ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, the energy company obligation scheme and the Great British Insultation Scheme were established to improve the energy efficiency of homes—one of the best ways to cut consumer energy bills and keep people warm. This is particularly true for those experiencing fuel challenges. We took significant steps to improve the energy performance rating of homes. By the time we left office, 70% of social housing had an energy performance rating of A to C, up from 24% in 2010. In fact, almost half of the measures installed under the GBIS have been to low-income households.

The installation of solid wall insulation makes up a small proportion of the work undertaken by the ECO schemes and the Great British Insulation Scheme. It is worrying, however, that we have seen examples of substandard solid wall insulation under the schemes as identified by TrustMark.

It is with that in mind that we welcome and support the action announced by the Government last week, in which Ofgem will oversee the repairs and remediation. We are also grateful to hear of a review into the quality of solid wall insulation in other schemes and that additional on-site audits will be conducted to inform future action. It goes without saying that installers should fund the necessary repair work to remedy impacted households, which may experience issues with damp and mould.

However, we look to the Minister to provide clarity. Will the Government publish a full list of the 39 companies suspended from the scheme for carrying out poor-quality work? Can the Minister explain how the suspended companies will be required to remedy their work, and how will the Government ensure that the remedied work meets the necessary standards? Finally, will the Minister clarify exactly what action will be taken to ensure that every household which had solid wall insulation implemented under the schemes is thoroughly and properly informed and provided with the necessary information to rectify the work?

I am sure that all noble Lords in your Lordships’ House can all agree that households should have warm homes that are both cheap and efficient to run.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I gather from looking at the press release more than the original Statement that 65,000 applications will be checked through Ofgem procedures. Today I met someone who is affected by this, and I want to emphasise just the worry that the 65,000 or whatever will have over the future of their houses, their saleability, their onward renting or the damages to landlords. This is a real concern.

How many of the 39 companies that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, mentioned, were part of the TrustMark scheme? That scheme, which I believe all those contractors should have been a part of, is described as “Government Endorsed Quality”. What really worries me regarding future schemes—I know there is a big ambition on the part of this Government to carry on retrofitting—is that there will be a loss of confidence.

The one question I would really like an answer from the Minister on is about what I think is wishful thinking: namely, the Government’s view that all these issues will be replaced or rectified by the original installers. I do not wish to accuse the department of being naive, but let us be clear: the majority building business model is that when you get into trouble, you go into liquidation. I and, I think, other people really want to understand who will then bear the cost of those rectifications where that happens, as I suspect it will quite regularly.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The noble Baroness has taken time out from Nuclear Week, which we have both been spending a very enjoyable three days on. She is absolutely right to stress the importance of the scheme. Clearly, there is consensus across the House on dealing with this big problem, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness suggested.

I make it clear that we have the evidence of an audit of about 1,100 of those 65,000, and there will now be a massive piece of work to follow up with further audits, which will be overseen by Ofgem. Some of those will be desk based and others will be in-person site visits. There will be a proportionality test to decide how the audits will be undertaken.

The sampling that has been done was geared towards the installers that were thought to be most risky, but the fact is that a significant proportion of that sample showed that there were major issues, which is why we needed to take swift action to conduct further checks and initiate a further programme of remediation. We think it is 38 installers, not 39—a correction has been made by TrustMark. To answer the noble Lord, of course they were all under the auspices of TrustMark, and we are working very hard through certification bodies and TrustMark to require them to remediate the work.

As the noble Lord pointed out, it is a requirement for those schemes to be registered with TrustMark. In the case of those already audited, this is happening. I believe most installers want to do the right thing and do a good job. My understanding is that where issues are being flagged, they are repairing the work, but clearly we are having mechanisms put in place to make sure that the installers deliver on their obligations, and the guarantee system we have acts as a backstop. Clearly, the current system is not working. There is a combination of TrustMark, the companies involved, the certification process and the UK accreditation system—there are a lot of bodies involved and there is not sufficient co-ordination or tight oversight of this. We need to focus on remediation, but then we must move on to establish a better system in future.

On whether remediation will be carried out effectively, we are going to put additional spot checks in across the system to make sure that where insulation faults have been remediated, that work has been done to the required standard. Suppliers have committed to additional checks and monitoring future installations of solid-wall insulation so that householders can be confident that it is done to a better standard. I very much agree that any householder who has learned about this issue will be concerned. They will be concerned about the impact on their home, but also about whether the remediation work will be done effectively.

In terms of information to those households, Ofgem has begun writing to all households that have had solid-wall installation installed under energy company obligation 4 or the Great British Insulation Scheme. As I said, we will be reviewing the quality of all 65,000 solid-wall insulations, and we hope that the vast majority will not have any issues or that any issues found will be minor, but if we see major concerns, we will want action to take place immediately. It is clearly important that we carry out a quality check across all solid-wall insulation under these schemes.

I want to pick up the issue of saleability raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Clearly, this will be a concern. Householders seeking to sell or perhaps remortgage their home will be worried about lenders’ approach. Our expectation is that the firms that have done this shoddy work must pay for the remediation. Clearly, that must be the principle under which we operate. There is a moral hazard in my saying anything different from the Dispatch Box on that issue.

Looking further ahead, it is clear that the whole system of consumer protection is fragmented and in need of reform. In terms of our overall goal towards net zero and the massive challenge of heating efficiency in our homes, it is essential that in all these programmes the public have confidence in the quality of the installation. That is why what has been discovered has been very disappointing, but we have to take it, look at the whole system and improve it.

Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 30 October 2024. The Government believe that the answer to the challenges around energy security, affordability and sustainability point not in different directions but in the same direction: clean power. Investing in clean power at speed and scale can help tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. We believe that it is the only route to protect bill payers and ensure energy security; this is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the five central missions of this Government.

To deliver that mission, we will rely increasingly on a renewables-led system as the foundation for a decarbonised grid. We have set ambitious but deliverable targets to double onshore wind, treble solar and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. Although renewable energy is at the heart of our plan to deliver clean power, we also know that we must bring forward low-carbon generation sources, providing added security for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. This includes flexible supply sources that can scale up or down instantaneously to meet peak demand.

Some of this flexibility can be provided by short-duration technologies such as batteries, which can help balance the system within each day, but we know that we will also need long-duration technologies, which can run for extended periods of low renewable production. To meet this challenge, the Government are investing in low-carbon flexible technologies, such as carbon capture and storage at existing power stations, hydrogen and long-duration electricity storage. This flexibility is critical to maintaining a constant supply of electricity in the UK, keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses.

However, as these new low-carbon technologies scale up, we will continue to need reliable mature technologies, including gas, to provide energy security. The National Energy System Operator’s report on delivering clean power by 2030 showed that maintaining gas capacity in the system is in line with the mission to deliver clean power. We have been clear from the outset that gas is expected to be used less in our future energy system, moving to an important strategic reserve role in order to ensure security of supply. Although gas will continue to play an important role in the system, it is only right that we should expect any new or substantially refurbished combustion plants to be built “net zero-ready”. This is why we are uplifting the existing regime and introducing the new decarbonisation readiness requirements.

Before I turn to detail of the decarbonisation readiness requirements, let me first set out the current regime. Since 2009, all new-build combustion power plants in Great Britain sized over 300 megawatts have been subject to the carbon capture readiness requirements. These regulations require plant operators to demonstrate that it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit carbon capture and storage technology. Due to the threshold of 300 megawatts, the policy has seen limited application since 2009. The reality is that it has contributed to a costly market distortion by incentivising the building of smaller, less efficient plants and inadvertently creating an unacceptable loophole. This has resulted in a significant number of plants being built at 299 megawatts in order to avoid the carbon capture readiness requirements.

