Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Since we are having this conversation, it is not a question of putting off these measures but of proportionality and ranking those impacts according to the scale on which they are occurring today, taking into account the positive impacts of offshore wind on no-take zones and the artificial reefs they create, as well as the advances in technology that mean that floating platforms will be more common.

Then there is subsea cabling. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, did not pick up on the fact that the 30% loss she cited is very old data. We do not see those losses now, with modern technology. Subsea cabling will be the future of connections into existing places where there are already reinforced grids, thanks to the closing down of thermal plants. I do not see that we should be unduly raising issues and putting more and more barriers in the way of clean technologies delivering great reductions in emissions, as well as providing energy security and jobs. I support the Government’s amendments and I am sorry that I cannot be more supportive of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, before I start, as we may talk about energy storage later, I declare my interest as a director of Aldustria Limited, which is into energy storage. I am also chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.

First, I congratulate the Government on the Chris Skidmore report that has just come out. It is one of the best reports sponsored by the Government, and I look forward to hearing their reaction to its recommendations. There is some really good stuff in there that must be applauded.

Generally, I welcome these amendments. We know that we have to decarbonise our energy and, in particular, our electricity system; the Government have committed to do so completely by 2035. To do that, we have to make sure that we can deliver. Probably pretty well everybody agrees that methods of implementation, planning and getting wind farms into the gestation period all need to happen quicker, but we also know that there is a biodiversity crisis.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I deal a lot with the Wildlife Trusts, and it is about nature recovery, not stopping stuff. No other organisation is more into pointing out that we have been in retreat, we continue to retreat and that we need to reverse that—and the ways of doing so, primarily through agriculture but also, in the marine environment, various other ways as well.

I get a bit involved in the Celtic Sea development, which, I am pleased to say, the Minister mentioned. Down in the south-west we have been saying that there needs to be a holistic look at the effects of that programme on the environment—marine and terrestrially, where it comes on board—and that the research needs to be done in advance. That should quicken it, in that it is done in one whole system rather than by individual planning applications for individual farms or floating facilities, and so on. Through that, there is not necessarily a conflict between the two.

I very much support the exposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the hierarchy, because I am certain that, as we know from onshore and things we have talked about before, off-setting as we knew it is an excuse, mainly for developers—I declare that I have a developer role. It is sometimes too easy to push the problem somewhere else and not confront it where you are actually causing the damage. One of the problems is enforcement and making sure that those things actually happen.

As I said, I generally welcome these amendments and trying to speed up the process, which is necessary, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am concerned that we need to make sure that the powers given under these amendments are restricted to environmental improvement, in that they do not detract from that. I am particularly interested in how this compensation might work. The mitigation hierarchy absolutely needs to be put in primary legislation, but I want to understand from the Minister whether it is the Government’s intent that mitigation elsewhere should be a last resort. That is the fundamental question, and I would be very interested to hear the answer.

On the voluntary marine recovery fund, the idea of a voluntary fund seems very strange to me. What does it mean? I would like to understand from the Minister whether it means that, ultimately, it is voluntary. Is it voluntary for a developer that cannot do mitigation as we would all wish to contribute to this fund, or is it, at that point, compulsory? I do not get it. If it is voluntary, I am heavily concerned.

In addition, who will manage it in England? I understand well and I agree that it should be farmed out to the devolved authorities, but who will be the manager of that fund? I assume that it would involve rather large amounts of money, so how it is managed will be particularly important.

I also understand, although I do not think it is in the amendments, that there will be offshore wind environmental standards; I think that is in part of the briefing. I presume that these will have to be done by Defra. Defra is absolutely useless at doing environmental standards anything like on time. It has the whole of the EU repeal legislation Bill to do; I think the Defra Minister, Richard—

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to the Clause 108 and Clause 109 stand part notices and to Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

We have had wide-ranging debates but, when it comes down to the content of the Bill, the most egregious elements are possibly these two clauses. It seems absolutely incredible that we should require people to enter into a trial for something on which multiple studies have been undertaken already. We are essentially legislating to force people to take part in something we already know the answer to. We know the answer because 32 independent studies of the use of hydrogen in heating—since 2019, so they are relatively recent—by organisations including the IPCC, the IEA, Imperial College, the Potsdam Institute, the University of Manchester, the Wuppertal Institut, Element Energy and the International Council on Clean Transportation, have all found that hydrogen should not play a role in heating buildings. Hydrogen will be hugely inefficient, compared with other clean alternatives and gas, in terms of pure energy efficiency, damaging to health and dangerous. That should be enough evidence for the Government to rule out this unnecessary trial.

I honestly believe that this is a consequence of a huge amount of lobbying coming from the incumbents in the industry, including those who today manufacture gas boilers, produce gas and move gas around in the networks. What they fail to mention is that it is not as simple as just switching over to hydrogen: you have to replace virtually everything to be able to burn hydrogen at high levels. Yes, of course, you can burn very low levels, but who wants low levels? We are talking about a net-zero strategy in the next 25 years; you cannot afford to go through increments of 20% hydrogen and 30% hydrogen—it is simply not credible. It will do exactly what we saw in the co-firing of biomass in coal-fired power stations; it keeps the incumbents going for longer, keeps their investors and shareholders happy, and gives them an answer to the question, “How are you going to make your business compatible with climate change?”. It is a glib answer. It is not a full answer—in fact, it is false—but it is an answer none the less. That is why we are being forced into considering this, even though the evidence is absolutely clear that this is not the answer.

If I were a resident living in one of these poor villages—the villages of the damned, as I like to call them—I would be absolutely up in arms at the prospect of being forced into this egregious position in which I am asked to take this technology, which will be more expensive, less beneficial for my health and more damaging to the climate compared with other alternatives. I fully support the withdrawal of the two clauses; the Bill would be vastly better if we got rid of them. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I particularly support the proposal to take out Clauses 108 and 109. I did not put my name to that, but it seems the obvious solution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we have all been on the receiving end of massive lobbying by the hydrogen lobby. I will not go into hydrogen extensively, but clearly there are areas where hydrogen will need to work. It will be important in some energy-intensive industries and some long-term transport solutions, but we seem to have overreached in terms of those applications.

For heating, it just cannot make sense to use green hydrogen, which would have to be produced by renewable electricity, as electricity could be used anyway. Scientifically and in terms of the laws of physics and efficiency, it does not make sense. Heating is an important area—as we said, it represents some 40% of UK emissions—so surely it must be electrification directly, geothermal technologies or air source heat pumps, as we have discussed before. That is why I think these clauses not standing part is the best solution. If that is not agreed, I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has a similar one. This should not be compulsory and those consumers should be very aware of all the other repercussions.

My second amendment, Amendment 126, is less important. As with previous amendments, it just makes sure that only people who really benefit from these trials should have to pay for them and that those who do not should not. I do not understand how BEIS and the Government have become the victims of the lobbying that takes place.

Finally, perhaps I can cite a gentleman whose work I have been reading, Jan Rosenow. He takes his statistics from BEIS’s Hydrogen Production Costs 2021 and Ofgem’s wholesale market indicators. He is very clear that, depending on how you look at the timescale between now and 2050, hydrogen will cost three to 11 times more than fossil fuel gas at its present levels. Clearly, this is not an acceptable solution or route for decarbonisation.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[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 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 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.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading; I wrote to the Minister, and I am grateful for his detailed response to some of my points. I will endeavour to be brief, as this is Committee, and will simply explain why we consider that Amendments 7 and 242, together, bridge the divide that is evident between the two sides of the House, as witnessed in this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was absolutely right that you cannot simply declare that you want to win a war; you need to have tactics and a strategy for winning it. Our Amendment 7, complemented by Amendment 242, provides that strategy, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, eloquently articulated, fundamentally underpinned by physics. Energy is a question of physics and, if we understand that, we will know that we are not struggling towards net zero but in fact doing very well on that path.

The clarity with which I now see industry communicating on this issue is far greater than it has been over the last decade. It is saying: “Electrify everything that can be electrified and use our abundant resources of clean electricity to decarbonise.” That is how you square the three principal objectives of energy policy: affordability, cleanliness, and resilience and security. That pathway is so clear now that the Bill could be hugely enhanced by having this set out at the front.

I support the Government’s intentions. They seek to address the trilemma of those three objectives, which are fundamental to winning this war against climate change and against the energy crisis that we currently face. That very energy crisis is an interesting reason why we are powering towards net zero faster than ever before: it is absolutely clear that the volatility of gas and oil underpins it, and we cannot forget that. What is the Government’s current policy? It is to reduce our reliance on those volatile commodities, which would serve everyone’s needs: it would help us reduce bills and would give the consumer a reliable source of energy.

The Bill has many measures which we will come on to debate that will help us along that path. But it lacks an overarching statement of objective. We now need to revisit the debates we had on the Energy Act 2013 about the need for a decarbonisation target to provide clarity over this direction of travel. We all sat there—many noble Lords here today were there—and had debates on why knowing our way towards that target was needed for investor and stakeholder confidence. It is now very clear that it is needed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out, simple mathematics shows that we still have a lot of technology that needs to be put into place to become operational, and we need a plan that monitors progress towards that.

Subsequently, we have added an extra dimension to this: electrification. As I said, physics tells us that electrification is fundamentally more efficient; you will get six to seven times more usable energy from an electricity-based system than if you rely on fossil fuels or hydrogen. Six to seven times fewer wind turbines will be needed to provide the same benefit in terms of heat or transport. That should be of interest to everybody; it saves costs and helps make the system more secure.

So I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment carefully. It adds an extra dimension to this Bill, which will give it so much clarity so that everybody will have a clear sense of the path that we are on. As I have said, the UK should be very proud of the efforts it has taken to date. We are not as exposed to the energy crisis as other countries, because of investments we have made over the last two decades and because we have taken seriously this objective of making our system more resilient and fit for the future. There is an international dimension—I am sure we will come on to talk about this in other parts of the Bill—but it is absolutely clear that the thing that we can do best at the moment is continue on the path of decarbonising our electricity system using technologies that locate cheap power on our shores, to rid ourselves of the insecurity and volatility of gas prices and to move forward to an efficient system that converts primary energy into heat, transport and work. If we can do that, we will show the world how it should be done: do not pick winners but instead create a system that is sensible and will provide the right guardrails for capital investment so that money will flow and we will all benefit. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our amendment.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and although we do not always agree on absolutely everything, I reckon that I agree with about 99.5% of her speech.

First, I declare my interest as chair and director of Aldustria Ltd, an energy storage company; I will try to avoid too much discussion of that area. On these amendments, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for having opened our debate today. I very much agree with the principle of what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to achieve here. What this Bill does not have—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put it very well indeed—is great focus or coherence. It would be good to start trying to improve that through a type of preamble that puts context, including strategic context, at the beginning of the Bill. I hope that we can refine that more on Report; it may not be perfect, but perhaps we can find a way of doing that between us.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the pricing of electricity and how that works. As he says, our European colleagues are looking at that very strongly now. There must be a better way of doing this; it cannot make sense to the public that we charge and price our main energy sources on the marginal cost of the last producer. Clearly, that does not make sense, and it does not do the reputation of the fossil fuel industry any good either. Yes, they might use their money to give back to shareholders—hopefully they will use it for different types of investment and diversification—but it besmirches the whole sector, and we need to find a way around that.

Where I would disagree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is around trying to game or look at alternative dates for net zero. It seems to me that in September 1939 the Cabinet probably did not look at whether to declare war on Germany this month or two years later or four years later. We may criticise Neville Chamberlain for all sorts of things in retrospect, but I guess that is not one of them. It was an absolute threat to our future security, and we made a decision. If we think of the costs to this country, and to us and consumers, of our right stand on Ukraine, I guess that we have not done those calculations either—because we know that Putin’s war has to fail and that, for European security and our long-term security, we in the western world need to pursue the tactics that we have.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments, particularly in mentioning rural aspects of oil—my own household is on oil, and we are not covered by a price cap—and in particular business. In all the media coverage that we have had on this very real energy crisis over the past months, it is funny how business has very much taken second place to households and consumers. Clearly, households and consumers are ultimately the most important, but business is completely fundamental to our economic performance and being able to solve this crisis in the long term.

I am not absolutely sure about energy from waste plants. Clearly, it does not make sense to export it, but the real challenge there is in starting to raise recycling again, or even AD in terms of other parts of household waste. I was so impressed by the forensic look by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, at investment need and the scale of the challenge, and also at how we need to measure that and put proper planning into how we meet it.

The one other area that I would like to mention comes back to 2013 and the then Energy Bill, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. At that time, one big thing that we discussed was the energy trilemma of security, cost and decarbonisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, brought that back up again. But what this crisis, and the almost a decade between these two Bills, has shown, is that it is no longer a trilemma—they all work in exactly the same direction. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, as we know—it is why we have the huge price increases that we do. Our security is reinforced by having much more renewable generation on our own seas and our own land—and, as a result, we have lower costs and a decarbonised energy system as well. We have moved on since that time.

We need to have a focus in this Bill, and I support the amendments. We need to move on in this debate, but I am absolutely sure that we will need that coherence when we get to Report.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Which do you think is more impactful—an artillery shell, or an airliner or F14 fighter flying into the side of the reactor? They are designed for this. They have regular safety protocols and procedure which they go through in considering what should happen in a conflict situation like this. You are really not speaking from a position of information to understand this, I am afraid. I should not use pronouns; I should have said that the noble Baroness should really study this more before making proclamations such as this. It derails this essential effort.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, of course, the problem is actually flooding, as was shown at Fukushima—and bad maintenance, even in an organised society like Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company is probably seen as one of the most reliable companies in the world, but it did not do its job and caused a lot of the problem when there was the tsunami. I am not suggesting that a tsunami will hit Ukraine very soon, but there are issues.

I want to move away from the polemics. I thank Labour Members of the Committee for giving us a headline on opposing such facilities, but I admit that it is not the Liberal Democrats who have determined that they have not happened so far; it is the local communities that have rejected them. Maybe that will change. I have huge regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I said this at Second Reading and will not go through it again: if you want nuclear, you do not do it this way. You do not build one big facility at 22 billion quid, and decide five years later to build another. You organise it in a different way, perhaps as South Korea did, with a fleet of the bloody things; sorry, I should not say that. This is the most inefficient and crass way of building nuclear power in this country.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

We are doing series building. The existing Hinkley Point is two reactors built in series, and these will be another two built in series. That is four, so that is not bad—and they are large reactors, double the size of the existing PWRs. You get what you pay for. You will get an enormous amount of reliable, secure and clean electricity that will be the backbone of our grid. It will flex to allow us to accommodate huge proportions of renewables, and it will be a system where we can produce hydrogen from nuclear. There is absolutely nothing for one to be concerned about in this proposal. I am a fan of alternative reactors; there are other ways of doing nuclear that are inherently safe and would not have led to the Fukushima accident, because they could have been designed differently. However, I ask the noble Lord: how many other reactors sustained themselves through that tsunami? It was unprecedented—10,000 people lost their lives—yet there was only one reactor problem, because it did not allow a release of pressurised air with water and vapour. That was what went wrong, not maintenance. There was a political call, and the reason for that was the world’s media focusing on it because of the radiophobia that has been spread, I am afraid, largely by the green movement over the last 30 years.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I can see the Government Benches starting to go for a refreshment break; never mind. I am trying to make a serious point. I have been to Hinkley C; I understand it all, believe me, but this is the wrong way to do it—the technology is obsolete. The question I want to ask the Minister outside the polemics is about the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, which he will be well aware of. Its current value in assets is £15 billion, largely through the Government’s sale of British Energy. We heard from my noble friend Lord Oates that the potential future liability is some £53 billion. EDF pays into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund at the moment.

