Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Earl Russell

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. I completely understand why trying to move off gas is a clear policy of the Government, as reaffirmed in its recent 2030 plan. However, gas is, without doubt, the cheapest way of heating a home. I want to get an understanding of what financial impact this is likely to have on household bills. I could not see anything in the accompanying notes. My sense is that it is good news for trying to get away from gas as a source, but bad news for households in the costs of heating their home and food.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches welcome these amendments. This is an important step in our journey towards a full, clean and secure energy future. We are generally supportive of the intent behind the amendments, particularly their aim to accelerate the decarbonisation of our electricity supply.

At the heart of the regulations is a new mechanism designed to allow unabated gas plants to exit their existing capacity market arrangements without penalty. This is a significant change. Previously, capacity providers with a long-term agreement faced termination fees if they left early. This was a disincentive for them to decarbonise from their scheduled expiry, which was often as late as the 2040s.

This instrument now enables these plants to transition to a bespoke support mechanism under a dispatchable power agreement, or DPA, which is categorised as a CCS CfD—a contract for defence related to carbon capture and storage. This managed termination mechanism, set out in new Regulation 34A, aims to allow these plants to retrofit carbon capture equipment, thereby aligning with the Government’s objectives for clean power 2030. This addresses what the Government say is a clear need, identified through stakeholder feedback, for clarity on decarbonisation pathways and penalty-free exits. We welcome this as a way forward.

Furthermore, we welcome the cleaning up Part 3 looking at the removal of redundant provisions from the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019 and the Electricity Capacity (Amendment etc.) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020; those are all sensible changes, so we welcome the clarification on that.

I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, I want understand a little more about the demand side for these measures. Although the consultation response talks about it being broadly supportive, particularly regarding the timing and the appeal route for refusal notices, can the Minister say a bit more about what the true extent of the demand is? It talks about capacity for the exit pathway being 4.4 gigawatts. By my calculations, that is almost two-thirds the electricity consumed by London, so that is a big amount of electricity. If the Minister can just say a little more about the demand side for these changes, that would be helpful.

Can the Minister also say a bit more about at what stage the Government might be in terms of any negotiations with any capacity providers to transition under these regulations? Are the Government in any talks at the moment, and are there any moves once these regulations come into force? How do they intend to review and monitor these regulations? What would success look like for the Government, and how will they be reported back to Parliament, if they are?

I note that the regulations do not include a statutory review clause for these specific amendments and that the broader CM regulations are subject to five-yearly reviews. Obviously, this is a fast-moving space; carbon capture technology is new technology, and other new technologies are coming online. How will the Government review the impact of these regulations in this fast-moving market between now and the five-yearly review period? That is not a criticism of what the Government are doing—I generally support this direction—but this is a fast-moving space with new technologies. If the Minister could clarify those couple of points, it would be greatly appreciated.

Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Earl Russell

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations come about as a consequence of a consultation. Unusually, it was only a four-week consultation, which is not unprecedented but surprising, especially recognising that it happened in November. It closed in December, and here we are in July debating these regulations. I appreciate that it may have felt targeted, but I wanted to get a sense from the Minister of how Ofgem has worked with the energy suppliers or indeed the public on why, in effect, there has been such a failure in the delivery of those targets.

I do not know the council tax of band of the Minister’s house but mine is a B. I tried to get this GBIS. I am in a pretty old house that is leaky when it comes to heat and similar. I thought I would test this scheme out because, like anybody else, I was impacted by the energy shock. It took a long time to register and get a potential appointment. But before they would even come out to the house, I had to sign an agreement that they could make any changes to parts of my house that they deemed necessary in order to put in some loft insulation, including me agreeing automatically to installing Xpelair fans in various rooms and many other things. So, I have to say, I just stopped. There was no way I was going to sign up to a predetermined agreement when somebody had not even seen my house.

My concern is the following. I have been working on fuel poverty for a long time as a parliamentarian. I set up the APPG in the House of Commons many years ago, and I managed, when I was a Minister, to make sure we got a law through to open up the data exchange across government. That meant that we could provide a considerable amount of data, particularly affecting rural homes, in order to access all this ECO, because, as the Minister may be aware, quite often with these schemes half the budget ends up going on trying to identify who could be eligible for them. That law was supposed to change that. I feel, at times, that the energy companies continue to talk the talk on fuel poverty but, when it comes to delivering and achieving a significant reduction in fuel poverty right across our country—that would be a noble achievement—they complain that it is all a bit too complicated. For what it is worth, that is not good enough. Ofgem is not challenging enough. I do not expect the Minister—especially the fabulous Minister in front of us now—to deal with every bit of this, but he should expect more from Ofgem, which is admittedly a non-ministerial department.