The policy landscape has changed significantly since the carbon capture readiness requirements were introduced. Plant operators now have an alternative pathway to decarbonise, through hydrogen-fired generation, as well as the introduction of the UK’s legal obligation to meet carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. In March 2023, a final consultation on the decarbonisation readiness proposals was published alongside the publication of two technical studies for hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The consultation received positive feedback from industry. Some 28 organisations and one individual responded—representing plant operators, original equipment manufacturers and trade associations—with broad support for the proposed changes and implementation of the decarbonisation readiness requirements. We published a response in mid-October, giving the go-ahead to proposals set out in the consultation.

On the details of the regulations, this statutory instrument will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 by inserting new Schedule 25C. It will remove the minimum capacity threshold of 300 megawatts, which will remove any existing market distortion and support rapid decarbonisation by ensuring that nearly all new and substantially refurbishing combustion power plants must have a credible plan to decarbonise. The regulations will also move the requirements from the planning consent process, where they currently sit for carbon capture readiness, to environmental permitting. This will ensure that the responsibility for regulating the requirements falls to the Environment Agency rather than to local planning authorities and my own department. Unlike local planning authorities, the Environment Agency is already involved in the assessment of carbon capture readiness and has the technical expertise to assess the requirements. As I mentioned a moment ago, that will also include hydrogen readiness.

The new requirements will now enable combustion plants to demonstrate decarbonisation readiness through conversion to hydrogen firing, as well as carbon capture. In doing so, the instrument introduces hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture readiness assessments, which are proportionate to the developing nature of hydrogen to power and carbon capture and storage. The requirements will also expand the generation technologies in scope of the requirements to include biomass, energy from waste and combined heat and power plants. This will ensure that a higher number of carbon-intensive plants are now captured.

These updated requirements are intended to strike a balance. They ensure that new-build plants and the refurbishment of old sites are conducted ready to take full advantage of future decarbonisation opportunities, while acknowledging the emerging state of hydrogen and carbon capture technologies and their enabling infrastructure. We expect that the requirements will be strengthened over time as the generation technology improves and clarity on enabling infrastructure availability increases. To ensure that we regularly assess the impact of the policy and the case for strengthening the requirements, we have included a statutory requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the policy in periods not exceeding five years.

In summary, these regulations will ensure that the gas capacity we need for security of supply is future-proofed and has a credible plan to transition to low-carbon operation. In doing so, it will help deliver our aim to become a clean energy superpower and deliver net zero by 2050. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

When one is first appointed to Parliament, one worries about addressing a huge crowd of parliamentarians and being on the telly as well. I am not feeling too nervous today.

I found the Minister’s explanation excellent; I did not understand it particularly from the legislation or the Explanatory Memorandum. I presume that the whole area around potential new gas, in particular combustion power stations, is about aiming for 95% decarbonisation by 2030 rather than 100%, which I understand in terms of pragmatism.

On the areas that I do not really understand, the one that I had not really realised is the hydrogen aspect of these regulations. I find it difficult to understand how one would ever convert a gas power station to a hydrogen power station in a way that would make any economic sense whatever in terms of gas storage coming in and perhaps being used as part of the capacity mechanism. The hydrogen would have to be green hydrogen, which means that it is probably generated by electricity in the first place—so why would one de-convert it through various inefficiency mechanisms for it then to go through a degassed power station? That just does not seem logical to me.

On that, the other risk seems to be that—I am not a technical expert on this, obviously—the conversion from a gas-fired power station to a hydrogen-fired power station is probably not that different, and therefore the cost of conversion, or of being hydrogen-ready, is not very great. Carbon capture and storage, however, is a major conversion and, presumably, it has to be near facilities that can store carbon: either a carbon pipeline, which we went through all the legislation for in the last Energy Act, or something on the coast, so it can go undersea. So I ask the Minister: is this effectively another loophole like the one that already exists, in that new combustion stations just say that they are hydrogen-ready? In terms of carbon capture and storage, does that very much restrict where they are?

I have another concern, although I fully accept what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister mentioned energy from waste plants. We all know that, as part of their planning permission, the plants often have to be ready to have heat networks—but this hardly ever happens. Occasionally it does; there are examples of energy from waste being tapped into heat networks. I just feel that there is a risk that these things can be built in a certain way—I do not know how much they have to be ready or near a connection—but in reality they will never happen. Certainly, that tends to be the track record in this area.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but, generally, I welcome what the Government are trying to do.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will concentrate on a major area where I feel the Government must provide some clarity: regulatory burden. In doing so, I am of course mindful that it was the previous Government who introduced the initial consultation to expand and update carbon capture readiness requirements, now rebranded as decarbonisation readiness requirements. The immediate effect of these regulations will be felt across electricity generating stations in England, particularly those now required to meet the expanded decarbonisation readiness criteria. Operators will be required to submit a decarbonisation readiness report as part of their environmental permit applications, which must include technical details on the feasibility of carbon capture or hydrogen conversion during electricity generation.

A significant provision in this statutory instrument is the removal of the 300 megawatt minimum capacity threshold, which currently dictates when carbon capture readiness requirements apply. In this amendment, the requirements will apply to both new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants, as well as voluntary applications for existing plants. Additionally, the SI introduces assessments for hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture, usage and storage.

It is incumbent on the Government to outline comprehensively what specific support will be available to businesses as they are required to adjust to these new requirements. Can the Minister assure me that his officials in the department recognise that the onus must be on helping operators achieve compliance rather than face an undue burden? Will he outline whether exemptions have been considered—for example, for smaller or older power plants that may face specific challenges in meeting the requirements on day 1? There is a fine line to be walked between regulation and innovation, and, to use a familiar proverb, there is a real need here to make sure that we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face.

This instrument hands the Environment Agency direct assessment powers over compliance. Again, can the Minister provide the necessary detail on the actions that the agency will take to facilitate a smooth transition before the implementation date of February 2026? Additionally, will there be any further consultations, or will any additional guidance be issued, before the regulations come into effect?

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024. Noble Lords will know that the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, contributing to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. Most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions. However, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free in order to manage both their exposure to the carbon price and the risk that businesses’ decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by higher-carbon imports.

Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person who has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which free allocation operators are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the ETS.

I now turn to what this statutory instrument does. We have brought forward this SI to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme to be made. Under previous UK ETS policy, where a sub-installation ceased operation, free allowances were no longer distributed in respect of that sub-installation in the year after the year in which the relevant sub-installation ceased operation.

However, the operator was entitled to retain the full amount of free allowances made available in respect of the sub-installation without recalculation to account for the permanent cessation of the sub-installation within the scheme year. Noble Lords will readily see that this had the potential to result in the overallocation of free allowances beyond the volume required for carbon leakage mitigation, as well as the distribution of free allowances that were no longer associated with an activity that resulted in emissions.

This instrument ensures that the volume of free allocation to which an operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at one or more sub-installations is calculated by reference to the level of activity at the relevant sub-installation in that year. To facilitate this change, this statutory instrument will require that operators prepare an activity level report in respect of the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation. That report will be used to recalculate the volume of free allocation to which the operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation, and any overallocation will be recoverable in accordance with existing scheme rules.

This instrument includes an exception to the final-year rule in circumstances in which the permanent cessation of operations at a sub-installation is part of a series of changes that has resulted in a material reduction in the specified emissions per unit of production of those pre-cessation products that continue to be produced at the installation. This exception to the final-year rule will incentivise decarbonisation, as operators that can demonstrate that the relevant requirements are met will continue to be entitled to the free allocation calculated in accordance with existing UK ETS rules, which is calculated in advance on the basis of historic activity levels.

