Electricity and Gas (Smart Meters Licensable Activity) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Reay and Lord Teverson
Lord Reay
My Lords, according to the information in a footnote on page 23 of the impact assessment, only 0.5% of households today have smart meters. From this tiny base, the coalition has committed itself to a rollout to 100% of domestic households by 2019, as the Minister explained—an enormous undertaking.
One of the purposes of this policy seems to be to reduce demand. On page 9 of the impact assessment, the Government include in the list of objectives for the policy,
“facilitating demand-side management which will help reduce security of supply risks”.
It is presumed that customers will be enabled, and will choose, to reduce their consumption of gas and electricity when they discover how much each appliance they use contributes to their total bill. At the same time, suppliers will learn and be able to observe much more about their customers’ usage of gas and electricity. Will this make it easier for them to control supply—for example, to ration it selectively in the event of electricity shortages? As far as I can see, the Government do not discuss this in the impact assessment. They have no interest in drawing attention to the possibility of future shortages of electricity, even though—perhaps because—some of us think that this is the likely consequence of their energy policy.
The impact assessment represents the cost of the rollout as being in the region of £10 billion. Many meters that have a long and useful life ahead of them—so-called stranded assets—will be replaced. These costs will presumably be added to consumers’ bills. I do not know whether the Government have estimated how much they will add to the bills of individual customers, both domestic and industrial.
The Explanatory Memorandum describes the new body to which my noble friend referred. It will be regulated by Ofgem and established as the Data and Communications Company. Although described as a company, I imagine that it is classified as a quango. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
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?
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2011
Debate between Lord Reay and Lord Teverson(13 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Reay
I shall say a word or two about this order. In itself, it is not very significant or pernicious and, given that these subsidies for offshore wind-generating stations are going to be paid in any case, I have no objection to them being paid in phases as the order provides. However, I strongly object to the underlying policy requiring these subsidies to be paid in the first place. Mostly, I find myself in opposition to onshore wind farms, which are of course ferociously opposed from one end of the country to the other—not by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but by many others. Besides ruining the lives of some who live in close proximity to them, they do irreparable damage to our wonderful rural landscapes.
Offshore wind is obviously less offensive in both those respects, although I sometimes feel that Turner, for example, would not be too pleased to see how some of the estuaries and wild foreshores he lovingly painted have been desecrated and had their romance and natural appeal, as in the Solway Firth, systematically degraded by this industrial intrusion. However, the factors I wish to emphasise are their uselessness and expense.
As a result of the harsh weather we have experienced in recent winters, it has been brought home to virtually everyone in the country that when the demand for electricity is at its very highest, the contribution from wind power is at its lowest. In fact, it may be close to zero for days at a time. Therefore, we must always be able to supply all the electricity we might ever require—it is required at the moment—by other means. Nor is the contribution from offshore wind produced more efficiently than that from onshore wind; far from it.
Last year, the load factor for offshore wind—the percentage of installed capacity that is generating over the year—fell, at 26 per cent, just below that for onshore wind. So much for the fatuous claim, which is sometimes made by Ministers when attempting to justify their scheme of surrounding these islands with a ring of turbines, that wind is one of our great natural assets. I calculate from the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics that wind power contributed somewhat less than 3 per cent of the electricity generated last year in the UK. I should think not much more than 1 per cent was from offshore wind. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could confirm or correct that figure, as it does not seem to be separated off in that digest of statistics.
Moreover, that miserable achievement is only possible thanks to the subsidies for offshore wind, which have now been raised to twice the level paid for onshore wind. That requirement is hardly surprising, given the obviously far greater difficulties in constructing and maintaining turbines in deep salt water rather than on land. The effect of the subsidy, paid for ultimately by the electricity consumer, is that the offshore electricity producer receives no less than three times the market rate for all the electricity he produces, and is guaranteed that rate for 20 years. What is the installed capacity of all existing commissioned and/or accredited wind turbines today, and what amount of subsidy are they guaranteed for the rest of their lives, in aggregate, assuming that current load factors continue? If my noble friend is not able to answer that question this afternoon, I shall table it as a Written Question.
I have recently read the renewables obligation annual report for 2009-10. It is an interesting document, but I can hardly recommend it to noble Lords for light reading. The ROC system is one of the most sublimely complex and opaque subsidy systems ever devised by the bureaucratic mind. No doubt that very fact gives it a certain political value. From it and from ministerial answers to Written Questions, I think I have gleaned that the cost of the ROC system last year was approximately £1.4 billion and that the share in that of offshore wind amounted to approaching £200 million. Could my noble friend confirm those figures? If so, could he say what he expects them to be this year?
One thing is for sure, that the intention of Her Majesty’s Government—hell-bent as they are on achieving their impossible renewable energy targets—is that these figures should expand massively in the years to come. In answer to a Written Question in this House in January, the Minister gave his department's estimate that by 2020 the subsidy cost for the ROC scheme would be more than £5 billion a year. I believe that the Government should do what the Dutch Government have announced they intend to do, which is to remove all subsidies from offshore wind and, in so doing, abandon their previous renewable energy target. By contrast, our Government still pursue a policy which will ensure that more of our industry departs overseas, that ever more people sadly plunge into fuel poverty and that the return to the age of freezing in the dark is brought closer. For those reasons, it is with a heavy heart that I witness the adoption of this ostensibly harmless amendment order.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I do not think I will reply to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but I agree with him profoundly that wind turbines are fantastic and are a great asset to much of the countryside for visitors to Cornwall. However, there are issues for those who live near them which we must recognise, although once they are there I do not think people notice them too much.
I want to concentrate on something completely different. I welcome the efforts by the Government and by the Minister to ensure that the issue of sustainability of biomass fuels is taken on board and is concentrated on. Two or three years ago, we found that biofuels in the transport area were the great salvation for decarbonising our economy but because of the many valid issues around food security and rising food prices, the substitution of fuels for food became a lot more contentious. Although I believe that biofuels are an important part of the future, they have to be seen to be sustainable, otherwise what is the point?
The importance of the order is that we get in front of the curve in this area and assure the public that, with the increasing use of biomass, they are sustainable. I have two wood-burning stoves in my house which I hope are sustainable; they appear to be and I am told they are, although they come from Somerset and are trucked down to Cornwall rather than produced locally. We have to be careful as the public perception of what is sustainable in regard to biomass, particularly wood, is not always what it should be. Strange as it may seem, sometimes it can make sense to bulk-ship wood in the right condition across oceans rather than cut down local forests. In terms of transport solutions to carbon production, that can sometimes be best. I am sure that that is taken into account but I welcome this order.