Energy Trilemma

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling the energy trilemma.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to the many colleagues from across the parties who have supported today’s important debate on tackling the energy trilemma. It is perhaps the most critical issue facing us today. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted the extraordinary pressure on the energy systems of countries right across the world, and also demonstrated the crucial importance of energy sovereignty. For us in the UK, although the risk to security of supply remains low, the Russian invasion has demonstrated as never before the importance of balance in tackling the energy trilemma.

We can think of the energy trilemma as being a bit like a three-legged stool. Its three equally important legs are first, keeping the lights on; secondly, keeping the cost of energy bills down; and thirdly, decarbonising right across the world. If we are to sit comfortably on that stool, all three legs must be in balance, and be given equal consideration. Achieving that balance is by no means easy. As chairman of the 1922 Back-Bench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy, I have, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who is vice-chairman of the committee and is here, the noble Lord Lilley, the vice-chairman of the committee from the other place, and other colleagues from across our two Houses, been looking in detail at the practical steps that need to be taken to meet this enormous challenge.

The Government are, I know, already working hard to tackle the energy trilemma, but while they already have a great deal in hand, a shove here and a push there could make a huge positive difference in very short order to consumers, businesses and our decarbonisation efforts. In our recent report, “Energy Market Reform: Tackling the energy trilemma,” our committee made 34 recommendations. They include unblocking renewables; cutting energy demand; improving the flexibility of energy pricing; looking at the future of the energy price guarantee; and creating a new energy Department in Whitehall. I was very pleased to see that the Prime Minister came to the same conclusion on that last point, and created the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I sincerely hope that we will be as successful with our other 33 recommendations. I am keen to use this debate to make the case for them to Ministers.

There is no doubt that the UK has been a world leader in deploying renewable energy projects, coming from almost a standing start in 2010. By 2020, solar and wind produced nearly 30% of the UK’s electricity—a tenfold increase on 2010. The UK is proud to have almost half the world’s offshore-deployed wind, all created under successive Conservative Governments—a great record of commitment that we can point to. However, renewable energy projects face increasing bottlenecks, including delays in the planning system, delays to grid connections, shortages in supply chains and a creaking electricity market design. In addition, there is an increasing risk of skills shortages as the deployment of offshore wind ramps up this decade. To tackle these problems, the Government should consider a number of measures that should already be in hand.

First, we should speed up the planning system by straight away implementing the new national policy statement for renewables, which has been good to go since 2011, and which would provide much greater investability. In particular, the concern over developers reserving grid connections and allowing years to pass without using them means that vital housing and infrastructure projects cannot go ahead because they cannot get a grid connection.

Secondly, the Government should consider officially committing to the development of an offshore ring main for offshore wind. Some projects are already sharing infrastructure, but clear guidance from Government would speed that up and make it much more acceptable to communities who do not want the huge onshore infrastructure currently being pushed onto their beaches and sensitive onshore conservation areas.

Thirdly, the Government could immediately issue direction on where new power lines should be located. Overhead lines are much cheaper, but less acceptable to communities. Underground lines, on the other hand, are potentially six times more expensive. There is a lack of clarity on policy in this critical area, particularly because independent analysis has concluded that, to meet our 2030 targets for electrifying our energy system, the National Grid will need to build seven times as much infrastructure over just the next seven years as we have achieved in total over the last 32 years—a huge mountain to climb.

Fourthly, although there has been progress on floating offshore wind projects, the Government should take seriously the evidence that floating offshore wind on Britain’s west coast in particular could strengthen our energy security, improving electricity resources in Northern Ireland as well as providing a hedge against low wind speed around other parts of the British Isles.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is making excellent points. She served as Energy Minister, I think, and I am reminded that the best part of 20 years ago one of her predecessors as Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, was promoting the case for an interconnector to go down the west coast of the United Kingdom and through the Irish sea. That did not happen, essentially because of concerns in Ofgem about the danger of stranded assets. I think her idea is a good one, but does she agree that in order to achieve it there will have to be a fundamental rethink about the way we regulate the industry?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; of course regulation, safety and considering the impact of potential stranded assets are vital. I do not think there should be any fundamental objections to expanding the use of interconnectors, but I am talking specifically here about floating offshore wind, which has huge potential but is not yet being deployed in the UK.