My question is around the problem of there being a future liability that cannot be met. How does the Minister see that developing? Will the fund be able to meet the costs in the future? I am particularly interested in understanding whether the fund is in a bank account somewhere or is just an item on the Treasury’s balance sheet, so it is not really there and is just absorbed into public expenditure. It is a serious question. I would like to understand the previous methods that have been used to make sure that there is not a liability in the future. The figures just seem totally inadequate. Even if we do go through these types of facilities, how will we make sure that the liabilities can actually be met?

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for putting steel in my backbone again and demanding that this is in the Bill—whereas earlier I sort of retreated a bit.

I am interested in hearing from the Minister how these auction rights will be used. Will they be for all quota or the new quota? I would like to use this opportunity to understand the Government’s specific intention for using these rights in the Bill. How will they do it and when? Will it apply to new quota or all quota? I am unclear, because it all starts with the Secretary of State in May. I would be very interested in understanding what the Government intend to do in the near term.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I have, perhaps overconfidently, attempted to redraft Clause 27 to set out the mechanism through which the rights to fish held on public trust are reallocated in the context of the English fishery, which is unequivocally the responsibility of the Secretary of State, since we are not talking here about anything that affects the devolved Administrations.

We set out this redrafted clause to try to mesh together the various elements that the Bill is founded on. I strongly believe that this should all be on the basis that this is a right held on trust and conferred to the private sector via the Secretary of State, and that these powers are held by the Secretary of State and then conferred. We see that there needs to be some allocation process by which those rights are transferred. I would like to hear—yet again, rather depressingly—whether this power being taken under Clause 27 applies to all quota or simply quota that may or may not be released as a result of some kind of negotiation with Europe. It feels like a real missed opportunity if it is the latter. Nothing in the Bill should prevent our applying these principles to all quota.

It seems incredible that we are here, at the start of a new decade, thinking about an unlimited right being carried on in perpetuity by the holders of the FQA system. There really needs to be a clarification. In a sense, Amendment 110 and the reworked Clause 27 speak back to Amendment 105 and the reworked Clause 25. They are a pair: the second implements those principles exclusively in relation to the English fishery.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the auction and competitive tender, this is a valuable tool to have in the kit. It would need to be carefully managed, and we would need to think about how an auction is carried out. There are other auctions for government contracts or rights carried out in different sectors of the economy. The one that I know best is the allocation of contracts for zero-emissions energy, in which case certain pots are made available and certain rules written around the allocation of those rights. If the fear is that these competitive tender processes would always lead to the more dominant players gaining more access, there are policy mechanisms that one can use to mitigate that risk.

This is a crucial clause because it also establishes this concept of payment for something held for the public trust. I am always a bit worried when I hear the Ministers saying, “We’re going to use grants to encourage better behaviour.” They should not have to use grants, because they are granting a right worth tens of millions of pounds every year. In a sense, they do not need to invent additional financial incentives when they have this existing financial instrument in their hands. It should be seen as such, because it certainly is by the fishing operators. It is not a pastime carried out without focusing on the bottom line and the profitability of the activities. The Government must take that approach.

To bring holding a property right in trust to life for noble Lords, if you own a piece of land or a house and simply give it away and say, “It’s fine. You can have that, no questions asked”, it is not likely that that property will be well looked after. You would also feel very vulnerable if you did not have a solid legal basis against which that transaction was carried out.

I am afraid that the current drafting of the Bill is not clear. There is still a lot of uncertainty, which is why the courts get involved and we lose legal cases around this question of quota allocation. There is not a really clearly laid out basis on which we do this transaction, confer these very valuable rights and hand them to the private sector.

As I say, this is a partner to Amendment 105. Listing in proposed new Clause 25(5) the links back to the various plans and statements—fisheries management plans and the marine plan—is an attempt to make the Bill holistic, mesh it together and make it read back against itself in a way that has some meaning in the real world. I will leave it at that.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 34. As has been said, it is crucial that there is something on the face of this Bill making clear our serious intention to allow our stocks to recover. I fear that with all ecological assessments there is a danger that we become immune, that the steady decline becomes the new normal as we become more and more used to empty seas, the lack of birds in our hedgerows and the lack of wildlife in general, and that we simply adjust down our expectations to this new normal. We simply cannot do that.

The wonderful thing about fisheries is that if you take the pressure off them, they rebound. Fish are one of the most resilient of wildlife species. We must allow ourselves to take that pressure off. We have had decades of overfishing, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, we saw a 10% decrease in one year in the number of stocks that are at sustainable levels. That tells us that there is something deeply wrong. It is fine to say that 59% of stocks are better than they were a decade ago, but that is 10% fewer than the year before. So we must give ourselves the opportunity. We do not want to be subject to legal challenge. If we believe that we must take a management approach that will set stocks at well below the sustainable limit, we must be allowed to do so. They can then recover quickly and everyone can benefit, including the fishers.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I was going to speak further to Amendment 34, but the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said it far better, so I shall resume my place.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, as the Minister said, we have here a list of objectives of great importance. I would not disagree with most, but one or two I have an issue with. There is always a danger in having too many objectives: which is the important one that guides regulatory authorities and which guides legislators in drafting subsequent secondary legislation? That is difficult, because it is almost impossible to meet all objectives at the same time. This amendment, and the others in my name—Amendments 6, 10 and 27—are based on my belief that sustainability is the most important objective. I take “sustainability” as here meaning the aquatic biosphere and the health of our fish stocks.

I do not accuse the Government of putting it this way, but the Bill reads to me as having a muddled sustainability objective, because it is prejudiced by the addition of what is almost a socioeconomic objective. A socioeconomic objective is very valid. In fact, one of my amendments in this group states that there should be a socioeconomic objective. The sustainability objective should, however, relate to the marine ecology, fish stocks and the wider marine inhabitants. I therefore suggest that we leave out subsection (2)(b), which states

“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”

That is a socioeconomic objective and should go under that heading. The sustainability objective has to be the lead objective. There are various ways of sorting out the socioeconomic objectives, including financially, and that is how we should do it.

We need clarity; we need the sustainability objective to be the prime objective, and we need it to be well policed. That is why my Amendment 27 would bring in the office for environmental protection. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says. He may tell me that this is unnecessary, and I could well be persuaded that it is, but it is vital that that office, once founded and operational, has full oversight of the fisheries industry and the protection of our marine environment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, Amendment 7 is in my name. I support many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. My amendment would change Clause 1(2)(b) simply to state

“the fishing effort does not overexploit marine stocks.”

The Bill states

“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”

The purpose behind trying to simplify the provision is to make it clear that we cannot have a sustainable long-term fishing effort if we overexploit stocks. That should not need to be said, but we have seen routine overexploitation of stocks as a consequence of how the common fisheries policy is interpreted, with member states then allocating quota to private fishing enterprises.

To state first that fleets should be economically viable and then to qualify it by saying that they should not overexploit marine stocks gives entirely the wrong impression. It implies that we are to continue with the belief, commonly held in Europe, that fishing rights and the economic viability of the fishing industry are the first and foremost concerns. That speaks to short-term political considerations because these are entities that employ people and pay taxes. My amendment tries to correct for that short-termism endemic to political thinking by stating that it is the sustainability of the stock that we should regulate for, not the commercial viability of the entities that exploit it. The latter is entirely what has been wrong with the common fisheries policy since we have been in it. There is an assumption that the exploiters’ rights should come first, with the environment an afterthought. We must turn that around. It is short-termism not just politically but in the context of the changing climate. Nothing from now on is business as usual; everything is shifting. We must put the resilience of our marine resources at the heart of everything we legislate on and at the heart of everything we do today in considering the Bill.

My amendment would simply take away the qualifier; there is no need to qualify this. It is simply logical that we legislate so that we do not overexploit fishing stocks. That is the only purpose of this legislation. Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 in my name I shall speak also to Amendment 25, which is grouped with it. I also seek permission to speak to Amendments 47 and 56, which will come up later in Committee but are related to this point, so I hope I can speak to all four in this speech.

The purpose of Amendment 4 is to add a new fisheries objective to the Bill stating that there is a “marine planning objective” in relation to fisheries management. The reason is that there is a real need to integrate fisheries into our wider marine planning processes. The phrase “fisheries exceptionalism” has been used. In essence, what is being got at there is that the way we plan for our use of the marine environment for fisheries is very separate from our wider spatial planning that we use for other activities that occur in the marine environment. Sometimes we forget that, although fishing is a hugely important part of our marine environment, it is certainly not the only economically productive activity that occurs within our seas. It is important that we integrate fisheries into marine planning and that marine planning integrates fisheries into its processes.

Therefore, there is a very clear objective missing from the Bill, which is to accomplish that wider integration in public policy. Many users of the marine environment interact with fisheries, not least the growing and highly profitable energy sector. We are shifting towards greater use of our marine environment for the production of sustainable energy. That has an interesting intersection with fisheries: the offshore wind farms that we are putting into the marine environment can act as no-take zones for vessels over a certain size, and as hatcheries and protected areas that allow fish stocks to return to an area that would otherwise be decimated through overexploitation by large vessels with large gear. There is a real benefit to be gained from integrating fisheries with our spatial planning.

It is not just about reducing fishing effort, although another key part of planning—now in UK law—is the protection of areas of high biodiversity interest or sites of scientific interest in the marine environment. We have a marine planning process that designates marine planning areas, some of which are working well while others need to be better thought-through and planned. It would be much more effective if, when setting these new fishing policies, we think of them as an integral part of our marine planning for conservation.

There are other uses of the marine environment that require planning, including dredging the shipping channels. It is an environment that requires careful management and balance—I agree with that—but not to mention the existing marine plans that are required to be made, and not to integrate them with the fishing objectives, feels like a missed opportunity. I tabled this amendment in the hope that we can have a wider debate about spatial planning and how it relates to fisheries management. It is not a negative proposal: it could bring greater benefits as we think about how we manage our seas. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that we have a good debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much welcome marine planning. I should perhaps declare a past interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which is responsible for marine planning in England. Last week I talked to Gillian Martin, the convenor of the environment committee of the Scottish Parliament, about marine planning. It is happening in Scotland, too.

I am certainly not advocating this as yet another objective—we have too many already—but it is important that the Bill takes account of marine planning and all the work going on in that field. Today our seas are, to put it mildly, used in multiple ways—for trade, renewable energy, undersea carbon capture and storage, and lots of other areas. I am not sure that the Bill even mentions things such as marine conservation zones, which are part of marine plans and, inevitably, part of the management of the fishing regimes. I would like to think that there was a way to refer to marine plans in the Bill, although not quite in this way.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 125 in my name, also in this group. I also lend my support to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. This is very welcome. I start by being positive about the climate change objective being added to the list of 12—or however many we have now. It is good to see it there. As I stated earlier, there really is no business as usual anymore. Climate change impacts are upon us and we are living through an age of consequences. This will permeate all the discussions around fishing policy that we bring on the back of the Bill. Fishing quotas will change, the availability of fish stocks will change and the resilience of the natural environment will be increasingly affected and diminished, so it is incredibly important that we take this seriously.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rightly goes to the heart of the definition here. It seems a little lacking in ambition and specificity, as stated in the Bill, which refers to

“the adverse effects of fishing and aquaculture minimised”.

What does “minimised” mean when, really, they should be eliminated? In fact, any economic activity now taking place specifically within the natural environment should not just seek to have zero emissions, it should be seeking to be a positive sink. We will have to use policies and the framework for managing the natural world to ensure that we are not just reducing our outputs, but seeking to enhance the ability of the natural world to absorb carbon dioxide.

That has to be an aim because we have left it so late. We are about 20 years behind where we should be in reducing emissions on a global level, so the challenge now will be that of eliminating emissions in a decade. Thereafter it will be about soaking out the greenhouse gases that have been emitted. The oceans and the marine environment are a huge component of that, so we should be ambitious. I think that the bare minimum should be to achieve net zero, not simply minimising adverse effects and adapting to climate change.

My third point is about accepting that we may have to implement the precautionary principle, which states that for the period we are in, where there is so much uncertainty, we will be allocating below scientifically determined maximum sustainable yields because of the risk of climate change that overlays everything. We might have to get used to allocating quota on a very precautionary basis because we are entering uncharted waters, if I may be excused the pun.

I turn to my Amendment 125. Amendments that seek consultation always feel a bit redundant in primary legislation, but my point is that, under the powers granted under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have the ability to introduce a policy. Before any activity that causes a net contribution to greenhouse gases, we can simply consult and then use secondary legislation to introduce that policy. If the Government were minded to get going on achieving the net zero target, simply asking for public consultation would be the trigger to introducing secondary legislation to bring in very targeted, market-based policies to encourage investment in low-carbon activities. The Government now have the opportunity to consult on how we can best make this sector carbon neutral and use the powers that already exist to bring in those policies; hence the quest for a public consultation.

It is worth stating that, at the moment, the fishing industry has an effect on climate change in a number of ways. It is not just about how vessels are propelled or the energy choices made by processing plants, it is also about how the degradation of the natural environment can release greenhouse gases. Trawling activities, for example, can disturb the sediment at the bottom of the ocean, which releases otherwise stored carbon. There are plenty of examples and reasons why one would want the sector to take this issue seriously.

This is an opportunity to do something really positive. We must think about the provision of licences to cover the activities that take place in this environment with a positive vision that will create jobs and allow activities to be carried out in the natural world that will help us as we seek to combat climate change. There is no reason why fisheries cannot be part of that process. There are particular types of fish stocks and particular ways of fishing that can lock carbon up while low-impact aquaculture can make a net-positive contribution to our carbon budgets. I hope this is not seen as an imposition; rather, it should be seen as an opportunity.

Again, to finish on a positive note, seeing this objective included is very welcome. I happen to be in the camp of thinking that sustainability is the primary objective, so this climate objective is integral to that. However, we need to see a little more action and commitment to some of the specifics of what making this a primary objective would really mean for how we manage our fisheries. I am glad to have had the opportunity to discuss these amendments.

[Lord Teverson]

I put my name on the amendment and am pleased to welcome it. One message from the climate change committee was that we cannot do decarbonisation and net zero sequentially; we have to do it all at the one time. That must include this industry.

My only word of caution is that fish oil is used as an energy source on some occasions, and could be described as renewable. It is used as biodiesel, like fishmeal. That should be excluded completely. We do not do that in this country, but I have a feeling the Danes have occasionally done it before.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I reassure the Minister that this is not a matter on which I intend to seek the opinion of the House. It is an issue which I believe we need to discuss in the context of an energy Bill, but I hope that a discussion can be had outside the Chamber. I just wanted to alert the House to the issue because it is materially relevant to the energy policy as it is being played out.

One pillar of the Energy Act 2013 was the introduction of a new support mechanism to help fund extra capacity in the market, designed to complement the contracts being signed for low carbon. It is a very detailed policy with many aspects.

It has come to my attention that the annual auctions of new capacity under the capacity mechanism are bringing forward rather a lot of applications for 15-year contracts from distributed, very small-scale generating plant. Many of those plants are diesel-powered and many others are open-cycle gas turbines of a small scale which are much less efficient than the full-scale CCGTs that are normally built for capacity.