This instrument also amends the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of the UK ETS legislation. The previous definition of the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation had ceased operations was at the point in time when it became technically impossible to resume operation. This definition was difficult to apply consistently in practice. The updated definitions provide that an installation has ceased operation when all regulated activities, in the case of an installation, or the relevant operation, in the case of a sub-installation, have permanently ceased to be carried out at the installation. This amendment increases certainty for both the scheme regulators and operators.

This instrument also introduces a requirement for operators to notify the relevant scheme regulator of circumstances in which all regulated activities cease to be carried out at an installation by the end of the scheme year in which the cessation occurs or within one month of the date of cessation—whichever is later—and to confirm whether the operator intends for one or more regulated activities to resume at the installation. Operators are similarly required to provide details of a cessation of operations in respect of a sub-installation in annual activity level reports prepared in relation to the 2025 scheme year and thereafter. Requiring these reports will facilitate the application of the new final-year rule.

The statutory instrument introduces a new power for regulators to issue a notice to an operator which determines that an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of UK ETS legislation. The new power is available in circumstances where the regulator is not satisfied that the operator intends regulated activities to resume at the installation or intends for regulated operations to resume at the sub-installation level. The change will increase certainty for operators and facilitate equivalent treatment for all installations undergoing a cessation.

The changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. Between 18 December 2023 and 11 March 2024, the UK and devolved Governments ran a consultation, seeking views on proposals to alter the free-allocation methodology for the UK ETS statutory sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Free Allocation Review covered the provisions included in this statutory instrument on permanent cessations. The responses to this consultation were in broad support of the proposed technical changes to the treatment of permanent cessations. The authority response to this consultation will be delivered in two parts; an early response to proposals on permanent cessations was published last November.

In conclusion, I have spoken at considerable length on what seems to me a perfectly sensible order that builds on the work of the last Government. It seems to me absolutely sensible and proportionate. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I do not think I have ever known something so simple be made to sound so complicated, if I am honest. Basically, this will stop people having a free ride after they have closed down a particular part of their business; I think that describes it. Therefore, it makes sense and is right to do.

Perhaps I may come back to a slightly broader canvas, because this is a really important area for the UK ETS. Free allocations come primarily from grandfather rights and work through. I presume that all free permits will cease as the UK introduces the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I think is coming in 2027, as planned by the previous Government. Free allocations are all about carbon leakage and, when we have a carbon border mechanism, clearly, carbon leakage is solved by that instrument rather than by free issue. So will they be phased out in that time?

The Minister will also be aware that, under the trade and co-operation agreement negotiated by the previous Government, there was a strong inference that the UK ETS and the EU ETS should recombine in a single scheme. In fact, one of the issues at the moment is that the UK ETS carbon price is significantly less than the European one. This is due to what I would probably see as an overallocation of free permits.

So my question is: are this Government still considering bringing those two schemes together? This is particularly important at present because, in one year’s time, the EU will introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism for heavy industry, but, in particular, energy exports will be taken into account by the first phase. If we do not have an equivalent scheme or are not part of a joint scheme, effectively we will be subject to tariffs in terms of those effective carbon charges.

A particular problem with the carbon border adjustment mechanism is the GB-Northern Ireland issue, because there will effectively be a tariff for carbon costs and energy between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I visited Energy UK one or two weeks ago, and it was particularly concerned about these aspects of the UK ETS into the near future and when the EU moves forward with its well-planned carbon border adjustment mechanism. It is really important to make decisions here and get on with them, because there will be very difficult issues if we do not resolve this over the next 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on international co-operation on carbon pricing. I certainly accept that, as we transition to net zero, it is important that we work across international borders to drive climate ambition. Under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK Government and the EU agreed to consider linking our respective carbon pricing schemes and to co-operate on carbon pricing. The noble Lord will know that we are working to reset our relationship with the EU and strengthen ties and improve trade and investment relationships with it, including promoting climate, energy and economic security, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market or customs union.

The Prime Minister visited Brussels on 12 December 2024, and the joint statement with President von der Leyen illustrated that the UK and the EU would take forward this agenda of strengthening co-operation at pace over the coming months. As set out in the TCA, carbon pricing remains an area where we will continue to co-operate, and it is right that we will continue to develop the UK ETS to support our climate goals and support sectors in the transition to net zero.

The carbon price within the EU emissions trading scheme is determined by the market, and it is designed this way because competitive markets are likely to deliver the most efficient transition to net zero across the economy. This will give emitters the flexibility as to how they abate their emissions, thereby allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheaper for them to do so.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that, as I said earlier, we are here simply building on the work of his Government in just making a sensible adjustment to make sure that there is no free ride in removing the excess allocation of free allocations, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested. When the production has been ended as part of a decarbonisation programme, allowing them those free allocations recognises that. We do not think that these rules will lead to disproportionate regulation or that there will be potential manipulation of the market.

On oil and gas, I will write to the noble Lord with further details on his specific question.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am afraid I do have to come back to the Minister. Is it the Government’s intention to integrate, if they can, the two emissions trading systems? Is that a government goal or not? Also, do the Government still intend to do what the previous Government suggested—to introduce a carbon border mechanism for the UK at the beginning of 2027? This is pretty fundamental stuff that industry and the whole economy need to understand. If the Government do neither of those, how will they solve the problem of the EU carbon border mechanism from the beginning of next year?

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 in my name would introduce a new clause which requires GB Energy and its partners to make only investments that make a positive contribution to nature recovery. As my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel rightly explained, the UK is facing both a climate and a nature crisis.

Nature recovery, the restoration of our country’s biodiversity and the climate are matters that are so closely interwoven. They cannot and should not be considered in a separate capacity. Therefore, if GB Energy is to be established in an effort to achieve clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions in an attempt to tackle climate change, GB Energy ought to operate in a way which looks to make a positive contribution to nature recovery.

The Government themselves recognised the ties between climate and nature recovery. Indeed, they were elected on a manifesto which said:

“The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”


and

“The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis”.


The omission of a nature recovery duty is another shortcoming of the Bill. Climate change and the loss of biodiversity both compound and reinforce one another. The Royal Society has acknowledged that a flourishing ecosystem has the ability to combat the effects of climate change. We know that the UK’s biodiversity is under serious threat, yet we know that natural habitats have a significant role to play in absorbing and storing carbon and regulating the climate.

Wildlife and Countryside Link has called for nature recovery to be put in the Bill and the amendment in my name would do just that. It recognises that restoration of the UK’s nature has the ability to provide up to a third of the climate mitigation effort that is required if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. Rightly, it describes the Government’s failure to include a nature recovery duty as a “missed opportunity”.

A nature recovery duty ought to be a general principle of GB Energy. It would hold the Government to account on the manifesto they were elected on. It would introduce a clear condition, ensuring that GB Energy and its partners operate in a way which seeks to contribute to the biodiversity targets introduced by the previous Government in the Environment Act.

Nature recovery must not be seen to inhibit the facilitation of the production, distribution and storage of clean energy. Instead, it must go hand in hand with the objectives of GB Energy, helping to protect and restore carbon-rich habitats. Indeed, it is complementary to the objectives of GB Energy surrounding clean energy generation and distribution.

We must be cautious that the establishment of this body to rapidly ramp up the installation and generation of renewable energy technologies does not adversely affect biodiversity in the UK. We must seek to mitigate the risk of further diminishing or undermining the UK’s natural assets. The amendment in my name would do just that by embedding a nature recovery duty into law.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 114 and 115. I agree very much with the spirit of the other amendments in this group. I say to the Minister that only one of my amendments is labelled as a probing amendment but they are both, in effect, probing amendments and I would not expect them to proceed beyond Committee as I have written them.

