introduce on hydrogen would be more stringent and would ensure that we are investing in this form of clean energy only if it is truly clean.

It is a not well understood fact that hydrogen actually has a global warming potential which is not insignificant. When released into the atmosphere, it has the effect of inhibiting the breakdown of methane, which we all know is a powerful greenhouse gas. The latest papers to come out that the Government have produced themselves indicate that, over a 100-year timescale, hydrogen has a global warming potential of 11 times that of CO₂. That is over 100 years, but we are probably concerned about the next 20 years, in which case that rises to it having 33 times as powerful a greenhouse gas effect as CO₂.

When it comes to hydrogen, I know it is often touted as the great white hope and the great solution—in fact, we have had adverts plastered all over Westminster telling us that hydrogen is the answer. However, it has to be considered carefully in context. It is very difficult to produce and to transport, and it is very dangerous to have around the house. In fact, studies have shown that it is potentially between three to four times more likely that someone will be injured from a hydrogen explosion in the home compared to natural gas. Already, natural gas has an unhappily high number of accidents and injuries from its use in the home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 225, which seeks to introduce a requirement to construct gas storage facilities to hold 25% of forecast consumption by 2025. I understand that past Governments have not believed that the country has any particular need for gas storage facilities, given that we have extracted large amounts of gas from the North Sea. I am sceptical that we will find it possible, or indeed necessary, to reduce our reliance on gas as quickly as the Government’s net-zero policy currently requires.

However, the extreme volatility in the price of natural gas on the international markets means that British consumers are much more exposed to massive and rapid price increases than consumers in countries that maintain much more significant gas storage facilities, such as Germany. Even if the Government accelerate the development and commercial deployment of more new nuclear reactors than they have planned so far, we will still need large amounts of reliable energy that is not subject to intermittency. Increasing gas storage facilities as an urgent priority will mitigate the risks we face today, and I hope that the Minister will support this.

My noble friend Lord Moylan explained why he selected 25% as the proportion of forecast demand each year beyond 2025. My noble friend Lady McIntosh suggested that this should be defined in days—I think it would be 91 days at 25%, as an average, but surely we use much more gas in winter than summer. I doubt that our consumption of gas will steadily decline in the years beyond 2025 but, so far as it does, I am not saying that it is not a good thing. If the Government are correct and reduced demand in 2028 or 2030 is realised, storage facilities holding 25% of forecast demand may hold 30% or 35%. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this very useful amendment.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to this group of amendments. It is clear that the resilience of our energy system is absolutely crucial. As recent events have shown, a non-resilient system poses great threats, in both rising costs and vulnerable people suffering.

I will ask about the best approach to delivering the enhancement of gas storage that I think we all agree on. It seems clear to me that, in Clause 10, the Government are considering making an intervention into energy markets to guarantee a certain volume of fuel supply, because of the perceived worry that investment into these sectors is slowing—quite rightly in my view, because they have a limited lifespan. The fossil fuel industry will have to quickly adapt to a rapidly electrifying energy system in which its product will be less needed. So, in time, we will see a diminishing market, in part because of government policy—and that is completely correct, as we move away from polluting forms of energy. But this opens up the risk that there will be a gap between private sector investment and our needs, as we will still rely on these fuels during the transition. It seems to me that the Government have convinced themselves that an intervention on core fuels for transport is necessary for this reason—the fear that a gap will open.

Has a similar analysis been done on the gas market in light of recent events? Would it not therefore make sense to consider some kind of holistic intervention into the market for energy security purposes, rather than a piecemeal, fuel-by-fuel approach? Does that complement, or supplement, the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, providing some way through this that we can perhaps discuss during Committee and then come back to on Report?

I support Amendment 240, but would the VAT exemption apply to larger systems, like schools and other buildings, or is it just for personal home use? It seems to be sensible to try to level this up so that people can make use of it.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

To be absolutely clear, it would apply to all batteries that receive their supply from solar panels.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

In which case, I am even more supportive, because it is absolutely clear that installing solar panels is a fast way to reduce demand for fossil fuels and to increase resilience. If it can then be stored, even more resilience will be added to the system. So this would seem to be a very sensible amendment, and I thank the noble Lord for his meticulous detail in spotting this.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with my European Affairs Committee hat on. I see these as enabling amendments for the storage of energy. The first Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which took place in May, had a specific session on energy security. The mood was clear: the 70 politicians—35 from Westminster and 35 from the European Parliament—felt that, in a difficult security environment, energy was a European-level matter and that we should think about it as such. Interestingly, I was at a European security conference on Monday and the exact same theme came through. Yesterday, we were settling the agenda for the second Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and this theme will be on the agenda again.