Fifthly, the Government should stop paying offshore wind farms in Scotland to switch off when it is too windy, which is already costing bill payers billions a year. Instead, we should look at piloting local electricity pricing, encouraging producers to work with business and consumers to use more electricity when it is plentiful and to reduce usage or use stored energy when the wind stops. That could be valuable for everyone, from Scottish citizens accessing cheap electricity when the wind is blowing to Cornish residents doing likewise when the sun is shining. Local electricity pricing offers transformational change that would make much better sense of the successful deployment of so many renewables.

One key recommendation made by the 1922 BEIS committee is on how to make these projects more acceptable to local communities. Local referendums and local compensation caused a bit of a stir when we announced them, but the idea has a lot of merit. In short, the report recommends that any proposed onshore wind, solar or shale gas extraction project should be subject to a local referendum on the basis of a simple majority. Where 50% or more of those who vote are in favour, the project can then go to normal planning considerations, but without the prospect of being overturned for lack of local support.

In return for the community accepting that limit on individual objections, our report proposes that local residents should receive free or subsidised energy bills for the entire lifetime of the project. That would have the effect of not only encouraging local communities, but forcing developers to think twice before locating renewables too close to sensitive communities because of the impact on the financial viability of their project. At the same time, bearing in mind the need for an urgent increase in the amount of electricity infrastructure, the committee recommends that the National Grid should be encouraged to build new pylons alongside transport corridors, and that renewables developers should be encouraged to locate alongside them, resulting in cheaper grid connections.

The second area of investigation in our report was how to cut energy demand. Every unit of energy that is not used is one that does not have to be generated. That reduces carbon emissions, cuts the cost of energy to consumers and to businesses, and improves our energy security—a genuine triple win. Ever since the committee’s first report in April 2022, we have been recommending a wide range of energy-saving actions, and I will highlight just a few of them.

First, boiler installers should focus not only on safety, as they do at present, but on efficiency. Every boiler installation should provide only sufficient power to heat that particular home or business, and the temperature gauge should be set at the most efficient level.

Secondly, the completion of the smart meter roll-out should be prioritised and the move to half-hourly pricing brought forward, to put control in the hands of consumers through smart tariffs. They could then choose to wash clothes, cook or charge their car when energy is cheap. Likewise, businesses could plan their energy use around cheaper periods. That could have a big impact on flattening the overall daily peaks in energy demand, with massive benefit for energy security and cost. It would then make sense to regulate for white goods to be smart as standard, to automate the way in which customers take advantage of cheaper price windows.

Thirdly, the report proposes that the Government should bring forward enforcement of the new homes standards and expand the energy company obligation—ECO4—scheme to insulate more cold homes, which would offer far better value for taxpayers than our current policy of subsidising heating for draughty homes. We also recommend that an organisation modelled on Home Energy Scotland should be introduced in England to provide better advice and support to households.

An area in which the committee feels that Government policy has taken a wrong turn is the energy cap itself. It was a well-intentioned policy to stop customers being ripped off by their energy supplier if they did not switch provider often enough, but the current energy crisis has exposed major flaws in the operation of the cap. The cap is below the true cost of supplying energy, so almost all customers are now on capped tariffs in addition to extremely costly additional taxpayer subsidies. That has killed the market for switching between energy suppliers, and has exacerbated the bankruptcy rate of energy suppliers. The report recommends, first, a thorough review of the energy price cap; secondly, that the green levies on energy bills be permanently moved to general taxation to take away some of the regressive nature of levies on energy bills; and thirdly, that a more targeted system for energy bills be introduced. One specific proposal that is worthy of consideration is a cap for basic electricity usage per household, above which households are exposed to the full unsubsidised costs of energy.

