Energy Company Obligation

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The starting point for the debate must be the notorious Prime Minister’s Question Time at the end of November, half way through which he announced that there would be a green levy review. Sure enough, there was one; only, because it appeared that the review was thought of about two minutes before Prime Minister’s Question Time, the green levies were not reviewed but stayed roughly as they were. ECO was reviewed instead, and the result is that we are where we are now.

The document put out by the Department said:

“One of the major challenges for the ECO and Green Deal is the changing nature of the types of measures that need to be delivered. CERT, by focusing on delivering low-cost measures, has been very successful at installing simple loft and cavity wall insulation. From 2012 Green Deal finance will offer a route to deliver the remaining low cost loft and cavity wall opportunities at no upfront cost and without need for subsidy. However to meet our carbon budgets cost effectively, we will need to go far beyond just lofts and cavity walls, and move towards the next most cost effective measures.

However, some 7 million of the most difficult to treat homes require some form of solid wall insulation. The Committee on Climate Change recommended in their 2009 Report, ‘Meeting Carbon Budgets – the need for a step change’ that 2.3 million solid wall homes will need to have taken up solid wall insulation by 2022 in order for the UK to be on track to achieve carbon budgets. ECO support for these properties will help drive this market, and the supply chain to fulfil it, enabling us to unlock the resulting carbon savings more cost effectively.”

That was the prospectus that people bought into when they started doing work on ECO. In that context, the process of the review has been interesting, because it effectively boiled down to ECO having to take the bullet. In quick order, it was announced on 2 December that there would be substantial changes in how ECO would work, without an impact assessment. Only now has a consultation paper been released. It says that a number of the proposals have already been announced or foreshadowed in the Government’s announcement on 2 December. I am reminded a little of the referendum in Crimea, where first the outcome is announced, then a consultation is held on what the announcement should be. The measures in the 2 December announcement, which essentially stretch out like a lump of pizza dough the annual overall commitment of some £1.3 billion from two years to four years—however it may be wrapped up in decisions to borrow from some parts of the ECO programme to maintain others—starve elements of ECO of resources, particularly the carbon emissions reduction obligation.

That announcement, however, was wrapped up in something of a complication, because ECO finances are predicated on the achievement by obligated energy companies of a carbon obligation—that is, the obligation is discharged by the amount of carbon saved by the measures undertaken—and the estimated overall finances relate essentially to what it will cost, collectively, for that overall obligation to be discharged. Treatment costs for each hard-to-treat property, for example, add up to a cost per tonne of carbon saved, and if the companies have to discharge that obligation within a set period—initially for ECO, that is 2015—the price paid for each tonne saved will logically be higher than if the same level of obligation was over a more extended period.

Another issue is the extent to which the programme admits of access to measures, which, by their nature, allow for savings to be made at a lower cost per tonne of carbon dioxide saved. Those measures, however are supposed by and large to be covered by the green deal, whereby the cost of loans for measures is recovered from bills. As the original Department of Energy and Climate Change document says, ECO should be concerned only about the measures that go beyond those treatments. However, if such measures are allowed to count for ECO’s purposes instead of green deal purposes, inevitably a carbon obligation can be discharged by concentrating on those measures, rather than on the hard-to-treat homes specified in the original DECC document on ECO.

Indeed, the consultative document published last week recognises that. On page 28, it states:

“Taken together, the proposals are likely to see a greater focus on cheaper, easier measures and a correspondingly diminished role for Solid Wall Insulation in ECO delivery.”

It continues:

“However, the Government is clear that SWI represents a major challenge for the nation’s housing stock, with nearly eight million households of solid wall construction, of which only 3% per cent have wall insulation.”

The Government set a sub-target for solid-wall insulation that is about half the estimated target in the original ECO plans.

Of course, no one told the dozens of local authorities, housing associations, and insulating companies that that was in store. Trusting the word of the Department, they did exactly the right thing in getting the best result possible from the areas that ECO was supposed to concentrate on, namely the uplifting, area by area, of those hard-to-treat homes, using their local skills and considerable efforts in developing partnerships to do so. After all, we know that area uplift worked well under the community energy saving programme and the carbon emissions reduction target. There were better results overall in value per treatment—a large chunk of the target was reached area by area—than by searching randomly for individual properties to uplift.