Many of the speeches and thinking this evening have been from the United Kingdom view of the world. However, we should be enabling ourselves to consider this from a European perspective. As we might be storing gas for others, such as the Germans, anything in these amendments which would allow a future Secretary of State the flexibility to do that would be a good thing from a European context. Therefore, they would be good from a European affairs point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

When my noble friend says “tankers”, I take it she means LNG tankers. I forget the exact figure, but we get 45% from our own domestic capacity and about 3% to 4% through interconnectors, so I guess the rest will be made up from LNG shipments. We have three LNG gasification terminals in the UK. Those figures are off the top of my head; I will correct them if they are not right.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am sure he expects the reply that he is going to get. As he will be well aware, changes to tax policy are considered as part of the Budget process. As Treasury officials are always very keen to tell me whenever I put forward such proposals, they have lots of proposals from people for exemptions from various taxes but not many proposals for how to make up the revenue that would be lost from them. I am sure that the Chancellor will want to take that fully into consideration in the context of the Government’s wider fiscal position. I fully take on board the points that the noble Lord made. The Government keep all taxes under review and always, the Treasury tells me, welcome representations to help inform future decisions on tax policy.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

In case there are any Treasury officials listening or, indeed, reading Hansard, I suggest that one form of new tax would be on the trading of fossil fuel commodities. This is a huge source of revenue to the suppliers of fossil fuels into the market, and the commodity trading markets is a very good place to look for taxation revenue.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her suggestion. The Treasury is not normally shy in coming forward with proposals for extra taxes if it thinks it can get away with it. Of course, we have already imposed the excess profits levy on a number of producers in the UK; indeed, those producers already pay increased rates of corporation tax. We must be careful that we do not disincentivise investment. Putting aside the wider politics of it, which we all understand, I am sure that everybody is aware that we need tens of billions of pounds of investment into existing oil and gas facilities. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for the continued production of UK gas; it is an important transition fuel and I hope he will manage to convince some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues to support us in this. We do need gas in the short term, but many of those same companies are investing many billions of pounds also in offshore wind and other renewable energy infrastructure, so we want to be careful not to disincentive them too much from that. I am sure the Treasury will want to take into account all these helpful considerations as to how it can increase its tax base.

In conclusion, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments on these topics. I hope I have been able to provide at least some reassurance to some people on their amendments and that they will therefore feel able not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55, 56 and 57 to Clause 66, which are in my name. As has been eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, we absolutely need to put at the forefront of our attention the need to minimise adding costs to consumers at this time. Please excuse my coarse language, but it feels to me that the Government are in danger of moving from “cutting the green crap” to forcing us to take on crap green. That is essentially what we are doing here.

It is an adding of potentially unlimited expense for a commodity which will play a role—I am not completely against the use of hydrogen for certain applications—but the idea that it will be used at scale for homes is completely ludicrous. It is therefore absolutely right that we limit the levy to the people who will benefit from its use. That will not be consumers and certainly not electricity bills. What we want is cheaper electricity. I am confident that electricity will soften as we get off fossil fuels and rely more on more predictable and stable forms of electricity generation, such as nuclear, offshore wind and a whole panoply of ways of making electricity that we can control more easily than relying on imported gas. Those costs will soften, and we want to keep them cheap because that will enable us to electrify whole other segments of the economy.

So I absolutely support limiting this levy to gas, whether that is by saying it should be gas shippers or removing the reference to electricity, as my Amendment 55 does—I am completely agnostic on that, but the issue is fundamental. I will quote from a briefing that some of us may have received from E.ON, a big provider of energy which quite cleverly split itself into a clean electricity part and a not-so-clean one. The clean part says clearly that “recovering the costs of these new technologies through electricity bills is regressive and difficult to justify considering the soaring cost of living and the potential benefits of these technologies to individual consumers are uncertain. It is damaging that the Bill allows the Government to recover the costs of hydrogen revenue through electricity suppliers and, therefore, electricity consumers.” I fully support that and I have to say that my amendment was tabled before I read the briefing.

I considered striking out the whole levy with a clause stand part debate, but I thought that might be more the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, so in Amendment 56 I am simply saying that there should be a sunrise to delay us rushing into adding more costs. The amendment proposes that the regulations should not be brought in until 6 April 2026. Amendment 57 simply states that a financial impact assessment must be made available if and when this levy starts to be added to bills.

My guess is that the use of hydrogen will be limited. It will be very expensive and it is very inefficient, so the costs should not and will not be borne in time. But I am worried that in this Bill we seem to be diverting towards a distraction and risking an illogical transition which will slow us down and add costs unnecessarily. That is damaging to the net-zero cause and to people’s confidence in this transition. We should therefore be very circumspect on this levy provision; we should be narrowing its application and slowing it down. I hope that the Government will consider this, because I am sure they have read the science and understand the physics as well as everybody else. It really ought to be limited.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, maybe we need to take this forward as a way to do it. The cost to consumers is absolutely central at the moment, and this is not a short-term thing—it is at least medium term. Later we will come to an amendment which says we should repeal the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act, which was all about raising costs to consumers in the short term and has nothing to do with nuclear power otherwise.