Fourthly, our report recommends a new requirement for energy suppliers to offer long-term, fixed-price energy deals so that consumers and businesses have the budgeting certainty that so many achieve through taking out fixed-rate mortgages for their homes or buildings. Fifthly, energy regulator Ofgem must shoulder much of the blame for supplier failures. Financial regulation of energy suppliers has been far too weak. The Government should direct Ofgem to implement banking-style financial stability requirements to avoid a repeat of recent history, whereby an energy supplier can make money when energy costs are below the cap but goes bust if energy costs rise above the cap, leaving all bill payers to pick up the tab.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Actually, I agree with those comments from the professor and from the hon. Gentleman. When I have been in Aberdeen and been out looking at some of the offshore technology there, it has struck me that there is that transferability—if I may call it that—of skills from the oil and gas sector. Of course, we need to make that happen.

But what I would say is that, if Skilling is right—and I believe he is—the scale of the opportunity goes way beyond the jobs that we currently have in oil and gas. We need to make sure that we have the research and development and the innovation right across the supply chain, and that we are utilising not just our higher education sector, but the further education sector to deliver people with the appropriate skills to do this. That is an enormous opportunity. Out of that, there is an enormous opportunity to make sure that we have an industrial strategy that is fit for purpose as well. I would be delighted if we had these kinds of debates more often in this House—if we were actually having detailed discussions about how we do all this. What do we have to do to make the planning system work in a way that is respectful to local communities, but recognises the need and desire to move ahead?

[Mr Carmichael]

On the subject of planning and the delays that are associated with it, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Canada, the time from consent to installation for a tidal device is around three years, whereas in this country, it is seven or eight. It comes down to something as simple as the fact that we do all the different impact assessments and the rest of it sequentially, when with a bit of imagination and creativity, they could all be done side by side.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree. The right hon. Member has made an important point. Often, the question is: how do we make sure we are protecting the rights of stakeholders and the rights of communities, while being able to do things at pace? What we have been talking about highlights the potential loss of technological leadership, because if we cannot do these things, we will not get that investment. In that context, let me go to the side a little, because I want to talk about one of the subsets of the green industry that has enormous potential for us.

We heard a comment earlier about nuclear and the opportunity to provide baseload. I have mentioned this in the House on a number of occasions, and I do not apologise for doing so again: there is enormous opportunity in tidal, and that has been demonstrated with the success we have seen with a number of projects. I encourage everyone in the House to examine a peer-reviewed Royal Society report published just ahead of COP26. It highlighted the opportunity of developing 11.5 GW of energy from tidal. If we look at the projects already developed in the United Kingdom, we tend to find that as much as 80% of that supply chain has been generated domestically. A number of the companies doing that are supplying equipment to such countries as France and Canada, as has been mentioned. There is a real danger that unless we recognise the scale of the opportunity, we will lose that leadership.

I am delighted that in the last contracts for difference round, the UK Government put in place a ringfenced pot of £20 million for tidal. That got us off to a degree of a start in fulfilling that ambition laid out in the Royal Society report. It was not as much as I would have liked. For us to fulfil that potential, we need to provide as much as £50 million annually, but I regret that over the past few days we have seen that that ringfenced pot will be cut to £10 million. I say to the House that we run the risk of losing this industry, and I appeal to the Government to revisit this issue. We can provide that baseload from tidal, as an alternative to nuclear energy. If we are ambitious about getting to that kind of scale in tidal, ultimately we will be providing that baseload on a more affordable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on bringing this subject to the House. Her metaphor of the three-legged stool is a very good one. If we can move away from the immediacy of the problems, this debate allows us a few minutes to think about the issue in a more strategic manner. The point about the three-legged stool is that it works as a stool only if it has all three legs. If we take away any one of the three legs—affordability, security or decarbonisation—the other two will not achieve their purpose. The debate is often frustrating and ill served by false, binary choices. The point about a “trilemma” is that the choices that have to be made are about the balance of the progress we make on the three heads of the challenge, as well as the different means by which we seek to achieve them.