I will add our local programme in Southampton to the pot. In November 2013, the council announced a £30 million programme to make energy improvements to more than 2,000 council properties in Southampton over the next 18 months. It included cladding of high-rise buildings, cladding of system built non-cavity homes, and a district heating scheme alongside. That would, by the way, create between 600 and 900 jobs, as well as safeguarding 300 jobs locally. That was a partnership between the city council, a property services company and an obligated energy company. That was all very rosy, except that as soon as the Government announcement was made and it rapidly became apparent to energy companies that the obligations as previously constructed were being thrown out of the window, they drew back from progressing the scheme. It may be that some of the programme can be saved, but the prospects of thousands of residents of Southampton having possibly life-changing reductions in their energy bills in the near future, of some of the worst insulated properties in the city being transformed and of carbon efficiency in buildings in the city taking a leap forward are possibly wholly and at least largely off the agenda right now. It is the same in many other places across the country.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is making some good points. He is talking as though the ECO—or the CERO part of the ECO, which I think is the thrust of his comments—has been totally revoked. What has happened, however, is that it has been extended by two years. The fact is that we were at 7% completion after 67% of the time period. In a sense, are the Government not just reflecting what is happening on the ground in a sensible way and allowing things to happen a little more slowly? That could be called a failure, but it is sensible, notwithstanding what we heard about Nottingham. I did not follow what was said on ECO versus the green deal. I also do not understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point about the carbon content of ECO and how that is stretched out over the time period. Energy companies can therefore decide that they do not need to undertake the obligation in the way they did previously. That is the crux of the matter and that is why the target has gone down from having 180,000 solid-wall homes by 2015 to having 100,000 by 2017. Even with those changes, it would have been possible to keep that carbon content by not invading the green deal with the changes to the proposals and by having a front-loaded system, which the Department could have worked out.

[David Mowat]

I did understand that. The part of ECO that has been extended and strengthened is the part that looks at those in particular fuel poverty. The middle section, the carbon saving community obligation, has been strengthened. The hon. Gentleman is right that the CERO has been weakened, but that just reflects reality.

[Dr Whitehead]

The CSCO has not been strengthened. It has been stretched out at the same level over a longer time at the expense of the CERO, which has had to fund most of the money to enable the CSCO to remain even at its previous level. I do not understand whether the Department understood what it was doing when it made these changes. If it understood, stood by and did not put any remedial measures into the consultative document, it wilfully let a large section of ECO fly out the window, along with all the previous targets. If the Department did not understand what it was doing, that is possibly an even worse prospect. Either way, the programme could have been saved with a slightly different way of revising the ECO programme, but the Department allowed a large proportion of the work on solid-wall insulation and hard-to-treat cavity homes—we all know that they are an absolute imperative target for the country over the next period—simply to go to waste.

I hope that a number of these programmes can be retrieved in one way or another, but the fact is that we now have an ECO that is a shadow of its former self. In the process, it has left large numbers of people in hard-to-treat homes. Local authorities, housing associations, companies and people who thought they would get jobs are all bewildered as to what will happen. That cannot be a good outcome, when the review was supposed to ensure that affordable energy would be coupled with even more affordable energy through the insulation programmes. The final, savage irony is that a programme to save people a lot of money on their energy bills has been thrown out of the window by a green levies review that was supposed to save some people money on their energy bills. I hope we will not forget that when we debate this issue. I hope that the Minister can explain exactly what his Department was doing when it undertook the change and whether he will contemplate undoing some of these changes, so that the programmes can at least partly go ahead to do what they were originally intended to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate and creating an opportunity to discuss our policy on driving home energy efficiency in some of the most difficult to treat properties and some of our poorest and most vulnerable households. She and I may not always agree on the best mode of delivery, but I admire her tenacity on this issue.

I want to reiterate the point that I made in my earlier intervention. I am not in a position to offer guarantees or to spell out details today, but I had a positive conversation with the chief executive of Nottingham city council yesterday. I am pleased with the constructive way that they worked with my officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change following the meetings that the hon. Lady helped to facilitate. The council is looking more positively at the green deal and working to submit a bid under the green deal for communities, and I look forward to announcing the result of those bids. I am glad to say that there has been a strong response from more than 80 local authorities. We have already announced the first tranche of street-by-street roll-out of the green deal and it is receiving a positive response.

I want to make a general point. The thorough retrofit of Britain’s housing stock is a challenge and is not easy. The hon. Member for Nottingham South and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who speaks from Labour’s Front Bench, are absolutely right. I am absolutely committed to the street-by-street roll-out. It is the engine for delivering whole-home retrofit in the most cost-effective way, but I am afraid that that was totally absent from the points raised by the Opposition. I commend them on their concern for the fuel-poor and the will to improve the housing stock of their constituents, but it is at best misinformed and at worst disingenuous to pretend that there is some bottomless pit of money when they represent the party that left us with the biggest peacetime deficit in our country’s history and brought us to the edge of financial ruin. What is more, during the last Parliament they drove up the number of fuel-poor people, which peaked in 2009—the last year of the Labour Government —at 5.5 million. Since then, on any measure, that number has fallen under the coalition Government and, according to the latest figures, it now stands at around 4.5 million.