In my amendment, I am trying to do something very similar to what has already been debated: if we are going to accept this levy—we know levies are always very contentious when implemented in terms of who has to pay for them and who gets the benefits from them, which leads to a lot of argument—it is quite clear that for hydrogen there is only a very limited sector of organisations, people and population who will actually benefit from it. In its own way, my amendment seeks to prevent other consumers who are not benefiting from hydrogen having to pay for that investment.

It is very much in line with other Members’ amendments and it is absolutely fundamental to the messages that we as a Parliament, and the Government, are putting out at the moment to consumers and company users of energy. Let us make sure that, if we have this levy, it is kept to those who benefit from hydrogen rather than those outside who do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I have no doubt that hydrogen will have a role to play, but it is more likely to go into fertiliser production or long-distance fuels for shipping and aviation. The provisions being taken here do not allow for it to be applied to the sectors that consume fossil fuels—gas obviously covers fertilised gas. This needs to be thought through in relation to where hydrogen will most likely be needed. It will play a tiny role in decarbonising electricity, if at all, because there are so many other ways of doing it more cheaply and more efficiently.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I have also seen the models of where it is most likely that hydrogen would be used, and I have considerable sympathy for many of the points that she made. As to the where it will be used, it will clearly be in industrial processes and heavy-goods transportation. These would be more likely uses than home heating or decarbonisation, but it would possibly play a role. Nevertheless, as I said, I have taken note of what has been said in the Committee and understand the points that have been made. If the noble Baroness allows me, I will take them away to look at, and possibly revisit them at Report.

Amendment 56 seeks to impose restrictions on when the hydrogen levy can be introduced to fund the hydrogen business model. This will help to unlock potentially billions of pounds worth of investment in hydrogen that we need across the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring that long-term funding is provided through the hydrogen business model, and the provisions in the Bill do not require the Government to introduce the levy by a particular date. We do not expect the levy to be introduced any time before 2025, and so we do not expect it to have any impact on consumer bills before then, at the earliest. Decisions regarding when to introduce the levy will take into account wider government policies and priorities, including considerations related to energy bill affordability, which is always at the forefront of our considerations.

The first set of regulations under Clause 66, establishing the levy, will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so we would fully expect Parliament to exercise its role, and particularly your Lordships’ House to scrutinise how the Government intend to exercise those powers.

Amendment 56 would, in my view, introduce restrictions that are unnecessary, given the Government’s approach to decisions related to when to introduce the levy and the parliamentary scrutiny requirements that would be associated with any relevant secondary legislation.

Amendment 57 seeks to protect consumers by introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a specific consumer impact report before making regulations under Clause 66, establishing a hydrogen levy. As I mentioned, the parliamentary procedure for the first set of regulations that establish the levy will help ensure that the levy receives sufficient scrutiny from Parliament. Crucially, I can tell the Committee that it is already the Government’s intention to publish an impact assessment alongside the draft regulations made under Clause 66. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is unnecessary and feel able to not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Worthington]

59: Clause 72, page 63, line 36, leave out from second “counterparty” to end of line 38 and insert “and the eligible low carbon hydrogen producer specified in the notification must, in accordance with provision made by revenue support regulations, contract on—”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes the signing of a revenue support contract or contract for difference (CFD) mandatory for a firm which has successfully bid for it.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I shall move Amendment 59 and speak to Amendments 60 and 61, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who sends his apologies. He had a diary clash, but assures me that he is fully supportive of this discussion. In fact, he informed he that he was around when the very first CfDs were used as private contracts, a long time ago, and is very keen that they remain a trusted and respected form of investment, hence he was keen to lend his name.

These are obviously probing amendments, designed to start a discussion about the need to preserve integrity in the CfD mechanism. The UK deserves huge credit for having introduced this mechanism, which is seen as investable and a dependable way of getting large investment into decarbonised infrastructure—something we all need.

It is regrettable that there is now a set of circumstances whereby contracts, once awarded, are not being taken up. The reason they are not being taken up is that market prices are currently so high that if you took on your contract for difference, you would be required to pay back into the fund anything above your strike price. Some of these contracts have been awarded at around £55, £59 or £60 per megawatt hour—market prices are way above that—so people are choosing not to take up the contract and to delay.

Now, I am aware of three wind farms that have currently delayed this for these reasons. It makes perfect sense for them: they are representing shareholder value and possibly could not do otherwise, because of the existence of a loophole, which is that there is no requirement to take up the contract once it is awarded. What we want to try to do is close that loophole and, if possible, do something about it in the current time. Amendments 59, 60 and 61 all seek to do that.