The amendment was tabled to enable us to have a debate on the Floor of the House on an issue which is time-critical, because the next auction will take place in December. Three gigawatts’ worth of small generating plant are prequalified. That is on top of a number of megawatts that were granted in the previous auction that took place last year. So my fear is that, over time, we are starting to see a substantial amount of distributed thermal energy coming forward under the capacity mechanism. Of course, the capacity mechanism creates an incentive to new-build. Having read the Government’s gas strategy, I believe that the Government intended those 15-year contracts to be made available to larger-scale, very efficient, state-of-the-art gas turbines to be there as back-up and to provide us with base-load power. Instead of that, we are seeing coming forward, as a result of significant market distortion, investment in much smaller kit that is far less efficient and much more polluting. The danger is that this drift towards distributed diesel generators and open-cycle gas will significantly affect our ability to decarbonise.

One argument that will be made will be that such generators are there just to catch the peaks and will not operate more than that. However, there is nothing in government policy or legislation that prevents them operating for far longer periods. My fear is that, because of the scale of these plants, they will not be paying a carbon price: they are not subject to the EU carbon price, nor are they subject to the Government’s carbon price support mechanism, which tops up the EU price. That is a significant distortion that we should be mindful of. Markets are nothing if not efficient and nothing if not good at finding loopholes. It will be an unintended consequence of the capacity mechanism rules as they are currently drafted that this will be the market’s answer to our capacity issues.

I visit my mother-in-law in India. Building an energy system in which diesel generators are providing back-up is not a modern-economy solution. There are many other ways to provide safe and reliable power. We should not rely on diesel generation, which is much more what you would find in developing countries that have fewer options and are not able to deliver secure and stable supplies of electricity. We have been doing that for decades and have a world-class grid that enables us to do it. So we are concerned that while we are not letting contracts for clean power, we are continuing to let contracts for traditional fossil-fuelled power, and that there is this loophole in the capacity mechanism rules which allows a far greater volume than anyone would have anticipated of small distributed diesel generators.

In addition to paying no carbon price, such generators also have very loose air-quality standards applied to them—far looser than are applied to larger plant. I do not need to bring the House’s attention to the fact that we have had a rather high-profile problem with diesel in the past few months. “Dieselgate” and VW’s cheating on the standards is a serious issue which helps to explain why we might be struggling to hit our legally binding air-quality standards in the European Union, because if everyone is cheating it is no wonder that our emissions are higher than we thought they should be according to our inventory calculations. So we have an air-quality issue; in fact, the Government have been taken to court over their failure to comply with those air-quality standards. Having a large number of distributed diesel generators operating potentially for long periods through the winter months will not do anything to alleviate our air-quality problems. There is a definite correlation between exposure to the particulates that emerge from diesel and ill-health, especially in younger and older people. So, not just for climate reasons but for air-quality reasons, we should not allow a huge proliferation of this very inefficient and very polluting smaller generating plant—and that we should be giving them 15-year contracts really concerns me.

We know that all Governments in the UK hold as sacrosanct the fact that if you sign a contract with the private sector, you will not then go back on it. That is a tenet that we hold dear in order to preserve our investor credibility. Once those contracts are signed, there will be nothing we can do for 15 years, which worries me greatly. I am not expecting a full and detailed response from the Minister today; I hope that I can just convey the reason for my concern. I hope that I will hear some reassurance that the department is alive to this problem, that it is indeed seen as an unintended consequence and a loophole, and that we are not simply saying, “Ah, well, that’s what the market’s delivering”. That is not sufficient, especially as there are distortions in relation to carbon and not paying the carbon price, and especially in relation to air quality.

Amendment 78V would therefore require that any fossil fuel-generating plant granted a 15-year capacity contract under the capacity mechanism created under the Energy Act 2013 would be subject to a carbon price, so that the Government would apply a taxation policy to such plant; that such plant would be required to fit best-available technology to mitigate air pollutants; and that the Government’s emissions performance standard as was introduced in the Act would apply as well, which would act as a constraint and a break on the number of hours that such stations could run—it would not be a full answer to the problem because it would still allow them to run for considerable periods, but certainly it would not allow them to run unimpeded for an entire year.

Given the position of leadership that the UK rightly enjoys in terms of our sensible policies for decarbonisation and our Climate Change Act, the idea that the energy policy in front of us should lead to us relying on diesel generators fills me with alarm. I hope that we can do something collectively, across all sides of the House, to address this issue before the contracts are signed in December. I think that I have said enough. I do not wish to detain the House any further and I look forward to hearing a response from the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long. I am not sure that the amendment as written is precisely right, but the important principle that comes out of it—I come back to what I said briefly at Second Reading—is that, at the end of the day, the UK economy has to crowd out coal by other generating fuels. Before the election, the Prime Minister, the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then leader of the Opposition together bravely pledged that coal should come out of UK generating capacity. For whatever reason, after the election only one of those people is left in office—the Prime Minister—so on his shoulders rests that responsibility as our Prime Minister to achieve that pledge.

I do not see a great deal of movement from the Government in fulfilling it. It needs to be addressed and this amendment goes some way towards that. But it is a much larger issue which we could solve so easily, probably by using an active emissions performance standard rather than one that is fixed, as it is at the moment, in primary legislation. I hope that the Government—indeed, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office—will bring forward proposals to deliver this. In Scotland, they talk about vows; I see this as a vow that is fundamental to our climate change obligation not just to the UK but to the rest of the world.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 19th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments by the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill and Lord Foulkes, surrounding the tsunami of amendments that we have had to the Bill so far, with more to come on Wednesday, with very little notice indeed. That makes it very difficult for this House to do what it sees as its core activity in this sort of legislation.

I have no issue at all with the managerial nature of the amendments, but I echo the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. While I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that the key factor here is that we should be able to continue to benefit from our own oil rather than import it, which is important with regard to both energy security and the environment, I hesitate more and more as we go through these energy conversations when it comes to the Minister’s and the Government’s confidence about our ability to meet our own climate change targets, which we all passed into law with the Climate Change Act with cross-party agreement in this House and the other place, and which we all still say we support. We are far from being able to be confident about achieving those targets a few years hence, let alone by 2050. We have to look at all these debates on Report as part of that challenge, whether it is from the United Nations special scientific advisers or from our own Committee on Climate Change. The writing is on the wall that we are moving in the wrong direction, and I think that we should take this concern very seriously.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory comments. As we start the first day of Report on the Bill, it is welcome to hear from the Government a reiteration of their commitment to action on climate change and to decarbonising the UK economy.

I add my voice to those of noble Lords who have spoken ahead of me in reflecting on the way in which the Bill has been conducted. I am probably not alone in not having had much of a weekend; I am sure that the Minister has had similar issues to deal with. I take these issues incredibly seriously, as people know, and it makes me genuinely unsettled and discomfited to know that I am not able to do the best job that I can because of the timescales that we are working under. I think that many noble Lords share that feeling. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, we are where we are—but it could have been so different.

In these opening comments on Report, I want to reflect on the question of why we are making such haste. Why is such an important body as the OGA being created in such a piecemeal way, with amendments coming forward and new issues arising in a very febrile and fast-changing environment? There seems to be no time for the Government to take stock and review. It is because the timing of the Bill is not about the major portion of it, which is the OGA, but Clause 66 which closes the RO a year early. It was closing anyway in 2017, so we are in rather a rush to make that deadline in order for this not to be a complete waste of our parliamentary time. That is why we are racing through. That is why we have not had enough pre-legislative scrutiny and why there are so many fundamental issues that have not been properly addressed in Committee. That is why we are facing an inundation of amendments now. It is a very regrettable situation and one that I personally take very seriously, as I am sure the Minister does, too. I only wish that perhaps people in other parts of the Government took this issue as seriously as those who are represented here today, because it is not good enough.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

I absolutely agree about the failure of gas to drive out coal. That is why I have been a major advocate of emissions performance standards, which we brought in with the Energy Act 2013, but we have delayed actually doing that. I wish that I had the numbers with me. My noble and learned friend is showing me a document but I do not have my glasses on, so I hope I will be forgiven for not being able to read it. I do not know what the CO₂ figure is—I am sure that government documents from DECC have said what it is and I shall have to look it up—but I am absolutely certain that through the increase in the proportion of energy transmission through renewables the levels have gone down, because renewables, which are zero-carbon technologies, are a much bigger proportion of our generation. Over the same time, I am pleased to say that energy efficiency has gone up by 2% per annum, or whatever the figure is. I look forward to finding out that information and informing the noble Viscount. I do not necessarily recognise a lot of his figures within the context of what he is talking about but I am sure that they are as good as any quoted in the House.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for opposing the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. It is tempting to engage on the many points that have been made about the principle of onshore wind in general, but I would rather stay focused on Clause 60 and say why I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord’s proposal that it should not form part of the Bill. That is mainly due to the process by which the Government have conducted themselves. I do not wish to misquote the Minister but he said that he needs time to think things through in relation to the grace period, and that is quite a telling statement. It is clear to me that this clause has not been fully thought through and that it has been put in hastily, without due consideration of the full implications and without due consultation. For those reasons, I am very supportive of the idea that we should simply take the clause out, do the thinking and consulting, and then come back with something that is fit for purpose.

With regard to things being fit for purpose, during the course of the Bill we have had exchanges about the impact assessment. We now have an impact assessment in relation to this clause, but I have to say that it was not exactly worth waiting for. It does not cover some of the most important issues in enough detail. It is incredibly lacking in proper detail in its attempt to make a net present value calculation of the implications of introducing the clause, and I find that it has significant weaknesses.

My overall impression is that the department is building the aeroplane as it takes off from the runway and that not enough thought has been given to this clause. It all seems to hinge on two words in the Conservative Party manifesto: “new” and “subsidies”. There is a great deal of subjectivity in interpreting the phrase “new subsidies”. It cannot be claimed that the RO is a new subsidy—it has been in existence for a number of years—and it cannot be argued that the RO provides, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, subsidies for ever and ever. It does not do that. It does not create an unending subsidy. The RO is closing. It will close, as we agreed in the Energy Act 2013, in March 2017. That is not far away—in the grand scheme of things, it is about 12 months. In their haste to generate some kind of political benefit from this attempt to destabilise onshore wind, in those 12 months the Government are destabilising investment across the energy market, and that is deeply regrettable. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for stating the wider implications of what the Government are doing here. There is a question of how we deal with industry and how we encourage people to invest in the UK.

I raised a general point about my disappointment with the impact assessment. I made it clear in a letter to the Minister and on the Floor of the House that we wanted to see the impact assessment properly make the case for the Government’s concern about the levy control framework running out of money or not having sufficient money. I am afraid that there is insufficient detail in the impact assessment. It does not give us any sight of the Government’s numbers on this or explain why they are so concerned.

More than that, the impact assessment makes me fear that the department does not even understand the energy policy that it is governing. When it comes to considering the benefits and costs of this intemperate change to policy, which was changing anyway, it considers only the positive benefit of a reduction in resources—by which I assume it means the amount of money that has been spent on onshore wind—and then it sets against that the increased cost of the EUA purchases. It makes very precise calculations over a period of 24 years to 2040. I am in the business of monitoring the carbon market in Europe and not a single analyst can give you any degree of confidence about the numbers relating to the carbon price over that period. I am afraid that the table on page 15 is really a work of fiction.

Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement and her description of these schemes. When talking of trying to decarbonise power and energy in this country, we always think first of electricity but heating is very important particularly at this time in January—although my wood stove at home was a great comfort to me over the weekend, the solar thermal supply for the shower was perhaps not quite as good. These are really important technologies and it is good that we are continuing to modify these schemes.

I should like to put a couple of general questions to the Minister and then one specific question. I particularly welcome the greater emphasis on the sustainability of biomass, and I do so for two reasons. One is obviously that the sustainability of sources is very important in its own right. The second is that biomass is attracting a lot of criticism from a number of areas—maybe some of it rightly but perhaps some of it not so rightly—and it is very important that biomass’s image and reputation are kept strong and that it remains part of our renewable energy sources in the UK. Only by ensuring that we meet the sustainability criteria will we be able to do that.

One thing that we know—the Minister started to explain this quite broadly—is that, with biomass in particular, the supply chains are global. Much of the supply for some of the very large applications in the UK comes from across the Atlantic and maybe from even further afield—on the other side of the Pacific and from other parts of North America. When those supply chains are as long as they are, how do we know that the sustainability requirements are really met? Do we ever inspect them, or do we just rely on companies to do that? I ask that because I know from other areas of industry that things such as the sustainable forests code have been abused in the past. We know that relatively easy supply chains for food within Europe have not always been as good as they should be, even when the purchasing companies, such as the supermarket chains, have some of the tightest controls—or we thought that they had. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

Secondly, I have a question relating to the European single market. If businesses want to purchase through other European Union countries, how is this legislation compatible with a single market if we have different standards in the UK? I assume that this has been got over, but I would be interested in understanding how that works.

A more specific question, on which I am not necessarily expecting an answer from the Minister today, relates to CHP. I understand from the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2015 that, quite rightly, plants established before 4 December 2013 cannot claim back RHI because they were established before this type of scheme started. I understand that entirely. Where a CHP plant is added on to a CHP facility, particularly an AD one, that would be eligible for claiming RHI, but I understand that if that plant was built before 4 December 2013 and the CHP was then added on, it would not be eligible. That is a change of policy, as outlined by DECC following one of the earlier consultations. I know that that has affected certain plants and investment decisions, and I welcome that. As we all know, CHP is a very important late innovation in the UK and we wish to copy our European counterparts due to the success of those sorts of schemes in the past. If the Minister is able to answer that now or in correspondence, I shall be very grateful.

I very much welcome the evolution of this scheme, which I regularly remind people does not affect consumer prices for heat and has no effect on increasing energy prices.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for talking us through these regulations and for presenting a very clear and informative case for them. I have a number of questions relating to the regulations.

I notice that in the debate in the House of Commons, where these SIs were discussed previously, the Minister responding was a little loath to answer general questions about how the RHI is delivering against its targets. Specifically, when questions were asked about the budget, including the budget going forward, no clear answer came back. I therefore begin by reiterating those general questions to the Minister. Could she tell us when we might expect an update on how the RHI is doing in relation to where we need to be to hit our targets? Could she also give us a sense of when we might hear about how we are going in terms of the budget? Are we underspent or near to an overspend, and what are the budget projections going forward?

On the regulations, we certainly welcome, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the introduction of sustainability criteria for biomass. It is a good idea, and it is very important that we restore the reputation of sustainable biomass. It is very easy to have one rotten apple in the barrel taint the perception of the whole system. It is important that we have transparent and robust information about sustainability and requirements on suppliers to meet those standards.

However, there is a point at which this ever increasing pressure to incorporate every single element of carbon emissions upstream on biomass is unique. It is not something that we do in other fuel supply chains. For example, gas is in the headlines a lot at the moment, and we hear debate about fracked gas versus LNG and versus gas coming from Russia, all of which have a different carbon intensity and carbon footprint, but that fuel supply chain is almost ignored and is not paid the same degree of attention. I understand why, but would just question when we might start to see a slightly more equal handling of fuel supply chains across the piece. Biomass certainly has a role to play in decarbonisation, but it should not be singled out. We ought to apply equal and fair treatment to all fuels, if we are going to pursue this very detailed accounting of upstream emissions.