Amendment 114 is about national defence. Clearly, even since I wrote the amendment, this has become even more important in terms of offshore infrastructure, as we saw in the Baltic at the end of last year and following the serious shenanigans of “Eagle S”, the shadow Russian oil tanker which disrupted cables in the Baltic Sea, after which there was a NATO conference yesterday.

The purpose of this amendment is to hear from the Minister that GB Energy, in its offshore investments, will be plugged into the Ministry of Defence, and that the Ministry of Defence—which, if I may be slightly candid about it, has not always been positive about renewable energy onshore—will fully engage in these investments.

I think this is going to get more and more important. All sorts of technologies are coming out to ensure that, as soon as cables or pipelines are tampered with, it is quickly recognised and action can be taken. There is an Oral Question on this area in the House tomorrow, and I will be pressing more on the defence side, as we need to be a little more upfront in our reaction, as the Finns have been. I am really probing to see where that co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence is going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am a little confused by this conversation, because I always understood that oil rigs encouraged shoals of fish, providing them with a safe haven under which they thrived. If they thrive under oil rigs, why should they not thrive under wind turbines as well, if they are pinned to the bottom of the sea?

I agree that, if they are floating ones, it is more debatable whether fish could thrive under them, but, in my view, it does not necessarily follow that having such industrial structures in the sea goes against nature—it might actually go some way towards protecting it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

The noble Lord raises an important issue. As we know, when Shell wished to dispose of one of its oil rigs in the North Sea, to which a number of environmental NGOs strongly objected, there was a fair bit of scientific evidence that it made a positive contribution to North Sea biodiversity. Indeed, off the coast of Cornwall, an ex-naval vessel was sunk in order for it to become a reef, which increased biodiversity. We should not just reject the fishing industry’s views on this. The problem with offshore wind farms compared with oil rigs is the quantity—that is, the size of the area that would be an exclusive zone. That is the issue, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. May I take him up on his point about the Ministry of Defence, which I used to work for at one stage? He said that the people there were very much against such schemes, but I think that it is mainly to do with communications: if their radar and other communication systems are blocked by wind turbines, they will object to them. That is understandable. We should not paint the Ministry of Defence into the position of being anti all forms of renewable energy because I do not think it is; however, it is always concerned if it cannot reach out and listen to the enemy, wherever they may be, because there are wind turbines in the way. This is an interesting subject that probably needs looking into rather more carefully—it is certainly not as straightforward as some of my noble friends make out.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I shall not prolong the conversation tonight but the noble Lord is, once again, absolutely right about national defence, radar and being able to see an incoming attack with missiles or whatever. The problem was that the Ministry of Defence did not man that area enough. Decisions were extremely slow. There was a rumour—of course, I have no proof of this —that it used to use its slowness and its objections to insist that developers helped it upgrade its military equipment. I do not know whether it was true—I am sure that it was not, of course—but that was the perception. The main problem was the slowness of response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 118A, which covers wider considerations. Let me be clear: it is also a probing amendment, as are all the amendments in this interesting and diverse group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, for adding his support to my amendment, which is about ensuring that communities benefit directly from the renewable energy projects that Great British Energy undertakes. I put it forward to see whether that is possible and to ask, from the Government’s point of view, what barriers to that might exist.

My amendment would ensure that 5% of gross revenue from all Great British Energy

“renewable energy projects generating over one megawatt”,

both onshore and offshore, would

“be paid into community benefit funds”.

The idea for it came from the honourable Angus MacDonald MP’s experience with Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments. This guidance promotes community benefits of a value equivalent to £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, index-linked for the operational lifetime of projects.

My amendment requires that:

“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals for ensuring that local communities benefit from renewable energy projects undertaken by Great British Energy. The report … must set out, but is not limited to, proposals for 5% of the gross revenue from all such renewable energy projects generating over one megawatt to be paid into community benefit funds”.


I will not go into the rest of the details; the amendment is before noble Lords. It simply puts into the Bill that local communities should directly benefit from renewable energy undertaken, and that there is a mechanism available for doing that. On the 5% figure, I am happy to have a conversation with the Minister if it is an issue. I note that Denmark’s Law on the Promotion of Renewable Energy 2008 had a 20% figure, in relation to which 5% is a lot lower.

To talk more about the spirit of the amendment, this is really about helping disadvantaged communities, particularly those that are hosting our renewable energy. A lot of them are in the highlands and in Scotland. They disproportionately suffer from poor infrastructure and poor public services, and a lot of them are living in fuel poverty. They are putting up with having their landscapes covered in turbines, dams, electricity transmission lines, substations and all the rest of it. I support community energy, as everybody knows—I have spoken to it in two other amendments and will not go into it here—but this is about more than that. This is not a nice-to-have; in my opinion, this is an essential part of the energy transition. It is about ensuring the continued long-term support for this journey that we are undertaking as a society.

Recent opinion polls on these matters are really strong. Where local communities benefit from the energy infrastructure, particularly the infrastructure that they host, their support for this transition is much stronger and more resilient. If this support falls away, that could be the end of the whole transition and of all this, so this is not just about being fair and supporting the communities that need it most and that host this stuff. It is also about making sure that these things go on beyond one Government and one term, that they are here, that we manage to take society with us on this journey, and that those who are hosting things that other bits of society need benefit from them.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, I signal my support for Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I note that the Wildlife and Countryside Link put out a detailed briefing on that and why it needs to be there. I also support Amendments 114 and 115 in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson. I will not go into too much detail on that. As he said, there is an Oral Question on this tomorrow. It is unfortunate that we have had more recent incidents, not just in the Baltic but off the coast of Taiwan. Obviously, the UK has a number of electricity interconnectors and gas pipelines —we had a conversation about gas in the House this week—and they will only ever increase. New contracts have been signed. We have about 7.7 gigawatts at the moment, and that will rise to 18 gigawatts by 2032, so this is a crucial part of our energy security and our journey to net zero.

I would ask the Minister one thing. We can have conversations about the other aspects later on, but I am worried about the Government going away, stepping up their appreciation of this risk and maybe recalculating some of their calculations around the security of supply as we transition to net zero in 2030 and beyond. Is there is a greater need to look at some of those things again? We will talk about the rest tomorrow.

If the Committee will excuse me, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, has left me a note. Does the Committee mind if I read that in support of my amendment?

These are his words: “My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 118A. I should first declare an interest as a director of two family-owned hydroelectric companies in Wester Ross. Having worked in the Treasury during the 1980s boom in North Sea revenues, I am all too conscious that Britain has a poor record in reinvesting the benefits of energy windfalls and an even worse record in passing on those benefits to communities directly affected by energy production. I think Shetland receives some money, but other places do not”.

“It is in the nature of renewable energy production that it tends to take place in remote areas. I am thinking in particular of the Highlands of Scotland, but the same applies to Cornwall, Devon, Wales and Cumbria. People living in these communities often have to live with negative aspects of renewable energy: towering windmills or hydroelectric schemes which change the natural environment and can particularly scar a hillside. Because of the remoteness, oil and gas and electricity connections cost more”.

“Successive Governments in Westminster and Edinburgh have supported the principle of requiring energy developers to support their local communities, and there have been some good examples of community investment. But practice is variable, and often contributions are set in cash terms and bear no relation to the subsequent success of renewable energy schemes. Great British Energy has a huge opportunity to lead by example in exercising best practice. By setting up community benefit as a fixed percentage of gross revenue, this amendment seeks to ensure communities benefit more fairly. A 5% contribution is relatively modest, as I understand it”—and he then goes on to make the Denmark point.