It is wrong to suggest that energy efficiency is a universal panacea. I am a huge advocate of energy efficiency, but it is delivered at a cost, and it is not fair to deliver policy ambition on the backs of the fuel-poor. ECO is funded by consumers—every single customer. It is not funded by general taxation, and to some degree it is, like the CERT and carbon capture and storage programmes, which Labour introduced, regressive because it falls on the fuel-poor as much as the wealthy. It is unfair to disregard the cost of those programmes.

The coalition Government have acted clearly to reduce the cost of Labour’s levies on fuel bills to help to lighten the load of the fuel-poor and hard-pressed consumers. We removed from bills the cost of the £1 billion CCS programme, which the Leader of the Opposition introduced when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and now fund it more fairly and equitably from general taxation. We removed from domestic bills the cost of the renewable heat incentive, the final part of the domestic scheme, which will be launched in the spring, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Likewise, we responded to the escalating cost of ECO.

The Opposition must make a choice. Are they in favour of the £50 reduction in energy bills, or are they not? They owe it to their constituents and voters to make it very clear whether they will put those costs back on to energy bills. Are they saying that they would restore the ECO measures and in so doing drive up bills by at least £50 instead of freezing them? There are hard choices to make. Of course, we all want retrofit of the housing stock. I think we could all agree on the desirable measures, but they come at a cost and we must be fair to everyone and talk about how they will be funded.

It is true that it seems inequitable or unfair to cut the cost of ECO, which means that some people will wait longer for improvements to be installed, but bills will fall for millions of people. The improvements we are talking about will be installed in the homes of a few thousand people. We must be realistic. Progress was made under the last Labour Government, but they left millions of homes requiring substantial intervention to bring them up to what we would all regard as 21st century standards.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the Minister accept that ECO is a carbon-saving obligation in the first instance, the funding of which follows? It would have been possible, even if the overall funding envelope had been kept as it was, to make changes in the carbon obligation in such a way that these programmes might have been saved. That is an entirely different point from the one he is making about whether one should abjure savings on energy bills as a result of trying to keep costs up overall.

[Gregory Barker]

I think we are talking slightly at cross purposes. Let me correct the idea that the ECO target has been obliterated, killed or put to bed, as anyone who listens to the Opposition could be forgiven for believing. The fact is that ECO has not reduced certainty; it has increased it. Labour’s CERT programme was year on year. It ran for 12 months, and was then extended for another 12 months. It was a hand-to-mouth programme. ECO now offers unprecedented transparency and long-term certainty for the insulation industry because we have extended it and guaranteed it up to 2017.

We have not simply stretched the target from 2015 to 2017. From 2013 to March 2015—27 months—we expect to deliver a saving through the scheme of around 14 megatonnes of carbon. In the period April 2015 to March 2017, to which we have extended the scheme, an additional 12.4 megatonnes will be saved, a cumulative total of 26.4 megatonnes, not 14 megatonnes. It is wrong to say that we have not extended ECO or that we are not offering long-term certainty against which companies in the supply chain can invest and set their business model.

We have given a clear message to companies in the supply chain that we cannot simply install the measures regardless of cost. We cannot reach our ambition to install solid-wall insulation at current prices, which is why we are trying to create a competitive market and to introduce new private sources of finance. We are trying to introduce greater competition and innovation to drive down the cost of the measures.

Although it is very early days for the green deal and ECO market, we are seeing real pressure on costs, not from the big energy companies but from the disruptive new entrants—the small and medium-sized enterprises, family business and entrepreneurs that are coming into the market. We should celebrate the fact that prices for solid-wall insulation are coming down. I have seen companies that are not only bringing down the cost of these measures but increasing the quality of the product, and the quality and choice of the offer to consumers. [Interruption.] The fact is that I have seen a lot of solid-wall insulation where what people end up with is homes that look like they have been airlifted from East Germany. The people who do it take out all the character and just put on some uniform fascia. In fact, what people increasingly want is choice. They do not want to see character obliterated from their home. They want to see improvements. I am glad to see that we are getting that sort of innovation into the scheme.

I understand where the Opposition are coming from in their desire to retrofit homes. I understand their ambition to improve the efficiency, warmth and comfort of homes, but unless they can cost that out and be honest with the electorate about how much it will cost and how much of the burden will fall on the fuel-poor and on hard-working families, they are just a pressure group; they are not worthy of being considered the Government. We are making those choices and laying out the whole picture for the electorate. We have to balance the costs to hard-working families with the benefits to the few that will receive ECO.