I certainly welcome the list of suppliers and the department’s attempts to try to simplify this for both end-users and suppliers to ensure that the industry can get off to a good start.

I am also encouraged to hear from the Minister that she believes that biomethane injection to grid could be an important contributor to our renewable heat targets, but I am just curious to know to what extent biomethane is delivering. I imagine that we are now introducing tiered tariffs because there has been a relatively good uptake. What does the department now believe the potential for biomethane is? It would be very helpful to have it as the percentage of the total demand for renewable heat and gases, just so that we can get a sense of how we are doing and what the potential is. We expect that the RHI will uncover information about this market which, as has been said elsewhere, is a world first in terms of creating an open and widely applicable subsidy scheme for renewable heat. We would expect it to deliver quite interesting findings in terms of the least-cost options for decarbonisation. We simply have some curiosity as to where we see biomethane injection as we progress towards our targets.

We support the new powers to cause payments to be stopped and the interventions that are now possible. We have said this before in debates on the RHI. We remain concerned, and hope that the Government share our concern, that we must not see abuses of the RHI. We cannot afford negative headlines in the press about subsidies being abused or any wrongdoing, so it is important that the enforcement and sanctions parts of this intervention are got right. Why were these powers not originally included in the proposals? I am glad that they are there now, but I question why we had not thought through the need to do this earlier. I reiterate that I hope everyone in the department is fully aware of the need to ensure that, even if we take a slightly light-touch regulatory approach, we are very vigilant in ensuring that there is no potential for misuse of the funds, which are public funds in this case, not bill payers’ funds.

I have a question about the overall way we are going to move forward on the RHI. As we have seen from today’s discussions, this is now quite a complex policy area which has many triggers within it, including digressions and abilities to change different levels and to move technologies and bands. During the passage of the Infrastructure Bill through this House, an amendment was introduced by the Government that removed the need for an affirmative resolution for changes to some important parts of the RHI. At the time, I asked the Minister whether it would apply to tariffs and budgets applied to different technologies and whether it was appropriate. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me on 17 November to confirm that moving from the affirmative resolution procedure to the negative resolution procedure would apply to tariffs for technologies. I reiterate my concern. I do not fully understand why it should be felt necessary to remove this part of the process which allows us to comment on statutory instruments and changes to statutory instruments. In her letter, the Minister said that it was to enable the Government to act quickly, but this is not a particularly slow process. It is an important part of the democratic process that ensures that we get proper scrutiny and an opportunity to question changes. It reassures the industry that due process will be applied to changes which will substantially affect plans for investment.

So again I ask: what is the real rationale for removing this important process? Perhaps it is for no other reason than that we will have fewer of these conversations, and that would be a great shame because I enjoy talking about the RHI. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it is refreshing to be talking about something other than power when it comes to energy. I think we should maintain full scrutiny of these changes. This is a complex policy area, but it is an important one that we need to get right.

I am also slightly not reassured by the Minister’s statement that the Government will continue to “engage” properly with industry. I would like to hear a bit more about what engage properly with industry that means. I say that in the context of experience where, for example, on feed-in tariffs for solar, we saw very hastily introduced changes that were not properly consulted, and a great deal of bad feeling was created. If a change to the way we consider these SIs leads to anything like that in this market, it would be a great shame.

I would welcome the Minister’s comments on why we are moving away from the affirmative resolution procedure and, if they continue to pursue the negative resolution procedure, what the Government will do to ensure that they are properly listening to industry and engaging. Other than that, I am happy to support the regulations.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I do not want in any way to suggest that Wales should not have its own authority over this area. As a citizen of Cornwall, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—though I do not know enough about what the relationship is here.

On the attack on fracking, down in Cornwall our geology does not support shale gas but it does support deep geothermal, in which fracking plays an important part. I think that the noble Lord spoke on the whole about fracking in relation to shale gas, but there are issues around fracking for whatever purpose, and seismic events are one of those. In one of the early EU-funded geothermal tests in Alsace, there were seismic events and a lot has been learnt from that. There were also events in Blackpool, but as I understand it the industry is able in the right locations to make sure that such matters are very well controlled.

I make the point that fracking can be good. It can be good for renewables. I hope that in the longer term fracking will be available for deep geothermal in terms of power generation. At the moment, it looks like we will go through a heat revolution with not quite so deep geothermal, but in the long term we may get to generate baseload electricity through deep geothermal. I wanted to make that point, because fracking is not just around shale gas; it has those other benefits as well.

However, Wales should be able to steer its own course.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I rise briefly to ask the Minister for her comments on the issue of devolution and fracking. I am particularly interested in the Scottish question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As I understand it, Holyrood already controls planning permission and the permitting regime, so it would not be a huge step to devolve this aspect of the control of fracking and rights of access. I just ask that question.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, when we talk about these provisions and rights of access, they apply to more than just the extraction of petroleum. Indeed, they apply to deep geothermal, which arguably needs the loophole to be changed more urgently than in the case of fracking for oil and gas. It may change the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this that you can frack for coal as well. Fracking of deep-mine coal might bring a degree of economic development back to Wales. I am not saying that that is the only way that Wales should develop; I am much more interested in some of the marine technologies, biomass and wind in a Welsh context—those seem to have huge potential. However, I would never rule out the idea that deep coal mining could come back as an economic activity if done in combination with carbon capture and storage.

In summary, these clauses potentially relate to more than just oil and gas extraction, and I am interested in the noble Baroness’s response on the Scottish question.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, it is approaching 6 pm and we have been here for some time, so I do not propose to speak for long on this amendment. However, it relates to another important aspect of the Energy Act that we need to revisit. The Act’s first sections are about the need for decarbonisation. Indeed, that was the justification for all the measures that followed; we were about to embark on a process of decarbonisation, which was why we needed contracts for difference and to make all the interventions that we did. However, those sections are very oddly worded and actually prevent a decarbonisation target from being set until criteria are met. In effect, rather than setting a decarbonisation target, the Act prevents one from being set and ties the hands of a future Government. That is not good lawmaking and certainly, if there is a change of Government, we would wish to set a decarbonisation target as soon as possible to clear up the mess, and give the signal to investors that this is the target we are aiming for them to meet and that that is how they should make their investments. The provision in the Act is inappropriate, and this amendment seeks to delete the part that restricts the setting of a decarbonisation target and ties the hands of future Governments. It has no place in the Energy Act.

If it is true that the Government’s intention is to use the Act to decarbonise, why would you then restrict the decarbonisation target from being set? It makes no sense. Let us be clear that the Minister rightly pointed to some investments coming into renewables. That is being driven by a legally binding European target that expires in 2020. That is just around the corner in energy investment terms. There is absolutely nothing in the Government’s policies that means we will continue to do renewables—nothing, at least, that is legally established. If we see the continuation of opposition to all renewables on the basis that they are more expensive—when, in fact, their costs are falling rapidly—we could see that whole industry being undermined and stopped, post 2020, in the absence of any other target at a European level.

Now, I do not happen to agree with targets being needed at a European level on renewables specifically, but we need decarbonisation targets. We need a clear plan and to create the right investment climate so that people can make the right decisions—not the wrong ones. This amendment is simply to allow us to do that. Should we have a Labour Government in 2015, we are absolutely clear that we would set a decarbonisation target. We seek to move this amendment so as not to have our hands tied by what is a very inappropriate piece of legislation in the previous Energy Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

Since we are in Committee, why did the noble Baroness not just delete the whole of subsection (5) altogether?

[Baroness Worthington]

That is a good question. In the interests of taking out the most annoying part of the Act, we restrict ourselves to simply removing the part that restricts us in the timing of when a decarbonisation order could be set. That is the reason.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

This is a major step forward. It is a very positive step. I have sympathy with the amendment, but at least this enables us to get on and start down this road. If we find out how to make it work, we have opportunities to broaden it out. However, there is a question about why we are restricting it to the energy field. What about putting up a housing estate or a multiple retail store next door? The same argument applies.

[Baroness Worthington]

The difference is that we are going through something of a transformation from a situation where we have a limited number of generators dotted around the country, often in the most far-flung places, so that people do not have to engage with energy, and are shifting to a much more diverse, devolved and distributed system. Therefore, we have, as is widely acknowledged, political issues about managing that transition. That is the difference.

[Lord Teverson]

As I said, I am sympathetic and understand that. However, that is also true of other parts of the economy. and I am just making the point about how far one could extend the argument. I hope that we can prove that this works, although there is still quite a challenge, and I have an amendment on some bits of it later on. At this point, I just want to say that it is an excellent initiative and that at least we are on the first few steps of this process, even if we do not get perfection straightaway. I fully understand the points made by the noble Baroness, but this is a great start and we should get on with this, prove that it works and move on after that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Baroness for that, and indeed it will be interesting to see what comes back from stakeholders and whether offshore generators will accept that this is a necessary provision. It feels like this is less about securing community engagement and more about trying to send a message along the lines of, “We know that renewables are really difficult and we are sorry. We will try to do something about them”. Anyway, I look forward to the debate on the next group of amendments.

[Lord Teverson]

I am absolutely fascinated by the political analysis because I see this as something completely different. I do not know whether what the noble Baroness is saying suggests that this is good or it is bad. I do not think that it is some sort of Conservative move to persuade electors. Let us be quite clear: certain parts of the coalition want to stop onshore wind in its tracks. That is not the case for the whole of the coalition, but for some, and this is not an answer to that. This is a way of making it a positive thing and moving forward the programme of changing some of the ways that it works. This does not seek to give up, it tries to make it something far more workable. There is no greater advocate of wind power in the countryside than I. I revel in the fact that I can see at least 50 turbines from my house, which luckily for me is on the top of a hill where it is windy—but without a turbine.

We know that certain people and communities are quite legitimately concerned about these issues, so this is a way of involving them and giving them part of the benefit of the schemes. I do not think that it is at all cynical. If we could push things further, I would do that as well, but even so the political analysis is wrong. It is a positive development and if it is successful, it will inevitably be rolled out more widely. I agree that there probably are issues around shale, possibly more around exploration than production, but again there is something cynical in this political analysis. We all understand where cynicism comes from, but in this instance it is absolutely wrong. I am not talking about the dynamics of the two political parties which make up the coalition, but the dynamics of the coalitions between different government departments, along with other things. As is the case in all of politics, it is a broad church. This is a solution that will start things off. I want to reject all this cynicism.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Lord for attempting to reject my cynicism. We know that there is an issue with the coalition Government. We know that one department is pushing renewables while another department is calling all the renewables projects in and objecting to them. I do not think that I am being paranoid in saying that there is a problem in the signals being sent to investors in renewable energy projects. It is quite apparent in the statements being made by different Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, this has been grouped with a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It concerns the one and only bit of finer detail that we see in these clauses. The Minister has just said that the Government did not want to do anything that prejudiced the findings of the task force and that they were having a consultation. A lot of helpful information has been provided, but if we are intent on not prejudicing the voluntary approach, the outcomes of the task force or the consultation and do not wish to bind ourselves with finer details, why do we see in this Bill a figure of 5% for the stake being taken in these projects? This amendment asks that question. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I am rather encouraged that there has been some detail from the Government on this point, and I welcome it. However, I want to understand a little better why this particular percentage has been chosen. My noble friend the Minister held an excellent meeting with us to go through the principles of this part of the Bill. I thought that the figure of 5% must be a minimum amount, but it actually means that it cannot be exceeded. Once you work your way around the language in which the Bill is written, you see that it means the exact opposite of what you might have thought; that is, when the regulations are produced, the minimum percentage that a company must offer should be no more than 5%.

Amendment 94AH is a probing amendment and I am not saying that my suggestion is right, but what concerns me is that if we adopt the attitude—which I do—that it is essentially to put a backstop around the hope that the voluntary schemes work, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has so strongly advocated, in the end we must make sure that if they do not work, there is a way of ensuring that this style of ownership of these projects can move forward. Yet what we have here, or at least as far I can see in theory, is a provision which will allow the regulations to provide that the minimum should be 0% or 1%. It seems to have the potential to undermine a scheme in that companies could offer very small amounts. I have tried to change the provision by suggesting some more sensible language for it. There should be a straightforward minimum of something like 5% and possibly a maximum of 25% in terms of what the Government’s recommendation should be. Again, I say this within the context that if the public do not want to take up the offer, they will not do so and the whole amount will not be taken up, so the percentage would not be so high.

On the other hand, I can see that allowing too high a percentage as a maximum, if it were taken up for certain kinds of renewable scheme, could involve a very large sum of money—well beyond the ability of a community to meet it. I think that this should be written down in a much more positive way so that we do not have something that must not exceed a minimum. We should have a minimum and a maximum. I have explained this incredibly badly and I should have worked it out before I started to speak, but I think that that is illustrative of how this part of the Bill is written. I apologise to the Committee.

It may not be possible for the Minister to respond to my next point in detail, but I shall ask her about it anyway. There are very strict rules indeed covering the ability of companies to sell shares in their organisation to unsophisticated investors. The Financial Conduct Authority has all sorts of rules around it. I would like to understand how the Government see that important financial legislation working in this instance so that it does not become too burdensome for the energy companies to offer such financial investment opportunities and high barriers are not put in place that would prevent members of the community from actually signing up. I am myself a member of a community energy scheme and it is terribly straightforward. I presume that there may be limits on this and I am interested in understanding how we are going to make sure that it will be something of which individual members of a community can take advantage. The regulatory burden should not be too burdensome on renewable energy companies; it should help them not to transgress against the various rules of financial conduct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Again, I apologise for having explained my amendment quite so badly. I accept the point about a special resolution within company law but that would require a block vote and I just do not see that happening. I think that it can be responded to by perhaps having in regulations a maximum individual shareholding. Also, it is not as if this is an IPO. If a certain number of shares are offered, it is not death for the company if they are not all taken up. They can be taken up by other investors, such as perhaps institutional investors. I do not see that as being a problem in this particular case. However, I understand that the numbers I have suggested are not exactly right, and indeed I welcome the fact that we are bringing this forward in any case. I will not press my amendment.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Obviously the schedule to which these amendments apply provides quite a wide range of what a stake equals. It does not always mean that someone is taking shares in a company. It is not always going to be the case of a company owning the individual project. In fact, I am sure that what will be more common is very large companies having to create new instruments for individual projects, which will then enable the community to take part in them. I hope that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would not be an issue of great concern in practice.

I still think that it is quite odd that in such an enabling piece of legislation which is meant to be a backstop for a voluntary approach, we have quite a prescriptive definition of the level of the stake. It is clear from the schedule that many other aspects of what that stake is are completely open and flexible on what might be included, and yet here we have the figure of 5%.

I am always nervous when I see numbers like that in primary legislation and I just hope that there will be sufficient flexibility so that it can be reviewed if necessary.

I do not want to reopen the debate, but the very fact that you need to create comfort and certainty for this class of investors in infrastructure indicates that this is not something that they are embracing with open arms—not because they do not want community involvement but because they fear that the Government’s approach is too limited and inflexible to give them the range of possibilities that they want. However, I am very happy, on the basis of the Minister’s response, to withdraw my amendment.

Electricity and Gas (Energy Companies Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2014

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is obvious that detailed regulations such as these need to be changed as a result of the experience of contractors and consumers. As the Minister said, when you want to make major changes to houses, it makes complete sense that they should be done during a period when they are unoccupied. It is common sense. If I were in that situation, whether I was the future owner or the contractor, that is exactly what I would want to do.