“Of course I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will agree to the amendment, but I have a feeling that he will argue that this amendment will cut across the operational independence of Great British Energy and that this Bill is the wrong vehicle for addressing community benefits. If that is the case, I would like to ask the Minister if he can go beyond fine words of general support for community benefits. Will he commit to setting out a clearer definition of what represents a reasonable and fair rate of community benefit for a given level of revenue for renewable energy projects?”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We certainly got the noble Lord’s point.

This has been an interesting debate with which to finish today’s proceedings. I start with Amendments 106, 107 and 115. The debate between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Hamilton, on the benefits of oil rigs and other structures for fish populations allows me to say that other energy infrastructure can also have a positive impact on nature. We know, for instance, that wind farms can coexist with farmland easily. We have examples of solar meadows, which is a practice of growing wildflower meadows on solar farms. I have heard talk of green corridors, where beautiful new pylons are built to extend the grid. I am not being facetious here, as we need to look at ways in which energy can contribute to nature recovery. It is an important point to make.

I agree on the importance of our coastal communities and commercial fishing, as reflected in Amendments 106 and 107. Amendment 115 would require GBE to consult annually with the commercial shipping sector and fishing industry. I would expect GBE to provide regular updates on its work on such issues through its annual reports and accounts. We know that the projects that Great British Energy is likely to be involved in will all be subject to relevant regulations, including environmental impact assessments. There will be statutory stakeholder engagement to understand the potential impact of development. In line with other energy developers, GBE will consider the impact and risk of its activity on the commercial shipping sector and fishing industry, as it will other affected stakeholders. I will draw these remarks to the attention of the chair of GBE, so he can understand the importance of the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, has raised.

In relation to coastal communities, there will be many opportunities in the energy sector in the future. We talked about the challenge of the North Sea transition. We obviously hope that, as jobs reduce in the oil and gas sector, the people involved can take up other jobs, some of which I hope will be in the wider energy sector. But overall, GBE has an important contribution to make in this area.

On Amendment 114, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised an important point on the Ministry of Defence and security agencies. Clearly, to ensure resilience, GBE will have to consider the impact and risk of its activity on offshore installation, including its pipeline and cable connections, within the context of relevant security regulations and hostile state action. It is a very important and serious matter. All nationally significant infrastructure projects, which include projects in the energy sector over 50 megawatts, undergo rigorous scrutiny to monitor and mitigate security risks. In the end, these decisions fall to Ministers to make in relation to development consent orders.

There was an interesting debate on air defence issues between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Hamilton. I have to say that my department is working very closely with the Ministry of Defence on these issues. We are talking closely and working to ensure that our own offshore wind ambitions can coexist alongside air defence. MoD programme NJORD will deliver an enduring radar mitigation solution, which will prevent turbines from interfering with MoD radar systems. In the context of our more general working relationship with the Ministry of Defence, it will be a responsibility of GBE to consider and consult relevant stakeholders. My department will of course ensure that that happens appropriately.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, would place a nature recovery duty on Great British Energy. Let me say at once that we are absolutely committed to restoring and protecting nature and meeting our Environment Act targets. We want GBE to focus on its core mission to drive clean energy deployment, but I assure the noble Baroness that the projects that GBE invests in and encourages will be subject to all environmental and climate regulations, in the same way that every other company is.

I draw her attention to our recently published Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which dedicates an entire section to

“Integrating clean power and the natural environment”.


I was going to quote from it, but I do not think I need to do now. We are launching an engagement exercise in 2025 to invite communities, civil society and wider stakeholders to submit their ideas on how we can best encourage nature-positive best practice into energy infrastructure and development. Feedback from this exercise will allow the Government to better understand how we can integrate nature restoration through the clean power 2030 mission. We very much agree with the substance of what the noble Baroness said.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

As the Minister will know, terrestrially, there is now biodiversity net gain, which came through the Environment Act and is applied to terrestrial developments. I do not think this is for the largest of them yet, but that is due to happen. I understand it is the Government’s intention to introduce marine biodiversity net gain regulations. I presume GBE will be subject to those.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to have to take advice on that as I do not have the information. However, if there are regulations which apply to companies, GBE will be expected to comply, and to act consistently with general government policy towards biodiversity. I will write to him about that in some detail.

On community benefits, I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that communities which live near new clean energy infrastructure projects can directly benefit from them. We are considering at the moment how to effectively deliver community benefits for those who live near new energy infrastructure, which includes new energy generation and transmission technology. We are developing guidance on community benefits for electricity transmission network infrastructure and onshore wind, which we will be publishing in due course. We are also reviewing our overall approach to community benefits, both to ensure consistency and quality and to ensure that communities are properly recognised and are able to come with us on our net zero and clean power journey. This includes looking to existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked elsewhere. I look forward to updating the House on our approach to community benefits shortly.

The role of Great British Energy has been set out in its founding statement, and our commitment to putting local communities at the heart of the energy transition is a very strong component of what we are doing. The local power plan will support local communities to take a stake in the shift to net zero, as owners and partners in clean energy projects. They are important in themselves, as there is a huge appetite in many localities for community power, engagement and involvement. I agree that seeing a tangible benefit for local communities is important in itself, but it is also growing general support for the move to clean power and net zero, which is very important indeed.

We take the noble Lord’s point. It is clearly important, we are working on the details and will be publishing further information in due course. In my first week as a Minister in the department, I visited Biggleswade onshore windfarm, a small windfarm with 12 turbines. The company there is voluntary and there is a good practice trade guideline of paying £40,000 a year to the local community for such things as the local parish church, the community hall and other things. It was really good to see and is an example of what can happen.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, the other day. This was when he was chasing around after the chancellorship of Oxford University. I said to him that I thought he would serve his country much better in Washington than in Oxford. I congratulate him on becoming our ambassador in Washington. I think he will do a very good job.

I mention the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, because a quote attributed to him is that, “When politicians try to pick winners, the losers invariably find the politicians”. People should recognise that the track record of politicians in trying to pick winners is absolutely abysmal. Invariably, political considerations and jobs come into it; profitability is the last thing that is ever considered.

Therefore, it is essential that we support these amendments. They are asking for some degree of accountability for Great British Energy, which will have billions of taxpayers’ money. If we are not very careful, it will go to all the projects that have been rejected by the private sector as not being viable and will invariably lose money. That should be of great concern to us all because it discredits government and wastes taxpayers’ money.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, can I make a comment on that? I am a trustee of the green share in the Green Investment Bank, which was privatised by the Tories after it was set up by the coalition Government. It was a very profitable operation, although it was fully publicly owned. The issue was that it was almost too conservative in terms of making money under Treasury rules, so it did not make as much of a difference—it did make a difference—as it should have done. One of the risks is that GB Energy could be too conservative because the Treasury is too close to it and will not let it do the innovation that needs to happen for decarbonisation to take place by 2030.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very interesting and wise contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that of course I have heard the expression that Governments are not very good at picking winners. That is why we have set up GBE. We will have a company with people with expertise to enable investments to take place within the context we set under Clause 3 and Clause 5 as strategic priorities. None the less, it will have operational independence.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right; noble Lords in their various amendments are seeking to pin down GBE through excessive reporting requirements. The risk is that GBE, far from being allowed to flourish and develop, will be inhibited and micromanaged. That is why these amendments are wholly inappropriate in relation to Clause 6. The power of direction is not to be used in the way that noble Lords are suggesting; it is a backstop power. What is the point of setting up GBE if we are to undermine its independence in the way these amendments suggest?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, onshore wind has a remarkably small footprint in terms of its use of the land, which seems to get forgotten. I can see 30 wind turbines from my bedroom window; the nearest is about 1 kilometre away. They are excellent: they show that renewable energy is working. We should have more of them, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it easier for these developments to take place towards our 2030 objective of decarbonised electricity.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough—Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105. In bringing forward these amendments, my noble friends raise the matter of great importance that is the agricultural industry, which has been subject to punitive measures by the Government in the form of the family farms tax raid.