For years, to my certain knowledge, the debate has been bedevilled by easy options, and that remains true about some parts of the debate today. I remain to be convinced about nuclear, either in its own right or as a source of baseload, but sceptics like me have to then ask, “Well, where does the baseload come from?” From my point of view, there are enormous opportunities from developments such as tidal energy, which I will come on to as it matters a lot to me and my constituency. There is also the issue of storage and, beyond that, the flattening of the curve through supply-side and demand-side management. Again, it is all about balance. There is no silver bullet here; there is no one technology, area or direction of travel that will solve all our difficulties.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire also spoke about local involvement in planning decisions. There is one other item that I would commend to her in terms of managing these issues: local benefit. Communities that are to have a wind farm, for example, have the opportunity to see some money coming back directly to their community, which makes an enormous difference.

In my own parish, we have a development of five wind turbines that provides a fund, which is administered by the local community council. My student sons have both benefited from that fund in terms of support given to them during their years at university. The support provided by such funds is small but meaningful. If we are to change the way in which we generate energy, from it being produced in large amounts in a small number of places to a much more diffuse pattern of generation, we have to find different ways of doing that.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The Back-Bench committee proposed that individual households living very close to a renewable project should have their energy bills subsidised or free for the duration of that project, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman but I think it should be even more direct than just a pot, as is so often the case.

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. We make progress on these things incrementally, so if we can get to that situation that would be music to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents.

In Orkney, we already generate more energy from renewables than we can use in our own community. However, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) observed earlier, because of the way in which the market is regulated and structured, we actually pay more for it. That is something that generates not just energy, but an enormous amount of resentment in the community as well.

[Ian Blackford]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the progress he is making. There is a real issue about the disbursement of these funds because they are becoming particularly meaningful; it is a hot topic at the moment in Skye. We need to reflect on the powers that often lie with developers to make the determination as to how that pot is disbursed. We will have to be very careful across Government, here in Westminster and in the devolved Administrations, about setting the principles that have to be followed. If not, we will end up in a situation in which communities will, quite frankly, not get the benefit to extent that they should. We need to have effective governance in all of this to make sure that people are protected properly.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. With a commitment to the principle from the top, everything underneath tends to fall into place.

There is another aspect of community benefits in which we may have missed a trick in Scotland recently. Although we missed out on a sovereign wealth fund, apart from in Orkney and Shetland, in the 1970s, there would have been an opportunity to generate more of a sovereign wealth fund from offshore renewables in the ScotWind round. We missed the boat this time, but I hope we can make up for it in future.

In many ways, Orkney and Shetland demonstrates the energy transition issues and the trilemma in microcosm: we have long, dark, cold winters, we have poor-quality housing stock and we are off the mains gas grid, so we do not have the same opportunities for access to cheaper heating as other parts of the country. The affordability element therefore very much matters to us. We generate more electricity from renewables than we can use for ourselves, but because of how the market was regulated until recently, when we finally got consent for a cable to the Scottish mainland, we have not been able to maximise the benefits. It is galling that although we are leading the way in decarbonised energy production, we end up paying more because we are part of a market that is regulated for the UK as a whole and that relies too heavily on the wholesale price of gas, as we are now seeing.

Let me just vent parenthetically for a second or two about the energy company SSE and its occasional choice simply to stop paying people who are entitled to feed-in tariff payments. I always seem to have at least one such case on the go among my constituency casework. Just last week, I was able to secure eventual, long-overdue repayment from SSE of £72,000 to one farmer in my constituency. That was money that SSE owed him and there was absolutely no reason for it not to pay, but for arbitrary and unaccountable reasons it seems occasionally just to decide to stop paying people. To my mind, that is an abuse of the privilege that it has been given by successive Governments.

Orkney is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, which is just about to celebrate its 20th anniversary. It has been at the forefront of the development of tidal stream energy generation; no doubt it could now play a similar role in the development of floating offshore wind.

Like other hon. Members, I was delighted to see the ringfenced pot in the round 4 allocation, but I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. That is not just me speaking; the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK and Scottish Renewables have all reacted badly, so I hope that the Department is already thinking about how to maximise the opportunities by getting some of the money back.