I also welcome the fact that district heating systems appear in the order. We do not have enough of them in the United Kingdom. We do not have sufficient infrastructure. I welcome anything that makes them easier, even if it is just changing the limits.

On getting distortions out of the market, the Explanatory Memorandum refers to contractors changing window panes instead of whole windows because the regulations state that you can do one and not the other. It is clearly ridiculous. It is the sort of distortion that we need to put right.

I have one question about excess works. I could not understand from the Explanatory Memorandum or from what my noble friend said why, given that this is public money, we want to pay energy suppliers—we might feel they are hard done by generally but, on the whole, we do not—for work that they have not budgeted properly for so there is an excess. I do not understand that. I understand that there may be some effect on the public purse through this, but I would be interested in an explanation of why this is so important. It is up to them to manage their works programme in conjunction with the Government’s programme which, on the whole, is pretty clear.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we welcome many things here. The order helps to clarify, simplify and tidy up a number of issues about the way the ECO order is currently implemented. I shall say a word about the broader picture, to which the Minister referred. Changes to ECO have been much talked about and were introduced as the Government’s attempt to reduce costs for bill payers.

It strikes me as odd that this is where the Government are choosing to focus. After all, measures to increase the energy efficiency of homes are one of the clearest measures we have for reducing bills. They may add to the incremental unit cost very marginally but, overall, people who have measures undertaken will see their bills fall, yet the Government have chosen to reduce the level of activity under ECO by extending it over a longer period—that is, for measures that do not relate to fuel poverty. We understand that the fuel poverty measures remain in place and are being extended to 2017, which is sensible. However, it seems that overall the effect of the Government’s policy on ECO has been to see a reduction in activity. We have certainly had representations from the insulation industry which is very concerned that the level of activity has dropped off precipitously.

I am sure we have an afternoon ahead of us in which we will discuss many issues, including gas pricing and fracking. All that will relate to this key topic of trying to keep bills affordable and making sure that we are decarbonising at least cost. In that sense, making ECO work more effectively is obviously a good thing.

I have a question on the excess actions credit. Perhaps I was unable to devote enough time to it, but I am not sure whether it is a kind of trading mechanism that enables suppliers to transfer overachievement to another supplier, whether it is a financial action between suppliers or whether it is something involving Ofgem and the Government. Perhaps the Minister can say a few more words about how it will work. I imagine the provision is there because some suppliers were expecting to be required to comply in full, and it was only when the Government rather hastily decided to extend ECO without increasing the level of activity that they perhaps found themselves with an overabundance of credit and are trying to find out what they can do with it. It would be helpful to hear a bit more about that.

On the other measures, I am pleased that the void period is being addressed, which seems entirely sensible. I want some reassurance from the noble Baroness that the provisions on giving credit to glazing and on changes to solid walls will not encourage less activity but that the right activity is being incentivised. I am sure that these orders are sensible.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that excellent explanation of this rather technical document. I have to disappoint the Committee by saying that my comments will not be immensely profound today, except to say that I welcome the statutory instrument because it helps to clarify to a number of the parties involved in the Green Deal exactly what happens and when. That has to be a good thing, and I thank the Minister for updating us.

Although a number of us have been slightly frustrated at the rollout of the finance, what the Minister said about the stimulus that the Green Deal has given to a number of people to really investigate getting better insulation for their homes was very important. It is obviously one of the big challenges for our nation in terms of meeting carbon targets, let alone in terms of addressing fuel poverty, that we increase the thermal efficiency of our housing stock, and the programme is at least doing that.

One thing struck me as the Minister was speaking, but I am sure that the answer is that it is no problem at all. With the increased amount of switching that is now going on—much as the Government have encouraged and been quite successful in stimulating—I presume that there is still no difficulty in terms of where the liability goes, arises or follows through after a number of switches of accounts by tenants when they come in, because I hope that that will be an increasing feature of the market in terms of competition.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and for speaking to this statutory instrument. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his comments and his quite pertinent question about switching; I had not thought of that and would be interested to hear the response.

If the Committee will bear with me, I want to make a few general comments about the Green Deal and then some specific comments about the statutory instrument. I agree that if the impetus behind the instrument is to create clarity about the protections that exist for tenants and owners under consumer protection legislation, it must be a good thing and we support it.

It is interesting to see how the Green Deal more generally is playing out. We have seen 130,000 assessments undertaken but, from those, fewer than 700 financial deals being taken out. The Minister in the other place has been keen to point out that what we want is measures undertaken, and that is a good thing, but the low take-up of the financial aspects points towards something about the scheme that may need to be reviewed. It is clear that it is not as popular as we might have hoped. We look forward to further announcements from the Government on how they are going to change that. A very low take-up of the financial package creates a very small pool of people carrying a liability with them that never becomes normalised or well understood in the wider populace. It can disadvantage those early adopters if it does not ever take off. They will carry liabilities on their properties that few people understand and may instinctively dislike. So the take-up of the financial package is important. It is good that measures are being taken on personal finance and other financial mechanisms, but the Government cannot simply point to the assessments and say, “Oh, it’s all fine”. The financing was always a key part of this and we have to assess why it is not being taken up with more vigour and enthusiasm.

The other question that arises is around monitoring. The assessment of the Minister in the other place was that 80% of people who undertake an assessment go on to fit measures. That sounds great, but I am afraid that I do not know how that number was calculated or where those numbers are recorded. Perhaps we could hear more about that number. If the numbers are to be a mechanism, but outside the financing mechanism, that tips or nudges other people into action, we perhaps need to think again about how we record and monitor what is actually happening. The figure should be not a guesstimate but a hard number that we can publish and have confidence in. Perhaps it is simply a matter of requiring the companies that undertake the measures to report to an agency. Perhaps the Landmark Group, which currently monitors the EPC, could be that group; it could keep a record. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

I turn to the rented sector, which is the focus of this new clarification. This is an important issue. The Minister has stated, and it is clear, that a disproportionately large number of people live in fuel poverty in this sector, and the housing stock, with 13% of properties rated F or G, is not being invested in. A lot of people in the private rented sector are living in cold, damp homes. We must address this.

I take the point about the split incentives: it is very difficult to get this right. If it is left on the landlord, they do not feel the benefit of the reduced bills. If the bill payer carries the entire burden, they do not get the same benefit as the landlord whose property has been improved and made more attractive. The Government might say, “Well, that’s the way the balance has to tip and we’ve now tipped it back in favour of the tenant”, which is probably a good thing, but it raises a few questions. One is that, while landlords will presumably get some protection under the Consumer Protection Act, what will happen to a property where the tenant leaves but it is then left vacant for a lengthy period? Is it simply that the financial deal is suspended? What happens during that period? There could be properties that are vacant for quite a long time. What then happens to the creditor who is expecting payments that are not being made? Is the time frame extended? What happens in those cases?

There may also be landlords—this will probably not happen frequently—who decide to stop renting and to sell their property for development or demolition. What happens in those circumstances? If it is sold on as a house or as a dwelling that can be lived in, I can understand that it would pass, but if it is demolished, who then makes good the debt owed to the energy finance company?

There are questions around the rented sector that need to be looked at. The Minister mentioned an existing legal requirement to produce an energy performance certificate if a property changes hands between tenants. This is, I believe, poorly enforced. In the publication Energy in Buildings & Industry of November-December 2013, it was revealed that DCLG is currently forced to pay compensation to Landmark, the body that collects the certificates and does the administration, to the tune of £6 million because too few people are complying with this legally binding requirement from the European Union. This seems crazy: taxpayers’ money is being spent to make good a contract signed with a private company because of a failure to enforce a legally binding requirement. That needs to be sorted out. If the uptake of energy efficiency in the rented sector is insufficient, we should look first at why we are not enforcing the use of legally required energy performance certificates. The statement that new tenants will have all the information necessary to decide whether they want to move into a property sounds slightly hollow when the evidence is that the uptake of the legally binding EPCs is not present. The bedrock of enforcement seems not to be in place. Could the Minister come back to me on what we are doing to enforce EPCs in the rented sector?

My final point is that it is good that this statutory instrument is addressing the issue of uncertainty and consumer protection. That is one uncertainty too many, and it is good that it is being resolved with this change in the law. However, this policy continues to be affected by a range of uncertainties. We know that the poor take-up of the financing package is going to lead to changes. We expect it to be continually updated and changed as we find out more about how people are taking it up. That is good if it finally leads to a successful scheme. However, it has been mentioned that the golden rule may change.

If the golden rule changes, and the payback necessary to comply with the golden rule changes, you may edge into the situation where a tenant takes on a lot of debt, knowing they are going to be moving on quite soon, and the incoming tenants are then facing something quite unattractive. In those situations, I suspect that landlords are left with potentially unrentable properties. That is something that no one wants to see. It could act as a disincentive for landlords to embrace this scheme, if they fear that there will be a low take-up, high risk and the potential for their properties to be priced out of the market through measures that do not comply with the golden rule. As this policy is being modified, we need to think carefully about the detailed implications. On that point, however, we support this clarification.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, during our scrutiny we have come to know this Bill as the “decarbonisation Bill” as it has passed through this House. It has been referred to in that way by a number of noble Lords and it is a reasonable description. The Bill represents a significant intervention in the electricity market that is justified on the basis that it will help to decarbonise our electricity system. Noble Lords will be aware that we have had lengthy discussions about the setting of a decarbonisation target in the Bill in order to give that clarity of purpose and to create a responsibility on the Government to deliver through the powers that they are taking. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in bringing forward the setting of a date for the setting of such a target. However, on Report the Minister was kind enough to give a partial concession in relation to the Government’s commitment to monitoring carbon intensity and to acting if carbon intensity remained high. The concession was that, should carbon intensity rise year on year for three consecutive years, the Government would report to Parliament, setting out why this was the case and the additional actions that would be taken to counteract that increase.

The concession is welcome. It is not a replacement for a carbon intensity target by any means, partly because carbon intensity is currently at an astonishingly high level. This is because the merit order currently favours inefficient old coal plant over more efficient, cleaner gas stations. Therefore, currently carbon intensity is higher than would otherwise be the case. Intensity seems unlikely to increase. If it did, something would be seriously awry with government policy. The concession, while welcome, does not go far enough but I should hate to lose it. The purpose of this amendment is to place that commitment in the Bill to introduce into it a measurement of progress and a mechanism through which the Government will report back to the House on that progress and take corrective action.

It is fair to say that the interventions in this Bill and the powers that are given to the Secretary of State are so extensive that they ought to be matched with responsibility and a system of holding the Government to account to see that they are delivering. The measure of progress should be carbon intensity, the issue the Bill seeks to address. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment in the spirit of enhancing that important part of the Bill that justifies why it has been introduced and the powers that have been taken. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, this is a worthy amendment. However, Parliament is grown-up enough for those of us who are interested in these issues and see them as really important to notice what happens and seek answers from the Secretary of State and the Government about carbon intensity. The issue is important but the amendment adds little to the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for tabling the amendment. The Government fully support the aim of clear and transparent reporting. However, like my noble friend Lord Teverson, I do not think it necessary to introduce an additional statutory reporting requirement to the Bill as the noble Baroness proposes. I shall set out quickly the reasons.

First, as the noble Baroness recognises, at Report I made a commitment to Parliament that the Government would undertake reporting measures once any decarbonisation target range had been set. This would supplement those reporting measures that are already included within Part 1 of the Bill. I repeat what I said on Report, which was that,

“where carbon intensity is reported to have increased year on year for three consecutive years, the Government will explain the reasons why, and, where appropriate, report additional actions to address it within the annual statement of grid carbon intensity”.—[Official Report, 28/10/13; col. 1366.]

Secondly, it is important to recognise that, under the Climate Change Act 2008, there are already high levels of scrutiny of the progress made to meet our economy-wide carbon targets. This includes coverage of the power sector within the context of our wider economy. For example: the Government currently report annually on emissions in the power sector through the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory; the Committee on Climate Change publishes an independent and impartial report each year on our progress towards meeting our carbon budgets and the 2050 target; the Government provide annual responses to the committee’s recommendations, which include a dedicated chapter on the power sector; and the Government publish updated energy and emissions projections each year, setting out the future trajectory we anticipate the economy taking.

Lastly, the amendment proposes that these reporting measures start from the date of Royal Assent. The Government’s view is that it is logical for any additional reporting measures to be triggered by the setting of a decarbonisation target range rather than by the enactment of the Bill. That would ensure alignment with the existing reporting framework that is already included in Clause 3, and we should not forget that we already report on grid carbon intensity ahead of any decarbonisation target range being set. Section 5 of the Energy Act 2010 requires a three-yearly report to Parliament on progress in decarbonising electricity generation. That report sets out the policy framework and explains trends in grid carbon intensity over the reporting period.

In conclusion, the Government are already proposing a clear and robust target framework that includes regular reporting on progress in meeting any target range. That is in addition to the high levels of scrutiny that are already in place to meet our economy-wide carbon targets. For those reasons, it would be unnecessary to introduce another statutory reporting requirement. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me that the existing commitments are sufficient and will, on that basis, withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, one of the things that I certainly enjoy when I get up when I am at home is seeing a living countryside rather than the one bathed in aspic, as some of my colleagues sometimes talk about. It is great to see a countryside that is there alive helping to generate the power that we need for this country and for its economy to move forward. It is a great delight to me and to many of my colleagues.

[Baroness Worthington]

I support my noble friend’s amendment. Getting the regulator to incorporate social and environmental factors was a hard-fought battle. It would be a great shame if the passing of this Bill should see us going backwards on that front. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the correction, although I prefer quadlemma, because we can then talk about the effect that Cuadrilla will have on the quadlemma. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very noble cause. I myself tried to introduce a similar amendment to the first of this Government’s energy Bills. I first came across the real problem with it when I tried to draft an amendment that would make block tariffs work. They are incredibly difficult, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on having got as far as he has. I must admit, though, that at the end of the day this was one of the few instances where I was actually persuaded by DECC officials that the idea was not possible and would not work—much to my regret. One of the reasons was the fact that my noble friend Lord Ridley mentioned: namely, that poor people are the ones who use a lot of electricity for their heating. It is an irony that people in fuel poverty have to use electricity for heating, so block tariffs are very difficult to use in order to get the outcomes that we want. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s arguments about this amendment, because I suspect that they will be exactly the ones that persuaded me that this scheme was not practically possible.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for his pursuit of this issue in other fora. It is correct that the way that electricity is priced at the moment is illogical: the more we consume as a whole, the higher the cost of producing the electricity. Once our demand rises, we have to bring on marginal plant, which is less efficient and more costly, pushing up the wholesale price for everyone. The people who consume the most therefore cause us to carry a cost that we should not have to bear.

It should therefore be logical that we disincentivise the bringing on of marginal plant by tariff pricing and tariff structures. However, although the idea has been raised on many occasions, the moment has never been found to make it a reality. I hope—and I think that this will be the case—that once smart metering comes into play, this will become an absolute no-brainer. At that point, when we have detailed information about each individual household’s demand across a given period of time, this will become enabled. At present, though, it is a very difficult thing to bring into practice.

Noble Lords have touched on some of the issues. One of them is the question of the variance in demand between households. It can be perfectly true that you have two identical semi-detached houses with very different energy bills, because of different socioeconomic circumstances. Someone who is at home all day will have the heating on and that will increase their bills. If you have a high occupancy rate—if you have children, for example—your energy bills will go up. It is quite difficult to identify the right point at which to say, “This is a fair use of electricity and after this we are going to increase the price”.