Amendments 67 and 104 prevent Great British Energy from supporting projects on or owning land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good and high-quality agricultural land. Alternatively, Amendments 73 and 105 encourage GBE to pursue developments on land that is designated grade 4 or 5 —essentially, the worst agricultural land. It appears obvious that the Secretary of State, who directs Great British Energy, will support an approach that balances the need for renewable energy with the need to preserve our nation’s food security.

As explained by my noble friend Lord Fuller within his allotted time, the purpose of this group of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Roborough that some of the largest and most significant solar developments seem to be approved without due consideration given to the quality of the land which is being sacrificed in the process. It is an undeniable fact that grade 2, the best and most versatile agricultural land, is being lost to existing solar developments. That is not merely a matter of farming but of our country’s food security. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so neatly put it, at best Great British Energy may help to turn our lights on and heat our homes, but there will be no food on the British people’s plates.

The question is not whether we should develop renewable energy but where we should develop it. The goal of achieving energy security should not come at the expense of food security. I ask the Minister to give us his full assurance that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that undermine our nation’s ability to feed itself.

Recent analysis of land take by ground-mounted solar installations shows a concerning trend: solar developments are disproportionately targeting the best and most versatile land—that is, land classified under grade 1 and 2. Across England, only 17% of land is classified as grade 1, yet 19% of the land used for solar installations falls into this category. This trend violates the general recommendation to avoid productive agricultural land development. In contrast, grade 5 land, the poorest agricultural land, has been disproportionately avoided. That is exactly the type of land that solar projects should be prioritising, yet it remains underutilised. Only 0.5% of solar installations are on grade 5 land, despite such land constituting 8% of England’s agricultural landscape.

The issue is particularly pressing, given the Government’s ambitious target to triple solar power capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030. As we expand solar energy, more and more land will be acquired. However, unless active measures are taken to ensure that the correct land is used for these installations, we will continue to see the loss of high-quality agricultural land, exacerbating concerns over our nation’s food security. Amendment 73, therefore, is vital: it seeks to ensure that renewable energy development does not come at the cost of our most productive agricultural land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Effingham in his Amendment 85, to which I have added my name. Certainly, there are good reasons to be very cautious in selecting international partners with whom we will co-invest in the energy sector. Chinese state-owned companies are managed under rather different governance systems from those which the London Stock Exchange would consider appropriate for its listed companies. I agree with my noble friend that the Secretary of State should consult the International Trade Committee of another place before considering such co-investment.

Among other amendments in this group, I also support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist in her Amendment 78, which would ensure that GBE will reinvest all profits into the company. I agree with what she said in her speech, especially as GBE, as a publicly owned company, will not be subject to the disciplines of the marketplace, and its shareholder will be more concerned with achieving policy objectives through GBE than with maximising its return on investments and contributing to long-term growth.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments on this. I am rather attracted to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—one worries that, if this were a successful organisation, all profits would disappear back into the Treasury, which would be very unfortunate. I think that is an excellent bonus, but I suspect I probably would not put it in as an amendment to the Bill.

In terms of investment committees, I cannot believe that this organisation will not have a proper professional investment committee, which, I hope will probably have some external members as well. But this misses one of the key points—which I also would not put in the Bill, so I have not put down an amendment—which is the discipline with which the great Green Purposes Company, of which I am a trustee, keeps the feet of the Green Investment Group part of Macquarie to the fire. It is around checking and making sure through proper systems that the investments that are made are truly green and add to low carbon, rather than otherwise. There needs to be a check on that side so that the organisation itself also avoids greenwashing, which is one of the big issues that would undermine the reputation of Great British Energy if it should ever happen. Obviously, we hope that it would not, and I am sure the Secretary of State would not want it to, but there needs to be something within the organisation—an external audit would be good—that includes the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity as part of its performance.

In terms of foreign companies, again, I would not honestly see this as being part of the legislation, but I would absolutely say that Great British Energy should be involved in joint venture companies with foreign businesses. That is one of the key areas where we should be able to bring intellectual property back into this country and work together with other nations, as well as strong UK companies. Those joint ventures would be extremely important in terms of the performance of this company.

Lastly, why are we discriminating against the UN convention on biodiversity? It is an organisation that is struggling. I am not disagreeing on how many people we should or should not send to it, but why that and not the United Nations climate change committee or the COPs? I do not get that. It would be very negative for that organisation, for which we are struggling to get international consensus to tackle the real and huge biodiversity problems that we have on this planet, if it was mentioned in a Bill of the UK Parliament. That would be absolutely negative for our international reputation.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

That is one example of where, to monitor the cost, we need to keep a tight grip on the number of people we send in delegations. It does not aim at that organisation specifically; it is that plus anything else to which GBE might wish to send delegates.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I understand the issue of public expenditure, travel and all that, but the noble Earl specifically names a culprit in his amendment. That is what the Committee looks at and what it tries to get into Bills, so the amendment specifically aims at that organisation rather than the broader canvas.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I have certain reservations about my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 78, because it assumes these investments will make money. I have a bit of a problem with that. The real difficulty, as we have discussed, is that all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to investment in renewable energy has already been picked by the private sector. It does this quite simply by calculating a return on guaranteed income. Therefore, what worries me is that Great British Energy will be left picking up the bits that other people do not want to touch. The chances of it making money are probably quite small. Of course, it will have to count off the losses against the profits, so you need to have something at the end of the day. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has achieved something little short of miraculous by investing other people’s money and actually making money, but that is an exception rather than the rule. The chances of Great British Energy squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are rather higher than it making any profits for anybody.

Clearly, accountability is very important when it comes to these sorts of sums. We should do everything we can to ensure that taxpayers’ money is looked after in the best way possible. Everybody should have great reservations about believing—to come back to the point I made earlier—that politicians are able to pick winners. The record on this has been absolutely abysmal. The chances of more money being lost than made are, I am afraid, very great indeed.

Energy Costs for Businesses

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are putting some resources into the fusion programme. The years that I have in mind are the 2040s, which are a little less than 20 years away. This reflects our belief that there is very much potential now, and that the UK is in a very strong leadership position on it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the ways that large businesses reduce their energy costs is by signing up to power purchase agreements, or PPAs. That is only possible for large businesses. Is there a way that Government could make sure that those benefits of more competitive pricing could come down to medium or small businesses, maybe by clustering or some other method, so they can get the advantage as well?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give that consideration. The noble Lord will have noted that we are looking at whether we should introduce a regulatory regime for the third-party intermediaries, because some businesses are affected both by mis-selling and other problems with the current system. The other point I would make is that the Energy Ombudsman’s remit is being extended to small businesses within the next few days, and I hope that will also be of advantage to those companies that he mentioned.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I first apologise to the House. On the first day in Committee, I extolled the virtues of small modular reactors and said that Rolls-Royce were in a very good position to supply these, because I knew about what they had done on nuclear powered submarines. I then remembered afterwards that I am a shareholder of Rolls-Royce, although not a big enough one to bother the Registrar of Lords’ Interests. I hope that I can now apologise unequivocally to the House that I did not mention this earlier, and that noble Lords will forgive me for not having raised it at the time.