With the synergy between oil and gas, we have been at the forefront of the country’s energy needs for 40 years now, and the development of offshore renewables is the obvious next step. When I speak to apprentices, as I did during National Apprenticeship Week last month, they tell me that although they are starting apprenticeships in the oil and gas industry, they fully expect to have transitioned to something different by the end of their working lives.

For the past 40 years, my constituency has been home to the two largest oil terminals in western Europe: Flotta in Orkney and Sullom Voe in Shetland, which provide a visual demonstration of the just transition. EnQuest, the terminal operator at Sullom Voe, is now working on projects involving hydrogen, carbon capture, use and storage, and offshore electrification of production. It is a visual illustration of transition, but again it shows just how ill served we are by binary choices. All the time, we seem to be told, “You can have renewables or you can have hydrocarbons, but you can’t have both.” That is dangerous nonsense. We have allowed production of oil and gas on the UK continental shelf to decline in recent years, and it has been to our detriment. It was never put in these terms at the time, but I cannot think why anyone ever thought it would be a good idea to rely on Vladimir Putin for the purchase of our gas and Mohammed bin Salman for the production of our oil when we have a rich resource on our own doorstep. As we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the production of oil and gas in the North sea or to the west of Shetland is much less carbon-intensive than importing it from other parts of the world.

The point, surely, is this: it is not an either/or. There is no route to decarbonisation and achieving net zero other than one that goes through oil and gas production. I do not want to see the future generations of my constituents working in oil and gas. I do want to see them work in renewables, but I think that that will be much more likely if we take a long, hard, clear-eyed look at what happens in the future with oil and gas production on our own continental shelf.

There are many other things that we should be doing, such as managing supply and demand and increasing the amount of storage and smart grid—something that offers great opportunities for those who can turn on their washing machines at the other end of the country using their smartphones, although I suspect that it would be a bit more challenging for the members of the community who would benefit most from opportunities of that kind.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has done us a great service in initiating this timely debate. I hope that its strategic aspects have been heard and understood on the Treasury Bench, and will be acted on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate. I must admit that I did not realise when she secured the debate that I would effectively be responding to a Tory Back-Bench 1922 committee report. It comes as an even greater surprise to me that I agree with the recommendations she has raised. She did say that there were 30-odd recommendations, though. She did not go through them all—I thank her for that—but I suspect that I would find some among them that I disagree with.

As I say, I agree with the right hon. Lady on the points that she brought forward. We really do have to unlock renewables, and I agree about the need to reduce demand. One way to do that is to increase energy efficiency installations; the Government must really ramp up action on that. One thing I would say to the Minister is that I am now getting feedback that the roll-out through ECO4 is not going as quickly as suppliers would like it to go; they are already behind on progress this year, so maybe we need to look at ways to target the right homes for energy efficiency upgrading.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire obviously took credit for the creation of the new stand-alone Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I welcome that new Department; to be honest, it was long overdue, but at least it now seems to have the right priority within Government. I also completely agree about the number of grid upgrades that will be required. We need much better forward planning, and it was certainly an eye-opener when she said that we had seven times the amount of infrastructure still to be built. There is no doubt that Ofgem has failed on that. National Grid ESO confirmed two weeks ago to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that it paid £4 billion in constraint payments last year. That is effectively £4 billion wasted that could have gone towards grid upgrades, storage or other mechanisms, and it shows how Ofgem needs to get a grip on the issue and allow anticipatory investment.

We need to imagine what the grid will be required to look like in 2050 and start planning for that now. I am concerned at the piecemeal approach that has been taken; even when the grid has been upgraded, we are building in future constraints already instead of putting in the right capacity. That will cost more money in the long run and block renewables from coming online.

I must say I also welcome the right hon. Lady’s conversion to referendums. She will find that on the SNP side we completely agree with the need for referendums, and I look forward to her support on that matter. I was also glad to hear her compliment the independent advice body Home Energy Scotland, and it would be good to see a completely independent body set up in England to give free and impartial advice and help people to get the measures required.