That said, though, it is not impossible. It should not be the case that electricity companies incentivise greater usage and reduce the rate of tariffs after a certain point of consumption. If we are not yet able to get to a fully comprehensive rising block tariff system, then at least the Government could perhaps make it clear that tariffs should not have such a regressive effect that the highest price would be for the first units of consumption and then there would be a reduction in the unit price—that should be ruled out. The Prime Minister has indicated that he has a desire to make tariffs simpler. The simplest thing would be to have one unit price for everyone and for everything. Let us start there, and if we can establish that principle and stop the incentivisation of greater consumption, that will be a step in the right direction.

I still think that there is something in this idea. We need to look at it, although it is possibly true that now is not the time. I am sure that that will disappoint my noble friend; one can always say, “Now is not the time”. However, with the advent of better technology such as smart meters and a greater understanding of demand with better data, we will be able to get there. The way that the system is currently structured is illogical, and I am sure that something like this will be introduced within the next decade. I congratulate my noble friend on being so prescient and ahead of the curve.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I do not want to speak specifically in favour of the spirit of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the vertical integration of this industry. It has seemed to me over the past 12 months in particular that there has been, if I may say, a growing corporate arrogance in the energy industry. Power seems to have gone to the heads of many of those six organisations. They feel that they can do what they like to their own customer base and that they do not have to pay much regard to democratically elected Governments or Parliaments, let alone your Lordships’ Chamber.

I was particularly struck by this one evening when I visited my 94 year-old mother. She had just had a letter from British Gas which said that she would have to pay an increase of 10% on her bills for the year. Then it kindly went through—in very small type, which was not easy for a 94 year-old—all the reasons for the rise. It gave as the top reason, the first on the list of bullet points explaining why energy prices had gone up, not one of the reasons that we know are actually the reasons for the price increase; instead, it blamed the Government. It is a dual fuel tariff, so the charges are affected by the various bits of government legislation. I think that reflects a real arrogance. It is very difficult indeed to fix this competitive area, as noble Lords are trying to do. It is time to think what has previously been the unthinkable and say, although perhaps not tonight, “Yes, it is credible that we split supply from production”. That should be seen as a real way forward.

However, we have another problem, which leads to the arrogance that we are seeing within the industry. The companies know that we know that some £100 billion needs to be invested to keep the power lines going to make sure that we keep the lights on in terms of capacity. That is a dilemma for any Government. Nevertheless, we should start thinking what has previously been the unthinkable: that this arrogance is not acceptable. We expect them to be more responsive, not necessarily to us but certainly to their customer base and to the nation in terms of their pricing strategies. They should know that if we cannot solve the competitive issues, that split could indeed happen.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling this amendment. It enables us to have a debate about what I believe is an obvious missing element in the entire Bill, which is the need and the desire to promote competition. It is clear that there has been a quickening of pace in the thinking about energy policy since the conference season. That is largely because the Labour Party has called time on the existing system which is operating in our electricity market. We stated clearly that if we win the next election we would make dramatic reforms to introduce greater competition. It is evident that we have an oligopolistic system and that there is an insufficient downward pressure on prices. Otherwise, why would British Gas and other members of the big six opt to spend half a billion pounds on share buy-backs when they could have used that money to keep prices down for their consumers or to stop the price rises they have recently announced? It is absolutely clear that something needs to be done.

The amendments tabled go some way to trying to crowbar this issue into the Bill but, unfortunately, I do not think they go far enough. We certainly support the desire to put the requirement for further competition into the general considerations. We cannot see an argument against that and it seems very sensible.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the Bill was all about competition. That could not be further from the truth. What the Bill actually does is deliver a system that will largely be determined by administrative negotiations between the Government and single parties quite often representing the big six. We have seen the first such announcement to emanate from this Bill, the contract awarded to EDF to build Hinkley Point C. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, was responsible for negotiating it. I have no doubt that he would have found it much easier to negotiate a price and length of contract that was better value for consumers if we had had more competition. What we needed was more competition in our choice of vendors of nuclear reactors. We were choosing one from one, which is never a good situation to be in.

I shall put that aside because I have used it as an illustration that the Bill does not introduce or increase competition, but narrows it. Later this evening we will debate—very briefly, I promise—my Amendment 7, which seeks to state that this contract for difference process must very quickly pass to a competitive process. It cannot continue as this bilateral, negotiated discussion behind closed doors with one or two very large companies that already play a dominant role in the market. In the interests of consumers and of competition, we must open up the whole process to competition so that we can keep prices down.

This group also contains the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which would split the big six. Again, we are very sympathetic. Rather than crowbar it into the Bill, we have already stated that we would use legislative powers on election to do exactly that. The argument in favour of the big six and vertical integration has always been that they need the balance sheet of the supply industry to be able to raise the finance required to invest upstream in generation, but that is not what they have been doing. They have not ploughed their profits back into investment; there has been a hiatus in investment.

The renewables industry, which has grown the most, has not relied on the big six. More than half of the investment that has gone into renewables has come from independent investors: new, independent companies. We should seek to support those companies and see them prosper. However, they report that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get power purchase agreements from the big six because they control the vast share of access to customers. Why is this? It is another clear signal that there is not enough competition in the market. We now have yet more contortions added to the Bill, such as purchasers of last resort and buyers of last resort, provisions that have been put in precisely because the big six are not offering decent contract terms to the independent investors. If that is not a signal that something is wrong, I do not know what is.

I will briefly touch on the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to Germany. I fully support the idea that the big six should become the big 60, and ultimately the big 600. We need to democratise our generation of electricity. The signs are that it is already starting, from the man on the street fitting solar panels to communities coming together to find PV for their schools or building wind farms. Real change is happening and we must endeavour to make it happen more quickly and substantially. Only then will the big six or their equivalents be challenged. This is happening already in Germany, where after a relatively short period RWE, the giant of the German electricity industry, is claiming that its business model is broken. The support for decarbonised, community-owned power has broken that industry, which is a good thing, as it has been responsible for a huge amount of carbon emissions over the decades and has shown itself to be incapable of adapting quickly enough to the new, modern needs of electricity.

I will not go on any more. We have covered the main points: the big six system is broken and we absolutely need more competition in this market. The Bill, by introducing contracts for difference, makes it possible and credible for us to make the decisive move to split vertical integration and halt the market power that is gained from having generation and supply in the same companies. We are in principle supportive of this, and we look forward to the Minister’s response. It is a sticking plaster, but nevertheless a very important one.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stephen and Lord Teverson. It is an excellent amendment, and had I been administratively competent enough, I am sure we would have tried to add our name to it because it raises an important aspect of this energy trilemma that we are trying to solve. As the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, eloquently pointed out, it is sadly missing from the Bill. This amendment or a similar amendment would be an excellent addition to it and would help to make it clear that this will be a very important part of the energy system. The reason it belongs in this Bill is because it is a significant move towards supporting the greater use of variable sources of electricity. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, one clear way of addressing the issues and challenges that variability creates is through the use of storage.

It is often—I think wrongly—stated that electricity cannot be stored. That is incorrect. It can be and is stored in many ways. We have heard of some of them today. Dinorwig is an amazing example. It was a government-funded public work, and it has been operated very successfully by a number of private companies. It is a jewel in the crown of our grid and provides fantastic, very fast and very efficient back-up at times of need.

However, there are many other sources. Hydro pump storage is not just in North Wales. There is an awful lot of it in Scotland, where it is a very reliable and well integrated source of renewable energy that has become at one with the environment in which it is located. These are technologies that were built in the 1950s and are still serving us today. They are amazing examples of what renewable energy can achieve. With the renewed interest in storage, a plethora of new approaches is emerging. I read with interest that GE, the wind turbine manufacturer, has launched a turbine that it is calling the “Brilliant” turbine. It is 2.5 megawatts and has a chemical storage facility built in to smooth the curves when wind power is operating or not operating. Obviously, that is a statement from the manufacturers that they can see a commercial advantage to being able to provide storage to help deal with the variability of the energy supply.

The Leighton Buzzard project was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. This is a fascinating and great example of where Britain can really excel. It is fairly straightforward engineering excellence at its best. The challenge is to take electricity at times of high supply using a filtration system to separate out nitrogen and then to cool the nitrogen as a liquid. That is the storage mechanism. Once it is heated and released, it can power a turbine. The great thing about the Leighton Buzzard project is that it is located next to a source of low-grade waste heat, which would otherwise be wasted, and that is helping to improve the efficiency of the system. These are exactly the sort of projects you can rely on the engineers and innovators of Britain to deliver. I really hope that we will see much more of such projects and more support for them.

The chemical project has also been mentioned—but I might have got this the wrong way round. The liquid air project is in Slough, and the chemical project—the 6 megawatt chemical battery, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen—is the one in Leighton Buzzard, so I apologise for the confusion. Nevertheless, those are two examples.

There is also a wide amount of pre-existing distributed storage available on the grid in the form of Economy 7 and storage heating. This is another aspect of storage that has been slightly forgotten. When we had our initial push for nuclear power and found that we had an overabundance of power in the night, when there was not much use for it, a parallel process was introduced to encourage householders to fit storage heaters in order to absorb that excess electricity at times when it was cheap and use it to heat their homes. I do not see why that should be forgotten. I think it has an essential part and could now, with the advances we have made in smart metering and the information that will be available to consumers, provide another form of storage.

[Lord Teverson]

I will just point out that the noble Baroness is absolutely right about that. It is true that heating water by electricity can still be done. Storage heating has perhaps become less popular—most water heating is by gas—but there is still a substantial element of electrical water heating.

[Baroness Worthington]

I absolutely agree. If immersion heaters were now plugged into the grid and could be switched on at times of high supply, they would be a great source of storage on the network.

I do not want to take too much time, but I also mention one of my favourite discoveries of this year: the flywheels at Culham. A little-known fact of our grid is that the fusion research unit at Culham demands a huge burst of power in order to work, and it was deemed to be too great a demand to place on the grid. So, in the 1970s, flywheels were installed, which are still operating today, based on the flywheels that operate in Dinorwig. This is another example of fantastic engineering that solves a problem. I am dwelling on all these examples because I think they really show that, as our energy system transforms itself and as we embark on this road with, I hope, a very clear and unswerving purpose, we will solve many of the problems and obstacles that have been cited today as insuperable. Innovation in engineering is something we excel at and I expect that noble Lords will come forward with many more examples.

I turn to the amendment and the requirements to introduce a strategy and set a target. I am at times a little sceptical about the setting of targets, but I am very supportive of the idea of a strategy. Representatives from the industry have told me that they are very confused about how to interact with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. There is not a single point person in the department who really has an overview of this issue, and they have asked if we could raise that issue and ask that it be prioritised and given a home within the department. They tend to feel that they are being passed from side to side, with no-one taking overall responsibility for it. I think that is in part because the definition of “storage” is not quite clear, and this hits at a core issue. Dinorwig is classed as a generator and holds a generating licence, but if you have an Economy 7 storage facility in your home, you are not a generator. Lots of technologies may emerge that are somewhere in between because they are both absorbers and generators of power. They could offer very particular services to the system. Is there a need for a separate licence category for such operators? The Government need to think about this and perhaps come to a conclusion. In the course of writing a strategy, I am sure that this is one of the things that needs to be addressed.

This becomes particularly important in relation to the distribution network operators. We tabled amendments in earlier Committee sittings to tease out the fact that the DNOs are currently preparing the business strategies which they will implement over the next eight years. It is my strongly held belief that the capacity mechanism within this Bill, if it is done correctly, could have a dramatic effect on the introduction of electricity storage, and therefore should have a material impact on the DNO strategies. We have said before that it seems crazy to be signing off on DNO strategies before the detail of this Bill and the capacity mechanism within it is fully worked through.

The Electricity Storage Network, which is the relevant trade association, has pointed out that support for electricity storage is currently available. It is not quite clear from the briefing whether the grant is worth £30 million or £50 million, but it is clear that the Government are making available some tens of millions of pounds for grid-scale demonstrations of storage. That is very welcome indeed. However, the association makes a point which makes sense to me: if you spend that kind of money on the demonstration but you do not have a policy to secure the route to market, that is effectively wasted money. What the sector is really looking for is a clear signal that it will be able to participate in the capacity mechanism and that there will be a way in which it can compete against the other potential sources of capacity that will be brought forward. The problem is that we are dealing with what is essentially quite a new set of technologies which is facing all the challenges that you would associate with that. Potentially, these technologies could be commercially viable, but they are not yet. How can they compete in a capacity market that essentially seeks to be technology neutral and provide one price for all? This is a contradiction in the proposals being made by the Government that really needs to be thought through.

The Bill makes it clear that on the supply side, when it comes to supporting low-carbon electricity supplies, the Government have accepted that we need a tailored strategy for the different technologies. We have differentiated strike prices as well as different treatment for nuclear and renewables—and within the renewables category, there is an enormous difference in approach. The reason for that is that the Government recognise that in bringing forward the low-carbon economy, it is not just a question of the least cost initially because these technologies are at different stages of development. The Government have expressed a desire to bring forward a range of technologies and not simply to compare them all against levelised cost. It is more subtle than that. Those interests may include the ability to establish a supply chain, which might have a material bearing on how we support certain technologies. The Government have gone so far as to create a levy control framework which is split up into the different technologies and potentially into different sizes of technologies, and even into different locations. I say that because on the supply side it is clear that the Government accept that one size fits all will not work and that different policies need to be brought forward in order to help all the various technologies at their different stages of development.

The demand management and reduction side is thrown out of the window and we are told that all technologies must be able to compete on a level playing field. What I would argue is that that simply will not work for those technologies which are less far along the development curve. Those include electricity storage, which has huge potential and will be very important, but at the moment would find it extremely hard to compete against the existing coal-fired generators, with gas that has just been mothballed or, indeed, potentially with new CCGT, although I hope it would be able to compete with it. I would simply state that on the supply side, the Bill recognises the need for differentiated approaches, but when it comes to the demand side we take a completely different approach. I would like to hear from the Minister what the justification is for those very different approaches. I am sure that she will respond by saying “the least cost”, but if it is a question of the least cost, the argument should apply to both sides. There must be something different on demand to which we are applying a different logic, and I would like to hear what it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I want to clarify that, as I said in my speech at Second Reading and as I have consistently said in Committee, I agree with the setting of outcomes in terms of what the Government want to achieve. However, I am nervous of the micromanagement of individual technologies through ever smaller targets. An editorial in the Financial Times this week asked why we could not have a process where the Government set the objectives and the market chose the least costly and most sensible solution. I have consistently said that is what we should be doing. This Bill is not taking that approach and I fear that another very specific technology target might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

[Lord Teverson]

I point out to the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is saying that we do not need a post-2020 renewables target for precisely that reason.

[Baroness Worthington]

I am sorry to raise this again as we are sparking up another debate here. There might well be concerns about a specific post-2020 renewables target but it is strange that the Secretary of State should not be more strongly advocating a decarbonisation target as this is necessary. We can carry on with this offline.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Thursday 25th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, if there has one been theme since the Bill started its long route over the past couple of years to where it is now, it is that it is not decarbonisation that has been the subject of the big debate—although it is a bigger debate now, I admit—but access to the market and competition by a vibrant independent generating sector. I would not be as pessimistic as the noble Viscount when he says that this sector would be squeezed out altogether. However, we want to see not just a surviving independent sector—and I believe it would survive under the conditions that we have at the moment—but a vibrant and expanding sector where we see future competition growing. I do not think we have got there yet. Whether it was the Select Committee in the House of Commons that went through the draft Bill or our own committee under the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, the whole area of independent generator competition was a theme that was common to us both and a very strong one.