I will pick up the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who said how popular net zero was. I would slightly caveat that, because at the end of the day, the whole concept of net zero is extremely popular until people have to start paying for it. It was certainly a big problem when it became apparent that people were going to have to pay £15,000 for a heat exchanger to replace their gas boilers. I know that this proposal has now been withdrawn, but that was just an example of the problems caused by careering very fast towards a very near date of net zero, because the bills start rising all the more markedly.

One could argue that people are already paying some of the highest prices in the G7 for energy, and that is largely to do with our drive towards net zero, which has not produced cheaper energy now. We just have to hope that it does in the future, but there is no evidence of that actually happening, and I am not sure there is much in this Bill, either, to encourage one that we are going to see a great era of cheap energy.

It is quite interesting that the newspapers today said that we had reached 70% of energy being produced by renewable sources—wind, solar and so forth. What they did not mention was that the week earlier, we had gone through a period when the whole country was covered in cloud and there was no wind whatsoever, so we had a combination of neither solar panels nor wind turbines working. At that stage, 70% of our energy was coming from natural gas. It veers from one extreme to another. The problem with most forms of renewable energy is that they do not work all the time. If they did, it might be possible to get the price down to something slightly more reasonable. We need to be very wary.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the problem of training enough people to carry out all the tasks that we are envisaging. There seem to be a number of things that are checking the process and involve the spending of money of one sort or another. I am far from sure that we are going to see all this forthcoming in the timescale to hit these very near targets for when we want to reach net zero in this country. We must be wary of being too optimistic that somehow GB Energy is going to solve all these problems. I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever that it will do so.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that there is a form of renewable energy that can be on all the time, and that is geothermal. We are developing that quite rapidly in Cornwall and it has been proven worldwide. Recent reports have said that, if we were to roll it out, costs could reduce by something like 80%.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

At one stage, I was involved in geothermal energy in Cornwall. We had a problem in that, when we pumped cold water down into very hot rocks, there were small earthquakes, which rather upset people locally.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

There were a number of issues previously about that. Of course, geothermal originally required a certain degree of fracking, but that is no longer necessary. Since the development of United Downs, there have been no such earthquake tremors, all of which were very low indeed. But it is an issue for the public and one that needs to be recognised.

Coming back to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, I want to thank her for bringing out some of the issues that we looked at in the sub-committee, and I congratulate her on being the champion of fishers that I know she is. On the issue of solar energy and the take of land, I do not think that we should in any way be questioning or pessimistic; indeed, solar should not be on high-grade agricultural land, but we should look at dual use of these areas. Even where there is solar on grade 3 or grade 4 agricultural land, it is not inevitable that this should be its only use. I would like to see the equivalent of a Section 106 agreement in the planning regime to say that there needs to be allied agricultural use on that land such as harvesting the grass, grazing or biodiversity objectives, which are absolutely possible.

However, I really wanted to intervene on community energy and re-echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said. The great thing about community energy is not just the transition but the involvement of people in making that transition happen. It makes them part of the great process that we have to go through, and that is why it is essential that achieving this is part of Great British Energy’s remit.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Committee considers the amendments in this group drawing attention to immediate overriding priority objectives, I would like to provide a wider context that includes consumers and demand-side aspects. Perhaps it could be summed up by adding to Amendment 46 “assist in the management of consumer demand”, but it would apply equally to many of the other amendments.

The Minister may recall that, in my Second Reading remarks, I drew attention to digital infrastructure and smart metering. Recently, the department has made statements on the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which builds on NESO’s plans, and on the capacity market to incentivise investment in demand-side response mechanisms. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Young mentions improvements to energy efficiency and community ownership. In this regard, consumer-led flexibility can play a vital role in shifting their electricity use through smart technology such as smart-charging EVs and heat pumps.

The smart meter network is a critical national asset that is uniquely placed to enable the transition to a modern energy system. The DCC and Vodafone have signed a deal to bring 4G connectivity to Britain’s smart metering network beyond 2033, and Vodafone’s 4G has 99% coverage in the UK. The Government have committed to invest £6.6 billion to upgrade 5 million homes and cut bills for families as part of their warm homes plan. The smart meter network can be used completely securely to identify energy-inefficient housing stock, as well as damp and insulation issues.

NESO’s plans include offering a demand flexibility service to help consumers save money by reducing their usage during peak times, thereby helping to balance the grid. This DFS, powered by smart meters, should be a key part to facilitate Amendment 46 and the Government’s plans. In the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, will the DFS be brought forward and be applicable to all housing at all times of the year, and will it target support to retrofit energy-inefficient housing? Have any costings been considered by the Government and savings identified? That is the subject of the next group of amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise. In my excitement to contribute in Committee, I forgot to apologise for not being able to come to previous sessions. I also forgot to declare that I am a director of Aldustria Ltd, a battery storage company, and that I chair the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, which is involved in biodiversity issues.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 50 and signal my support, and that of our Benches, for Amendments 46, 46A, 49 and 51A.

My Amendment 50 seeks to add a statement to the strategic priorities, including a specific priority for the advancement and production of clean energy from schemes owned, or part-owned, by community organisations. This amendment seeks simply to have community energy added to the strategic priorities for Great British Energy. I apologise for talking about community energy again, as my Amendments 11 and 15 were about the objects of the Great British Energy company; these amendments work alongside those, and, combined, we want to see community energy in the Bill, both in the objects of the company and in the strategic priorities.

Labour has looked to Europe for its inspiration—for want of a better word—for Great British Energy. In Europe, community energy is being embedded in local power networks at an ever-increasing level. Europe is doing that because it knows that it is good for energy security, continuity of supply and local communities and that it brings local benefits. Here at home, we have seen the end of the feed-in tariff, but since that time there has been very little development, with still only 0.5% of our electricity being generated from community-based energy schemes. Reports have indicated that there is a possibility for that to grow exponentially up to some possible 8 gigawatts of local community energy by working with local energy plans, provided that the investment and policy are put in place to make that happen.

I thank Power for People, which has helped me with these amendments and provided your Lordships with briefings. It believes that up to 2.2 million homes could be powered by community energy, that it could save some 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and that it could help to create some 30,000 jobs in the UK.

Community energy is good not just for us but for our communities. Without going through all the arguments I made the other day, our position is that there is no Great British Energy without a Great British community energy. Our vision is for an end-to-end community energy scheme, so that our local communities can contact one person and get an end-to-end system to help them to get the investment, planning and ideas to turn their wishes to help contribute and be part of this transition into reality.

The point is that the big players will not do this; they are not operating in this field. This simply will not happen if GB Energy does not take it on and make it part of its core strategic priorities—it just will not happen. There is no other realistic option for this. This is good for us and for our communities, and we want to see communities benefitting from the energy infra- structure that they host or run. I apologise, but there will be a third bite of the cherry, as my Amendment 118A, in group 14, argues specifically for this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It strikes me that the real problem with the Bill is that if nothing happens with GB Energy, the Secretary of State intervenes. On the whole, politicians intervening in investment decisions does not have a very good history, and an awful lot of taxpayers’ money has been wasted. Therefore, it would be a very good idea if there was a system of reporting back to Parliament.

The real problem with the whole energy scene in this country is that the private sector is well in there already. I am not sure how committed these people are to energy, but they are certainly very good at crunching the numbers. Of course, with any project, they establish that the supply of, say, wind, is reasonably constant in a certain area. Then, the key thing is the feed-in tariff that they negotiate. That gives them a guaranteed cashflow. Among other things, with wind turbines they even managed to negotiate that they get paid when the wind is blowing and nobody wants the energy. So, if you can do that, it seems to be relatively easy to make money on these things.