There were 122 responses to the consultation, as it well set out. I would like to try to understand the impact of these changes. Having floor, loft and cavity insulation coming together in a whole package is probably sensible, but how are the Government going to hold the energy suppliers to account to deliver financially, not just what is convenient for them? The summary of the responses sets out, “It is very difficult for the companies to meet their obligations”, rather than focusing on the whole purpose of this, which is to reduce energy consumption and bills. So at the moment, I cannot see any analysis of why this will make a difference and how we will not just be in the same place next year with energy companies.

I also want to get an assessment of the rural data definition changes and a sense of how many households, and homes, will as a consequence no longer be covered in rural areas. I appreciate that they will be updated every 10 years, but I do not know what rules the ONS has applied in reclassifying a home as being in a rural area or not.

As I said, I do not have much confidence in the energy companies delivering even these changes. It looks to me as though they will continue to wring their hands. It feels like this is moving the goalposts. I appreciate that these changes in legislation may be seen as being pragmatic, but what reporting will the Government provide to Parliament as a consequence to see that this will make the difference that it is supposed to make?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we generally support the draft regulations. We commend the stated commitment of this Government to deliver warm homes that are cheaper to heat and to tackle fuel poverty. We have some of the highest energy bills and some of the coldest, dampest and worst-insulated homes in Europe. Cold homes not only waste energy and contribute to global warming needlessly but cause problems for people on budgets and low incomes and with ill health.

We generally welcome the warm homes plan in the spending review, with its ambitious £13.2 billion of investment, and the crucial steps towards reducing our energy bills and strengthening our energy security. We particularly welcome the rollout of solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and insulation.

We particularly welcome several targeted practical changes introduced by this draft instrument, targeting those in need of most support. The most significant change allows 75% of the energy suppliers’ £1 billion Great British Insulation Scheme target to be met through the reassigned ECO4 delivery pathway. This appears to be a pragmatic approach. The Explanatory Memorandum clarifies that this is necessary because the GBIS would otherwise have severely underdelivered, and this is seen as the way to maximise savings and get this done. Further, it reassures us that this will not increase consumer bills, as it is using existing funds and will be a good means of reassigning support and continuity in the ECO4 supply chain. This is considered better value for billpayers, as ECO4 is cheaper to contract.

We welcome the flexibility to enable greater allowance of installation measures, especially for low-income households. We welcome the plans to encourage the uptake of smart meters, and we welcome the updating of technical standards.

I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. A lot of previous schemes have not quite delivered as intended. Indeed, even here, a scheme that would have underdelivered is having its resources rolled into a new scheme. So, specifically how will this new programme be monitored to ensure that it actually works and delivers in practice, and does not fall foul of some of the issues that have plagued past schemes?

The Minister spoke about the issue of quality control with past schemes. I very much welcome the fact that 90% of that work has now been done—that is a tremendous achievement. But, again, under this new scheme, how will we make sure that the quality of the work delivered for households is up to the standards that we require and does not cause any further problems?

The Minister said that the Government are planning to bring forward larger-scale reforms for the warm homes plan. Is the Minister able to say anything more about that today or will we just have to wait for that?

We recognise that allowing the 75% of the ECO4 delivery for GBIS targets is pragmatic, but what measures will happen with the remaining 25% of the GBIS target? I do not want that bit to be forgotten about, so how will the Government set about making sure that that is delivered and that those houses are not forgotten about?

How do the Government plan to report on the delivery of this new scheme and make sure that it is delivering? How will the Minister report on the uptake of smart meters under this scheme? We recognise the measures that are being taken to encourage consumers to do that and that the Government are using the contact through the insulation measures to do that. Generally, we welcome what the Government are doing here.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Green energy over time will lower costs. There is an initial hump to get over with investment, but the trouble that we need to address is our increasing and continued dependence on the vast fluctuations in foreign gas markets. We saw what happened with the war in Ukraine, and we saw that the noble Lord’s Government had to invest £40 billion towards subsidising bill payers—money that was invested for no long-term benefit. We must get away from those things and we must have energy security. These are investments in Britain and in reducing our bills, and they are worthwhile doing. It is really important that GB Energy invests in these emerging technologies. That is why I have raised my amendment on GB Energy’s ability to borrow; if GB Energy cannot borrow it will not be able to make these key investments.

Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is about the annual report and financial assistance provided to GB Energy. We expect this to happen, so do not feel that the amendment is necessary.

We support the spirit of Amendment 37, but expect the Treasury to require all these areas to be reported on. Having reflected on what was said in Committee and the Minister’s response, we expect GB Energy’s reporting requirements to be similar to those of the Crown Estate. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is one of the strongest Conservative amendments to be tabled on Report. We have some sympathy with proposed new subsection (1), which is similar to an amendment I moved in Committee. At that stage, it did not win the Minister’s favour—I suspect that that might be the case again today. Where I slightly part company with noble Lord, Lord Frost, is in relation to the annual review for the chair of GB Energy. My view is that an important and good annual review would not be one that was fully made public. To me, that seems a slightly strange request, and may be counterintuitive to the object which he seeks.

I am going to stop there as I have run out of time and there are a lot of amendments in this group.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I should declare at this point that I live about five miles away from Sizewell B nuclear power station and one that is about to be built, Sizewell C, and less than a mile away from other energy infrastructure that is still going through the planning process.

A lot of my time at the other end was taken up with considering the importance of energy, not only for a long-term sustainable future but the security issues rightly referred to in these objectives. The reason these objectives matter is that this is an unprecedented situation, where we are handing, in effect, a blank cheque to an arm’s-length body. Admittedly, it will have strategies set by the Secretary of State, but, as has been pointed out, there will be absolutely no reference to Parliament in its consideration. That is why the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost has attraction, in proposing at least having a direct connection with two Select Committees of the other place and a relationship with the chair of GB Energy. As my noble friend pointed out, these are the reasons that the Government gave us for having this new entity. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to accept this amendment directly.

On Amendment 17, where I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I do not believe we should get into legislation that dictates the amount of taxpayers’ money that will be spent. I have seen that happen before in legislation, and then all of a sudden money starts getting wasted. The whole purpose of this financial vehicle is to de-risk and bring in external private investment. That is a sensible approach, especially given the amount of uncertainty, which I appreciate the Government are trying to address in other ways. Nevertheless, for something such as energy security, a significant amount of investment is going to be required right across not just Great Britain but the United Kingdom, and this is a critical moment for our nation. That is why, while I think there will be money well spent, we should not be dictating a minimum.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is really sensible. This company will be in an unusual situation—not unique, but unusual—and the extra information required, particularly in proposed new paragraph (d), is the core essence of why this company is being set up: it is stepping forward to try to get others to do so.

If anything, what has evolved over many years is the need for transparency and understanding. The amount of trust that people have in how their taxpayers’ money gets spent really matters in the contract that Parliament and government have with the electorate—the taxpayer. So, elements such as this will enforce the rationale rather than just necessarily seeing energy bills tick upwards, unfortunately.

So if Amendments 1 and 37 are pressed, I will certainly support them—although, regrettably, not Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I too have put my name to this amendment and I am delighted that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, have been able to negotiate this compromise. It is important that this is in the Bill; it will make a difference and I am very pleased to see it here. It also reflects the language that was used in the Crown Estate Bill and that is particularly useful for GB Energy because of the strong connection they have with one another. I welcome the words that the Minister used at the Dispatch Box, mentioning the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I welcome the monitoring that is taking place on this.

I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. These are obviously all very difficult conversations, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put that quite well. Actually, the way we talk about it, the spirit in which we put these things into place and how we make them work in practice are the big challenges that we all have, going ahead, but I am very pleased to see this here.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 40 and 47. I have recent ministerial experience of the Environment Act and the powers available under it, which is why I tabled some Questions for Written Answer. I was somewhat confused by the responses from the Government. When I asked whether they would publish their assessment, under Section 20 of the Environment Act, about not having the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection, I was informed by the Minister that the information was “legally privileged”. It surprised me that the Government, who are committed to the environment—I do not dispute that—are not prepared to share with the House why they do not think this will have an adverse impact on the natural environment. I went further, asking which provisions would be “environmental law” or would impact, and I was referred to Clause 3.

Under the Environment Act, the Minister is not required to ask the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, but I would be grateful to know whether he, or any other department, has done so. Again, that sort of information would be useful to this House, recognising that we still do not have the strategic priorities—we have the objects, but nothing wider than that—in our consideration of this. I know for sure, from living in Suffolk—I referred to this in my earlier contribution today—of the significant impact that this energy infrastructure can have.