What concerns me is not that the Government do not understand that this is an issue. I think that they do and that they have done for some time. They have done a lot of work on this, and I am sure that the Minister will go through it. The Government are aware that this is an issue and have been working on it very hard. What concerns me is that, as far as this Bill and the amendments are concerned, we still seem to be in a position of “may” rather than “must”. Although we talk about this in all sorts of other areas and sometimes use it as a political ploy—sometimes trying to strengthen something that is legitimate as a “may”—in this area it prolongs the uncertainty of the market.

When the Bill started its long process back in 1910—I mean in 2010-11; it might seem like the last century but it clearly was not—we said we saw this as important. I thank the Minister for keeping us very much in touch with the Government’s thinking via her letters. In her letter of 22 July she quite rightly said:

“This is a key issue as independent renewable generators currently hold a significant pipeline of projects”.

We understand that but the point is that over this period it has always been that the ROCs would finish in 2017. That system gave a fair degree of certainty. We are now two or three years on in that process and it is only some three and a half years until that April 2017 deadline. By the time this Bill becomes an Act, as it surely will in whatever state, that will be down to three years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, said, these major investment projects take time, whether it is in planning permission, judicial review or all the other areas. By then we will be well into the post-2017 period. That is why it is important that the Bill firms up on that and why I am slightly concerned that it is still a “may” situation in these amendments.

Also, the Minister’s letter says:

“Whilst I believe that the introduction of the Contracts for Difference … will greatly improve conditions in this market, I appreciate that [we] may need to go further to support independent developers. This is why I have tabled amendments to allow the Government to further support independent developers if necessary”.

I understand that entirely and welcome the great clarity that the Minister has given in her correspondence to all our debates through this Bill—that has been exceedingly good. What concerns me is that the point has come where, as a Government—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that they are Liberal Democrat as well as Conservative—we need to come off the fence. We need to say, “Yes, this is not just a problem but one we understand needs to be fixed—and it will be in the legislation”. I am sure the Minister will assure us that by Report there will be a very strong indication of exactly how this is to be played out.

One unfortunate thing in this long process is the feeling that the auction system has partly been disregarded because of the pressure of the big six. That may be completely fallacious and wrong but that perception is there. That means that the perception remains that this market is not fully open to full competition for a generation into the future. We absolutely need to make sure that it is.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who tabled amendments and spoke so eloquently to them this afternoon. Obviously, in this group we also have the Government’s own amendments, which share many aspects with the others.

The question of independent generators is crucial. As noble Lords have already said, this is an important sector and deserves to be treated with all due seriousness. The group of independent generators, which I am sure has been in contact with many noble Lords present, already represents 20% of the onshore wind capacity in the UK. According to Ofgem’s projections, independent generators are already responsible for 12% of renewable capacity and are expected to be responsible for between 35% and 50% going forward—something to which my noble friend Lord Hanworth alluded. This is not a small part of the market but a considerable part of it, and my noble friend Lady Liddell pointed to the reasons for this. The group represents the entrepreneurial energy developers in this country and it is that burgeoning sector that is providing jobs and investment for a green economy. I am not saying that the big six and other energy companies are not also participating but the entrepreneurs have shown great tenacity and appetite for engaging in a complicated market, but yet can succeed.

I should like to bring the Committee’s attention to the fact that last week economic statistics were produced that showed that the green sector in the UK grew in 2011-12 by 5% at a time when the rest of the economy was in a double-dip recession. The green sector is an important engine of growth for the country and we hope that that will continue.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the Minister for his encouraging response and for saying that he will take the amendment away. Today’s contributions have underlined the importance of CCS. Here we stand a chance of the UK really capitalising on our natural assets, in terms of both the storage capability that we have in the North Sea and our engineering prowess and experience in offshore matters. I am hopeful that we will see CCS projects coming forward in the UK very soon.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about whether or not CCS has been demonstrated anywhere, I refer him to the helpful report that the Government produced on CCS. Every three years the Government are legally bound to report on CCS developments. This Bill will actually repeal that but my noble friend Lord Grantchester is suggesting that the report should stay. In that helpful report we learn that investment is indeed going on today in CCS in the UK, and it details two plants that are very close to being commissioned in the US, due to come on stream in 2014. I am hopeful that then, at least, we will be able to put the lie to the idea to that CCS cannot be commercialised. If the US shows the way, I am sure that many others will quickly follow, including China, which, as we know, is investing in a number of CCS projects and, I am sure, is racing to get there too.

We need to up our game and get on with it, and this amendment is designed to ensure that there are no unnecessary hurdles in the way. I am encouraged by the Minister’s response so I am happy to withdraw.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Baroness does so, the Minister mentioned 2020 in terms of commercialisation. Given the current stage of the tendering process, when might we perhaps predict that the first full-scale CCS demonstration project will be operating? Do we have a date for that now? I think we are all concerned. We all want this technology to win. We are aware, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has said, that it has taken a huge amount of time to get momentum, despite all the good will that there is for it.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank my noble friend. My understanding is that we may be working on this as early as 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I take the emissions performance standard very seriously, as I did at Second Reading. An astounding fact, if we have one in terms of energy generation, is the resurgence of coal to its position of dominance of electricity generation in the UK. During 2012, 43% of electricity was generated by coal; gas, the previous number one, went down to 28%; and nuclear was at 20%. When the Climate Change Bill was passed into an Act, I do not believe that any of us would ever have expected that, as part of this programme towards a 2050 decarbonisation of our economy as a whole, in a few years’ time we would be looking at coal being so important to us in terms of our electricity generation and our economy. That concerned me greatly but we have had assurance that, due largely to the large combustion plant directive, coal will disappear over the next few years as the remaining coal plants in the United Kingdom have to close down, as a large number already have. We all felt very secure in that knowledge and in the fact that that would happen.

However, there is a significant concern if the price of coal stays very low in comparison with gas. I see no reason why gas prices should come down in the short term. Whatever happens with shale or whatever else, it seems pretty likely that gas prices will continue to go up. There will then be incentives for generating companies that own coal plants to modify them to comply with the large combustion plant directive through getting rid of their sulphurous and nitrous gases. Of course, that directive does not deal with carbon emissions. They are completely separate. But there is an avenue, and now a potentially economic avenue, for those coal plants to comply with that directive. They can continue under this Bill to generate coal well into the future until finally they need to have their boilers replaced, at which point the Bill very effectively says that you have to comply with 450 grams until 2044. Therefore, we have had a pathway. The way out of that was meant to be carbon capture and storage. If we had abated coal and it went below that emissions limit, that was a way forward and coal was legitimate within that context. Therefore, I am very concerned that this potential loophole—or gap, or pathway—for coal generation to continue needs to be sealed once and for all.

I was very pleased indeed that my noble friend the Minister, if I could quote him from a couple of amendments ago, said, “No more coal without CCS”. Absolutely—that is what we are here for. For some reason we cannot put that plain language in the Bill. We could just say that, could we not? But we are not; we are giving it a fair chance but trying to make it impossible. I am asking the Minister if he would doubly make sure that that is impossible by looking favourably on this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment, to which I have added my name.

I have previously described the measures that have been put down as a package. This is an essential component of that. I go so far as to say that I would be less concerned about the gas grandfathering if this amendment was accepted. This amendment addresses a very real risk and need. My worry about our current policy on coal is that a degree of complacency has started to take root, based on the idea that all the old coal is simply going to shut up shop and quietly disappear from the grid. Having worked for a power company that owns coal-fired power stations, I can tell your Lordships that these are incredibly profitable assets and the companies will do all they can to keep them operating for as long as they can.

A lot has been said, in the media and elsewhere, and in statements from the Government, about the lights going out and about this terrible problem of coal-fired power stations closing. Actually, as I have said before, the 8 gigawatts of coal that was required to close under the large combustion plant directive has already gone so we do not have a problem in the short term. In fact, we have 20 gigawatts of old coal carrying on. That is made up of 12 plants—the dirty dozen—that will be carrying on.

When the process of the Bill started, the premise was that new coal was the greatest threat. In fact, it says that in the consultation document. But that is fundamentally wrong. When it comes to managing carbon, old coal is far and away the worst source of emissions. These plants were built in the late 1960s and early 1970s—some of them are older than I am—and they have well paid back their initial investments. They have made the successive companies that have owned them a lot of money and it really is time to let them retire gracefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned in his reply that under the gas strategy only two plants would be operating. I am rather dismayed to hear that. I am not a great fan of the gas strategy at any time but that has made me even less confident in its analysis. It is absolutely clear that already four plants have opted in to fit, to be compliant with the IED regulations. That is considerably more than two. Once they have fitted that filtration equipment, they will have a capital cost that they will want to see returned. They are not going to suddenly decide to shut up shop in 2025. There is a high degree of complacency, based on the fact that the analysis and the modelling that were done did not take into account the following important factors. Coal prices are low and are going to stay low. If you own a coal-fired power station today, you can see pound signs ringing in your register for many years to come and that is a huge incentive to comply and go forward with the air quality standards. Also, the filtration equipment is very likely to come down in cost, making that equation even more favourable. Finally, with capacity market payments coming—we will have a chance to debate that on Thursday—that is another financial incentive to keep these plants running. The Government are being complacent and I urge the Minister to think again.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Baroness for her expert comments on this amendment. I admit I am perplexed by my noble friend’s response and I will go through it in a very moderate way. All this amendment would do is to put everything back to where the Government actually want it to be, where the large combustion plant directive, conveniently, gradually but fairly imminently shuts down unabated coal. It seems that that has always been a government assumption. However, because of the high price of gas to coal, suddenly being compliant with that directive becomes economic and so we have a different situation. All this is doing is putting it back to where we thought it was, probably when this Energy Bill started out in its long course through the department and stages of consultation and into Parliament.

It also seems to me that ironically, in this area, it is a win for the Treasury and a win for DECC. From the Treasury’s point of view, if there is certainty about coal going out, there is much more certainty for gas investors coming in—far more than probably a 2044 guarantee on investment. From a DECC point of view, we are actually making sure that those high carbon emissions that come out of old coal and that we were not expecting at least fall out of the system pretty quickly. Therefore, we have a win for all those sides as well as for climate change and we get back to what the Government’s policy originally seemed to be.

As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have the added benefit that in terms of energy security, because of the way that the EPS works, these plants can still be available over short periods of time, but not base load, to meet potential blackouts or brownouts within the electricity markets. So we have a win there as well. While I understand my noble friend’s arguments, I just think that they do not actually reflect government policy—not Treasury policy, DECC policy or the coalition agreement policy. Somehow we need to get out of that. However I am very keen to continue discussions, particularly in this area. In the mean time, in anticipation of that, I withdraw my amendment.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Thursday 4th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington]

In moving Amendment 36, I shall speak also to Amendment 37. Again, these are simply probing amendments to elicit more detail. I have a genuine question about definitions of electricity generation. We believe it would be helpful to have more information about what would be included under that descriptor. It is important that electricity is generated in a power station and is then transmitted long distances along transmission lines and through distribution networks. Quite significant losses accrue through that process. One of the advantages of distributed energy is that by locating the source close to the demand you get a potentially more efficient system. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about how far electricity generation will stretch. Does it take us through the plant into transmission and then to distribution? Where do we draw the line?

On what might seem a technical point, within that transmission network, there are sources of significant greenhouse gases other than CO₂. SF6 is a very powerful source of greenhouse gas. In fact, it is the most powerful greenhouse gas. One kilogram of SF6 is equivalent to the emissions of 22,200 kilograms of CO₂. It is significantly used in electricity substations. There are requirements to report losses of SF6 because it is such a significant pollutant. What policies do we have in place to reduce the emissions of SF6? Mechanisms can be used to reduce it. There are obvious leak detection and repair processes that companies should carry out. It is possible to recycle equipment. Employee education and training is a very important aspect.

I am sorry to spring this on the Minister. It is quite a technical issue and I would be surprised if her notes cover it. I use it only as an illustration of the fact that “electricity generation” is quite broad terminology. It would be helpful to know what is included. Anything that the noble Baroness can say about SF6 in a letter or in another way would be helpful.

As regards Amendment 37, I reiterate my thanks for the letter we received, which addresses the concern about how we are to marry up the fact that through the CFD process we may well fund generation outside the UK. I happen to think that is probably quite a good idea. Certainly, if Ireland is happy to have onshore wind that can be directly piped to Wales in a direct cable, that would be fantastic for us. I would prefer it if onshore wind were in the UK, where we would get the benefit of the jobs but there are problems associated with our being a very densely populated country. This is not to challenge the principle that CFDs can be assigned in places other than within the UK but merely to ask how we will account for that within the carbon intensity targets. Will those plants receiving CFDs count towards it? Will the noble Baroness say more about that?

[Lord Teverson]

This is a useful probing amendment. One of the other areas that has not been mentioned is the interest that the Government have had in geothermal energy from Iceland, which has started to be explored. I would like to think that we could have geothermal from Cornwall that we would be absolutely certain was within this regime—maybe I will come to that later in the Bill. It is useful to start to understand this and develop these arguments, because, in terms of dedicated sources of renewable energy that we work with other nations to bring to these shores, it would be regrettable if we were not able to take the full credit for that work within the decarbonisation targets. I would be interested to hear the Government’s thinking in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws it, may I make one further comment? I am not getting in the way of progress and I do not expect a response from the Minister, but there is a qualitative difference. I accept the point exactly about general interconnectors but there is a difference between the specific inter- connectors dedicated to wind energy and which are for those sources of power, whether it is around Iceland or Ireland, and general interconnectors. It may be useful for the Government to remember that, but I thank the noble Baroness and the Government for their continued attention to geothermal and I very much welcome her comments.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the Minister for her response and I look forward to receiving the letter. On Amendment 37 it is important to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just stated, that I was not necessarily probing in regard to interconnectors. However, in the fuel disclosure that we just described, suppliers are able to use electricity that they have purchased through the interconnector to count towards their fuel disclosure. They use an averaged amount that is worked out, in fact, so it is possible to account for interconnection. I am not asking for that, but I wanted to make sure that that was clear.

I was referring to a specific project, which I think is called Greenwire. That project may be called onshore-offshore, being built on the land of Ireland but connected by a direct cable to the UK. It is not an interconnector but a direct transmission line. If that goes ahead, it would potentially be a good and significant source of low-carbon electricity. It would be a shame if that were then not to count towards our carbon intensity target. After all, it would be UK suppliers and consumers who were paying for it. It really is important that when we think about these definitional issues, we get it correctly understood. The letter refers to the difference between direct connection and interconnection, so we are probably on the right track. I wanted to make sure and get it on the record that those projects will count towards our carbon intensity targets. On that basis, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14. If your Lordships will permit me, I will speak to Amendment 22 when we discuss Amendment 27, because I think that they are very similar. Unsurprisingly, having put my name to these amendments, I support them.