If you want to put up wind turbines, there is no problem getting private finance. It is the more vexed areas of energy where you will find people with DeLoreans appearing, saying, “I’ve got a wonderful scheme all organised for carbon capture”, or something that is incredibly difficult in technological terms—or indeed nuclear fusion, come to that, which is another very hard nut to crack. It would be wonderful if we could have nuclear fusion power stations pumping out energy, but we are still a very long way from getting there. What guarantees do we have that taxpayers’ money will not be ploughed into these things and an awful lot of money completely wasted?

I would like to pick up some remarks from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She was concerned that GB Energy would have great problems raising finance. That is not quite the way it works. You actually get tiered finance when it comes to some of these projects, and I can tell noble Lords what the tiers will be: a whole lot of outside investors will get their money back almost whatever happens, and all the high-risk capital will be produced by GB Energy. GB Energy will be the one that will lose absolutely everything if it goes wrong and make a minimal amount of money if it goes right.

We need to be very wary about all this, which is why I support these amendments. It is important that Parliament has some check on all this and is able to say whether it thinks it is a good idea or a bad one. That discipline on the Secretary of State will be very important. Otherwise, I see politicians wheeling off, backing all sorts of incredibly speculative ventures and losing taxpayers’ money as a result. I am not sure that anybody in this House wants to see that happen.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could come back into the real world. I agree with the amendments and their purpose but let us be clear: there is a duopoly in this Parliament that stops negative or fatal resolutions ever being passed in either House. We may say that we agree that an affirmative or negative resolution is needed on something equivalent to secondary legislation. In this Parliament, the practical effect—in relation to what is already in the Bill—is zero because the Labour and Conservative Parties have a duopoly agreement that they will not vote fatally on secondary legislation Motions. To the outside world, all the rhetoric in this debate looks great but, even if it went into the Bill, the effect would be zero. I wanted to make that point because I believe that if you look at this with a democratic point of view from outside this building, the workings of secondary legislation in this Parliament would be seen as completely fatuous.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

May I just say to the noble Lord that what was proposed in my amendment was not secondary legislation? It was the simple possibility of a Motion to disapprove of something. It did not fall within the category of secondary legislation, therefore the convention does not apply.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I accept that point entirely, except I cannot see this Parliament rejecting such a strategy under any circumstances, however it is dressed up. But I fully respect the intentions of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 57 in my name. It addresses an essential aspect of transparency and accountability in the development of Great British Energy, as outlined in Clause 5.

This amendment ensures that all consultations conducted under Clause 5(4) to (6), which are critical for the development and implementation of Great British Energy, are not only carried out but made fully accessible to the public and—more importantly—to Parliament.

In the modern world, transparency in governance is not just a nice to have: it is an absolute must-have. It is essential that both public and Parliament have access to the results of consultations that influence decisions on policies with such far-reaching consequences.

The energy sector is at the heart of the challenges we face today—whether it be securing a sustainable, affordable and clean energy supply for generations to come or meeting the ambitious carbon reduction goals that are integral to our environmental commitments. The implications of these decisions extend to every household and business and, indeed, to the global environment and climate. Too often, decisions are made by Administrations around the world which are disconnected from the lived realities of those who will be most affected. It is crucial that we bridge this gap. This amendment ensures that the voices of all stakeholders are heard.

Can we consider the important role of the devolved nations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? As your Lordships are aware, energy policy intersects deeply with our devolved Administrations. Each nation has its own priorities, challenges and opportunities, and the decisions made here and in the other place must reflect the needs and perspectives of all four nations that make up the United Kingdom.

Amendment 57 achieves precisely that. It ensures that the devolved nations are not sidelined in the policy- making process. Wales has made remarkable progress in renewable energy, with a strong focus on wind, solar and tidal power. The Welsh Government have set ambitious decarbonisation targets and are actively working to ensure that local communities reap the benefits of this transition.

Private Low-carbon Investment: Green Finance Institute Report

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to the Green Finance Institute’s report A Greenprint for Property Linked Finance in the UK, published in November, to accelerate private low-carbon investment into existing homes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise the important role that private finance can play in helping us to achieve our decarbonisation ambitions. My officials have met the Green Finance Institute several times to discuss the potential for property-linked finance in a UK context. We will continue to work with industry stakeholders to explore options for working with the private sector, including banks and building societies, to scale up private finance to accelerate efforts in this area.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome those conversations that the Minister has had. As he knows, the way to bring down energy bills for families is to insulate their homes. Indeed, homes account for almost a quarter of carbon emissions. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more precise. These discussions can take a long time. The £6 billion, which I welcome, in the Government’s warm homes plan is just a small amount of the money that is needed to refurbish UK buildings. Given that legislation is often required to implement these schemes, can he give some sort of timetable of when bringing such private finance into this sector will happen?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is an important area of policy. We reckon that buildings account for 31% of total UK emissions, and heating is 75% of that proportion of emissions, so I very much take his point that there is an urgent need to make progress. I cannot give him an exact time. Looking at international experience of these kinds of schemes, it is not altogether positive. In the US experience, for instance, it may have worked for multi-occupational commercial properties but, for individuals, it does not seem to have made much progress.

COP 29

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always interesting to have the noble Lord’s perspective, given his long-standing interest in energy. He enjoyed being Energy Secretary, and it is good that we have a department focused very much on energy issues. I think the target is consistent: 2030 is the aim for clean power; the 2035 goal we have agreed on the reduction in greenhouse gases is the UK offer that we have made. The actual target we have set is an 81% reduction in emissions by 2035, against a 1990 baseline. I am clear that this is consistent with 2030—in other words, the 2030 target takes us on to the 2035 target we have now agreed. The noble Lord asked that question on Monday, and we are clear that we are being consistent; and obviously, we are taking the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that has improved hugely is satellite monitoring of emissions, particularly of methane. According to a recent report, some 1,000 major methane escapes have been identified and notified to the nations which caused them, but there has been very little reaction or implementation of measures. The UK has shown leadership here as part of the global methane pledge. How can we much better ensure that we implement the solution to emissions of this most concentrated of greenhouse gases, as doing so is really important?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who raises a very important issue. In fact, during or around the time of the COP 29 discussions, we announced £5 million to help developing countries tackle methane emissions from their fossil fuels. This is supporting delivery of the global methane pledge launched at COP 26. However, I am very happy to take a further look at this and to respond to the noble Lord in some detail about what further actions we might take on this important matter.

Drax Power Limited: Ofgem Investigation

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have seen the media reports, but I have to say to the House that it is the responsibility of Ofgem to make judgments as to whether a company is applying the sustainability criteria. The issue before us today is data information. Clearly, Ofgem found that Drax was not complying with the requirements—hence the redress payment. However, it did not find that Drax was not complying with sustainability criteria.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, given the amount of private money that has been spent in this area, is it not important for Ofgem to be rather more ahead of the curve on these issues? I notice in the report that Drax is now going to have external audit. Why did it not have this before? More importantly, why does not Ofgem get off its backside and go to the United States and Canada to check these items out for itself? Is it about to do that?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, it is not for Ministers to tell Ofgem how to regulate; we have to rely on its rigorous approach. Secondly, in the US and Canada, we depend on the rigorousness of the regulators locally. Ofgem’s job is to ensure that, as a whole, sustainability criteria are correct. I do not believe that it would be fair to say that Ofgem is not doing a thorough job. That is not my experience.