It is no surprise that I agree with the points my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made. He is right that the IPCC report highlights the urgency to take action now, before it is too late. He also highlighted the fact that investment is relocating to the United States where there is momentum because of the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, here we have the electricity generator levy, but no renewables investment allowance. We really need to look at some form of that. My right hon. Friend obviously mentioned the Skilling report, the opportunity potentially to scale up to 80 GW of green electricity generation in Scotland and how important that could be in a just transition, creating 300,000-plus new jobs.

I also agree with my right hon. Friend on tidal stream. I have been trying to highlight the issues with the funding pot announced for AR5—it is definitely not enough money, especially with inflationary pressures. MeyGen in the Pentland Firth is the biggest tidal stream site in the world, but it has confirmed that it now faces inflation pressures of +50% on the AR4 strike rate that it bid against. The only way that that project can grow is if it gets to scale up through a bigger proportion agreed in AR5, and for that there needs to be a much bigger budget. I am pleased to say that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to meet me next week, and I will certainly make the case for at least £40 million, which is what I have been asking for.

In a real twist, I agreed with the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). There is no doubt that we will still be using oil and gas in 2050 and will still need to utilise them as an asset. As he rightly said, Scotland is a net exporter of oil and gas. In fact, it supplied almost 50% of the UK’s gas consumption last year and 75% of the oil.

When we talk about energy security, though, we must be realistic and accept that, while even a lower percentage increase in production for the North sea increases energy security, that oil and gas can be traded on the international market and does not necessarily come directly into the UK market. There has been a 30% reduction in oil refinery capacity in the UK since 2010, so even a lot of the oil for use in end products here has to go abroad to be refined and then come back. The security issue is not quite straightforward, but I agree that that is an asset we must continue to utilise.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

It will need to be very brief.

[Mr Carmichael]

What view does the hon. Gentleman take, then, of the Scottish Government’s current consultation on presumption against future development?

[Alan Brown]

There is no harm in consulting. We need to look at that and have proper climate compatibility checks—I think that is the right way to go about it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about direct air capture, which could, of course, play a role as part of the wider Acorn cluster, but I repeat that, with £20 billion announced for carbon capture and storage, it is disappointing that we are still waiting to hear any firm commitments on Acorn. The Budget mentioned a possible track 1 expansion, so can the Minister advise me on whether Acorn might be included in that this year, or will it rely on track 2? If so, when will we hear an announcement about the track 2 process?

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly mentioned the fantastic EMEC facility. I urge the Government to come forward with funding to replace EU funding and keep EMEC going. He said that he was not too sure about nuclear. My views on nuclear are well known, but I repeat that I am completely against it. Hinkley is costing £33 billion; Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. Think what we could do with that money in energy storage, energy efficiency and even grid upgrades. That £35 billion is just a waste of money. Sizewell C will not be constructed for 12 to 15 years, and there is not even one successful EPR project in the world. SMRs are being promoted, but there is not even an approved SMR design in the UK. Rolls-Royce tells us that it will somehow get them up and running by 2029, but that is a fallacy when the regulator has not even approved the design yet. At £2 billion a time, SMRs are not exactly cheap, and that money could be better spent elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) made a good point about the potential for geothermal, and I agree with him. We have a lot of former mineworking areas in Scotland and other areas of the UK, and they could be a place to start on the potential for geothermal. It would be good to see Government support for that.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned community energy, an effective Local Electricity Bill, and amendments to the Energy Bill. Certainly, I have been a supporter of the Local Electricity Bill. I would be happy to consider that on a cross-party basis when the Energy Bill comes to the House of Commons.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned intermittency issues. Yes, we need to deal with them, but that can be done with pumped-storage hydro, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned. All that is required to get Coire Glas over the finishing line for final investment and approval is a green cap and floor mechanism for revenue stabilisation. Some £1.5 billion will be fully funded by SSE Renewables—no subsidy or Government guarantees have been asked for; just the revenue stabilisation mechanism.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made a good analogy, which everyone picked up on, and I agree with her, but although we are calling it the energy trilemma, we also need to look at it as an opportunity —the opportunity that comes with decarbonisation, green energy, new jobs, just transition and by bringing bills down in the long run. We have to grasp that opportunity to have a truly green renewable energy grid supplying homes across the UK.