I congratulate the Government on having introduced these measures into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, pointed out, they were not there at the start of the process, but the Government have clearly listened to the representations from a large number of organisations requesting that they be put into the Bill. Here they are, and here we are debating them in detail for the first time. We have had a fantastically detailed and wide-ranging debate today and I would like to make some contributions to some of the issues that have been mentioned already, as well as a few additional points.

First, why do we need such a target and why should we support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh? It is simply the fact that investors want this and the country needs it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that only one trade organisation had made representations to him, but he and I were both present at a joint meeting of the Nuclear Industry Association, the Carbon Capture & Storage Association and the Renewable Energy Association, and all three were united in calling for greater certainty and for a decarbonisation target to be set as part of the Bill. That is just three trade associations. An additional 23 trade associations support it. Another 83 commercial companies support it. In total, more than 200 organisations support this provision being in the Bill. It is absolutely certain that we need it; investors have said that they need it. Simon Howard, chief executive of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, has said:

“There is significant investor appetite for the UK to be a global leader in profitable low-carbon energy solutions, providing the high-quality innovation and jobs that the country needs to ensure a future economic recovery”.

Basically, people want to invest in the UK, but they need certainty.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Baroness for letting me intervene; I shall not intervene again. I do not want to get in the way of the thrust of her argument, but I would ask her to say, “Well, of course, those people would say that”. There is at the end of the day a whole bargain going on here where suppliers will try to get the best deal they can, so they are bound to say things like that. The difficulty of the Government’s position is in being able to assess, as we have seen in the negotiations for the nuclear strike price for Hinkley Point, what that balance of risk and proper price is.

No other industry, not even agriculture under the common agricultural policy in the 1960s and 1970s, has offered a fixed index-linked price for 15 years. I do not in any way want to undermine the noble Baroness’s general argument, because it is an important area, but I think that we have to be really careful in our negotiations about how much we have already given within this framework, given the very large businesses that have very good negotiators. I know that the noble Baroness is one of the least naive people, but I think that we on this side have to be slightly careful about being naive in these price arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the strong point at Second Reading that we are in an international market—I absolutely agree with that—but we have to keep a sense of proportion about what else is being offered. I shall not interrupt the noble Baroness again.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the noble Lord for making that comment. I simply say that that is a complaint against the CFDs, which we will come on to discuss under Part 2 of the Bill. This is Part 1, which simply states the purposes of the Bill. There are many things that the noble Lord said with which I agree. If we had focused more on setting a framework of legislation, with clear outcomes and the right policies to create the link between those outcomes and the responsibilities placed on government and the commercial people who have to deliver on them, we would be in a much better place than we are. I said at Second Reading that I believe in markets. I believe that, as legislators, we should set a clear framework and allow the markets to live with the least-cost solutions. We are not in that position right now—that is not the Bill that we have in front of us—but this part of the Bill could be an important element in doing just that. The amendments would create that framework of certainty and guarantee a trajectory of travel. That is what is lacking in the Bill at the moment.

As others have said—I do not want to repeat it—the Bill does not set a decarbonisation target; in fact, it prevents a decarbonisation target from being set and seeks to tie the hands of future Governments. That is very regrettable. Moreover, it is simply enabling. It simply says that the Secretary of State “may”, if he or she chooses, set a decarbonisation target. Of course, that is going to create uncertainty. Why the discretion? Ministers in the Commons were keen to point out that they were in disagreement not about the principle but merely about the process and the timing. If that is true, why is there a need for discretion? Why the “may”? It seems to me totally illogical; it creates needless uncertainty. A number of noble Lords have used different phrases—“government vacillation”, “infirmity of purpose” and “gratuitous increase in uncertainty”. The discretion seems completely illogical and gratuitous and I hope that, at the very least, this process will bring some clarity to that issue.

However, we would go much further and, as other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments have said, require the target to be set now. There is no reason to delay it by two years. It unnecessarily politicises the issue and kicks it out beyond the next election when we have people lining up now to invest in the supply chain.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, this is perhaps a weightier issue. When I was looking at the background to this amendment, which is really about the Green Investment Bank’s financial muscle, I was looking for some inspiration on climate change and carbon emissions, and I came across this statement:

“We need to cut our carbon emissions to tackle the challenge of climate change. But the low carbon economy also provides exciting opportunities for British businesses. We will encourage private sector investment to put Britain at the forefront of the green technology revolution, creating jobs and new businesses across the country”.

More important is the next sentence, which says,

“we will create Britain’s first Green Investment Bank—which will draw together money currently divided across existing government initiatives, leveraging private sector capital to finance new green technology start-ups”.

Hallelujah. These statements are from the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto, which is intriguingly entitled Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. As Liberal Democrats, we actually did, so in many ways it was a successful manifesto. The serious point that comes from this is exactly the one that is in those manifesto statements. For a Green Investment Bank to be able to do what it says that it will do, it must be able to lever, not just now but into the future, sufficient funds to meet the vast requirement for green investment that this country needs. As we know, in the energy sector alone that is some £200 billion in generating capacity and in networks over the next 10 years, though we will hope to reduce that through demand-side reduction. But there is a great task to do.

I fully welcome the Government’s commitment to £3 billion of real money at a time when the national accounts are finding it difficult to find spare cash. I strongly welcome, as I have in the past, the availability of this £3 billion. I agree with the chairman of the Green Investment Bank, who said in this Chamber at Second Reading that this was sufficient money for them to get on with, and to start to create a track record for, the bank. It is very important that the Green Investment Bank starts to build up this track record. For a major financial institution, that will take considerable time and very careful investment. I also probably agree that the £3 billion will last until 2015 in terms of commitments, if not actual investment that will go beyond that.

The Government have still not responded to the fact that money is starting to be invested now—and we will arrive at 2015, or maybe 2016, when these commitments are used up, with an investment track record created on the way—but you cannot build up a reputation of trust in a bank, which, as we all know, is essential, unless you know that the doors are going to remain open for business, apart from just collecting the money that has been lent or the investments that have been made on the dividends, beyond three years from now. For anybody who wants to take the Green Investment Bank seriously as a long-term instrument for green regeneration in this country, as was so eloquently described in the Conservative Party manifesto, surely we need to have some reassurance, some positive sign, and some certainty that there will be resources to invest after that period. So far, the sounds that have come out of the Treasury, if not BIS, which sponsors this Bill, is that it is pretty reluctant to make that commitment. That undermines the chairman and the chief executive of the bank, whom I have met. Their appointments are excellent, and I congratulate the Government on them, but we pull the rug from under their feet if we do not assure them that there is a financial future, an investment future and a lending future beyond 2015.

Another area that I shall briefly bring up is that it concerns me to some degree that the £3 billion is going to be available to the Green Investment Bank beyond 2015-16, if that period is needed. To build up a track record in terms of investment, it has to make the right choices. I was very pleased that the Minister underlined the investment independence of the bank. That was a very strong and important message, not just to us but to investors and future users of this fund. It would be a tragedy if the board of the Green Investment Bank felt under pressure to spend that money because otherwise it would lose it. Those pressures will be much less if there is a route to further finance for the future. All this amendment does is to put in a simple way a simple mechanism by which that process starts now. In the finance sector, with extremely long gestation periods for investment in green industries, we need certainty now for the time when this £3 billion runs out. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s assurances on those areas. I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, during the debate in this House much has already been said about the absurdity of creating a bank and then effectively tying its hands behind its back by not allowing it to borrow. The Government’s statistics show that green industries in the UK are bucking the overall trend, showing healthy growth and contributing to the reduction in our balance of trade deficit. The bank could and should be helping to increase this welcome outcome but, apparently in ignorance of this fact, the Government have provided it with only a relatively limited amount of starting capital and have explicitly stated that it cannot borrow until an economy-wide criterion is met. Its ability to plan for the future and to help further strengthen growth in these particular green sectors is therefore severely limited, and it cannot contribute to getting the wider UK economy back on its feet at precisely the time when we need just that. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is a plan in place for the bank’s future development by setting a deadline by which borrowing will be allowed and creating a defined timeline that removes the uncertainty that currently hangs over the bank’s future, allowing it to plan for the future. Doing so helps to ensure that green growth can help to bring the UK’s economy back to good health even as it helps to restore the health of our environment. Denial of borrowing powers or setting a date for borrowing powers shows a lack of commitment, and the bank will be weakened and undermined as a result.

The arguments presented here and in previous discussions have been very persuasive. I hope the Government will accept this amendment. In the event that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, does not feel able to test the opinion of the House, we will press the issue to a vote.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 3rd December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 11. Here, I am trying to be as helpful as I can be to the Minister in trying to find ways in which we can make this investment bank even more effective in finding ways of providing finance. We will come later to the arguments about lending.

There are two obvious areas where we could assist the Government and the board of the Green Investment Bank, when appropriate. I absolutely agree that the worst thing that we could do is try to shovel out through this bank too much money too quickly and allow it to lose its reputation in terms of investment appraisal and doing the right thing. It should build up that reputation over a sensible period. However, given the need in the United Kingdom for investment in green matters and energy, we know that £3 billion, although it is a lot of money to all of us, will not last indefinitely. We therefore need to start thinking ahead now. Two areas should be considered.

My first amendment refers to the European Emissions Trading Scheme. I remind the Grand Committee that there is a list in subsection (3), which states:

“It may in particular be given by way of …”.

We are not therefore talking about hypothecation of the ETS revenues. We are saying that this is one of the areas where the bank and the Government may look to facilitate funding of this bank. It is an extra piece of the armoury for the bank and the Government that could be, but not necessarily has to be, used—although I think it would be a very good idea. I remind noble Lords that the EU-ETS is coming to the end of its second phase. In fact, at the end of this month that phase will end and we will move into phase three. In phase two, the Government have already raised some £1.3 billion-worth in sales of so-called EUAs, or units of European Union—forgive me, I have forgotten what the A stands for.

[Baroness Worthington]

Allowances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. I fully accept that the EU ETS money route is not precluded by the Bill as it is, and I suppose that it would be nice to have it on the list as a nudge or a reminder to the Treasury that it was a possible flow. That was all that the amendment did, but it would tie in well with the philosophy of the carbon market and trying to recycle money into helping the greening of the European economy and the UK even more.

[Baroness Worthington]

It struck me that the revenues from the EU ETS auctions would be considerable, even at this depressed carbon price. How much money will the auctions raise in the next few years, and how does that compare to the £3 billion that has been put up as a stake for the bank?

[Lord Teverson]

I read an estimate somewhere of about £1.3 billion a year. But it all depends on the carbon price. That is the key thing, and we do not know that.

[Lord Marland]

Perhaps I can help. It depends on the market, which is not there at the moment to buy it. We investigated and got a lot lower offer than £6.62 for the price. That is six months ago, and I cannot remember what figures were involved. I am sure that we could invite the Department of Energy and Climate Change to provide some information in the normal course. It depends on a willing buyer and the price at which they are sold.

[Baroness Worthington]

I have done some back of the envelope calculations, and at about 100 million tonnes it will be in the region of £1 billion or £1.5 billion. That is not an insubstantial amount of money, and it will rise in time, which would mean that the bank’s initial deposit was paid back by those auctions in less than three years. That is an important context for the discussion.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. It is certainly an area that I would like to come back to. I agree with my noble friend that putting all the Nuclear Liabilities Fund into the Green Investment Bank might not be the best way in which to spread the portfolio, although it would be even worse to put it back into the nuclear industry itself. That would be a bit like the Mirror Group reinvesting the pensions funds in itself, or whatever it did. The area needs looking at, and a broader investment strategy for the NLF that included a sensible investment in a bank like this would be a good way forward.

I will continue to look for opportunities to help the Government and hope that we can have further conversations about this—but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Electricity and Gas (Smart Meters Licensable Activity) Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Worthington and Lord Teverson

Monday 23rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, it is always good to have smart meters on the agenda in this House. They are a very important and often misunderstood area of energy policy. The great thing about them is that, if they are really smart, we could have a smart grid. We hope that that will be the case following the rollout. The sort of decisions that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned could then be made by the meter, rather than by people. That is where the big benefits will happen. The point is not so much to reduce demand as to reschedule it. That will mean major reductions in investment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, knows, Ofgem estimates that some £200 billion of investment in the energy networks is required. That seems a Soviet-style level of useless investment; I am sure that he would agree that we should not invest for investment’s sake in assets that stay largely unused for a large proportion of the time. A smart grid would enable us to reduce that investment considerably and to use electricity far more intelligently and intensively, as any commercial and private business would. My concern is that the smart meter rollout should enable that, rather than prevent it. That is why it is so important to have that level of investment; it really does bring savings down.

The Minister said that energy companies are one of the big savers on smart meters. The estimated readings that plague my electricity bills will no longer be necessary, nor will inspection. I would like to understand the Government’s thoughts on how they will make sure that the industry’s benefits are brought back into consumer bills.

When I read the order, I found it quite difficult to understand how DCC was anything other than a non-departmental office and, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, effectively a quango. It is a monopoly by statute that does nothing but allocate contracts and yet it still seems to be a private company. I am not sure what the appointment process is. I would be interested to understand it. I still do not understand why it is necessary, but perhaps the Minister will come back to me on that if I have failed to understand from his opening statement.

I am very pleased to have his reassurance that DCC will not get in the way of other operators. One of the increasingly important areas of activity within corporate business is energy management contracts, for which you need a lot of data communicated to you from very dispersed factory plants, not just nationally, but perhaps globally. I hope that that will not be stopped by this. I would like to understand exactly what DCC has a monopoly of. I guess that it has a monopoly of putting out contracts to do the readings. Presumably the companies that do that do not contravene the secondary legislation. It seems a strange way of going about things.

Finally—I did not enumerate the number of questions that I was going to ask just in case I got that wrong, but this is my last one, so the Minister can intervene on me if there are any more—what happens to places, perhaps not far from me, that do not have mobile phones, GSM network capability or other communications? How does that work? They are usually rural areas, but perhaps there are others. How will the Government make sure that they get the benefits of this system?

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. I believe it is the first of a number that will be coming forward on the smart metering policy, which we support. It is good to hear the Minister reaffirm that by 2019 every home will have a smart meter. However, there are still some questions we would like to have clarified about exactly how smart those meters will be. I shall come on to them.

The first point I want to raise is that today we have received the report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee that has been doing pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Bill. I urge the Government to join up the dots between these processes. RWE npower gave evidence to the Select Committee and clearly pointed out that if we emphasise demand management within that Bill, this smart metering spend could be money wasted. The amount of money proposed here is not insignificant and some of the benefits will not come to fruition if we carry on down the supply-dominated route which, at the moment, the energy Bill seems to be doing. We keep hearing reassurances from the department that work is going on on the demand side, so let us see some of the detail. It should be being done in parallel with the draft Bill, and the earlier it can be published, the better. Noble Lords have mentioned that we are seeking mechanisms to enable us to manage demand so that we do not have hard-to-meet peaks in demand that cause us to keep a huge amount of spare capacity in the system. It is often the most carbon-intensive and expensive to bring on, so smoothing out that demand profile is a real prize. Done well, smart metering will enable that, and that is what we all want to see. The time-of-use tariffs that smart metering could enable are a great prize. Time-of-use tariffs are available today but they are not smart or dynamic; they are the Economy 7 of decades ago. We need to see a modern set of tariffs based on time of use so that we can smooth out the demand as well as using the demand to back off when we have large amounts of renewables on the system. That is a prize worth having, which is why we support the Government’s moves towards enabling this rollout.