It is important to note that these three wind farms—I do not want to overblow this; it is not everybody—are all in foreign ownership. Ørsted, RWE and EDP Renewables in Spain own these sites. It is public money that they are essentially not giving back, having got this contract. It feels very wrong, at the time of a cost of living crisis, when we need every penny, for hundreds of millions of pounds to be lost to these companies and their shareholders as a result of this loophole in how the contracts are drafted and can then be delayed.

I am sure that the Government are working hard to try to address this too. It strikes me that we have an Energy Bill and can therefore get this right for future contracts, but if we can also do something about current contracts, that would be enormously beneficial. I thank Carbon Brief for helping me understand how many wind farms are involved in this: they are Hornsea Two, Triton Knoll and Moray East, I am told by an article in the Times, just to get that on the record in Hansard. If the Government know differently, and if they can tell us exactly the extent of the problem, that would be super helpful, because we have not been able to find it from official sources. This is, as I say, from research by Carbon Brief. If the noble Lord, Lord Howell, were here, I am sure he would say how keen he is for this to be resolved. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

The history of contracts for difference is longer than I thought; I thank the noble Baroness for mentioning that. They became a big thing in the last Energy Act during the coalition Government and have been amazingly successful. I have to admit that I did not realise that this issue was quite so significant, but it is interesting that, given the financial investment required for offshore wind farms and the time they often take to implement and build, this is a case where the risk goes up for the financial investor, as opposed to a low-risk contract for difference. I am therefore also interested to understand from the Minister whether these businesses are just delaying until they see the lay of the land and whether they still have those options, because there is that risk-reward ratio.

I very much support the intention of this amendment, but the energy industry has also talked about contracts for difference being a way forward even in the fossil fuel industry, and a way that we could decouple power prices from gas prices. It may be that the Government are not doing anything in that area, but I am interested to understand whether that is something the department is investigating as a way forward on that decoupling.

Contracts for difference are a fantastic invention. As the Minister said, at the moment they are bringing good money back into the public sector—technically into the counterparty company, but effectively into the public finances. I very much support the motivation of this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My briefing suggests that only three small projects totalling 41 megawatts have refused to sign a CfD contract, but that does not sound like a big enough totality to incorporate three large wind farms. I am afraid I do not have any further details on that at this moment.

Amendments 59 and 60 similarly seek to make the signing of a revenue support contract mandatory for a firm which has successfully bid for it through an allocation process put in place under Clauses 68 to 74. Clause 72 provides for a hydrogen production counterparty and carbon capture counterparty, acting in accordance with provision made by regulations, to offer to contract with an eligible low-carbon hydrogen producer or eligible carbon capture entity respectively in specified circumstances. Clause 72(3) provides the Secretary of State with a power to make further provision in regulations about an offer to contract made under this clause. Subsection 3(d) sets out that this may include provision about

“what is to happen if the eligible low carbon hydrogen producer or eligible carbon capture entity does not enter into such a contract as a result of the offer.”

As I have explained, a similar power in the Energy Act 2013 has been exercised to introduce the non-delivery disincentive for the CfD regime, which has been very effective in discouraging non-compliance across the four CfD allocation rounds.

We are considering how to evolve our approach towards more competitive allocation processes under Clauses 68 to 74 for the industrial carbon capture business models. Work is under way to develop the possible design of a more competitive allocation process for the hydrogen business model, including the offer to contract process. I therefore ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord not to press Amendments 59 and 60, but again thank them for helping to test the robustness of the Government’s decarbonisation ambitions.

I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that, with the offer to write with further details on the wind farms, they feel able to withdraw their amendment.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I have not been clear enough; it is entirely my fault. These are not non-delivery instances. These are instances in which a wind farm is completed, has a CfD and then delays the actual mechanic of the strike price by a certain number of months or years. In doing so, they are ensuring that they can sell at merchant value now and then take up the strike price when the prices fall. Essentially, they have de-risked completely, so that we are carrying all the downside risk and they are taking all the upside risk. That is not how a CfD works. Three of them are doing this, so my fear is that this has almost become quite a clever standard practice. If it persists, this is hundreds of millions of pounds that could be coming back. It completely undermines the integrity of the whole process. So it is not the non-delivery or refusal to sign—I understand that all those provisions are there—it is the delaying out. There is nothing government or the LCCC can use to compel them to take it up at the point of signing. It is on that that I would love to receive a note.

We are obviously going to come back to this. It is all in the interests of getting value for money, keeping up the reputation of this sector and making it as full of integrity as we can. I will withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the conversation.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

This is something that I suspect we all hold the same view on. Could the Minister write to us to clarify the situation before Report? That would be very useful. It seems to me that we are all on the same side on this.