Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty; we agree on so very much. There may be some small differences of emphasis, not just with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but with others who have spoken today, that I hope I can add and bring to the debate.

I wanted to speak in this debate because I am concerned about what is happening to our planet. I do not believe the Government have seized the opportunity in the Bill to go to the nub of the issue. Before continuing, I register my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. I think it is worth saying a few words at the outset about the fundamentals of climate change because that is the reason why many of the measures in this Bill have been brought forward. The question for me is: does the Bill move us in the right direction with a laser-like focus, at the speed needed to address climate change?

My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie spoke about the mission of climate change, and that is what I really want to know: does this Bill address that mission? Energy is at the very nub of climate change, because the mass production of energy by burning fossil fuels to power the Industrial Revolution has led to the most rapid build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that our planet has ever experienced.

Today has seen the UK hit a temperature of over 40 degrees Celsius—imagine that—for the first time ever. What we need to do is to move the energy sector away from oil and gas and into the modern era. In May this year, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii recorded a concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 421 parts per million. This is the highest ever recorded and has a direct bearing on the extreme weather events we see with increasing frequency.

For me, this figure has a particular relevance and significance. It was the last part of the discussion I had in 1989 with my fellow master’s degree students at Imperial College when we were doing a master’s in environmental technology. I will just put out there that I graduated with a distinction. The reason I bring this up is that, as a group of young scientists learning about the science behind climate change more than three decades ago—and in two decades’ time I will be able to stand here and say “five decades ago”, as my noble friend Lord Bruce did when speaking of his efforts to move forward energy efficiency—we were hugely concerned about the rise in carbon dioxide due to the Industrial Revolution. In the short period in geological time between 1850 and 1989, the concentration of carbon dioxide rose substantially: from 280 parts per million, its level for the previous many hundreds of thousands of years, to 350 parts per million—in the blink of a geological eye.

There was consensus that going over 400 parts per million would be a catastrophe and that mankind should do all it could to keep it under 400 parts per million. Well, that figure has been well and truly breached; the concentration of carbon dioxide is rising by 2 parts per million every year, and accelerating. We talk a lot about tipping points, but as we look at the extreme weather events we are witnessing, we can see that they are happening with greater and greater frequency and becoming more and more extreme. Who before last year had heard of the heat domes that engulfed north-west America, or atmospheric rivers? We really do need to sit up, take heed and realise that we have to act with speed. That is crucial. Are we doing that in this Bill?

It is important to dwell on why this Bill is a disappointment to so many of the people who really care about climate change, and raise their voices and act with conviction on it. It is a missed opportunity. As many previous speakers have said, it is a missed opportunity to tackle our demand for and waste of energy, as well as energy efficiency in households. Energy efficiency is universally acknowledged as an absolutely necessary first step in our fight to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees centigrade. It must be absolutely essential given the temperature and weather extremes that we are already seeing; we have already reached a global climate rise of 1.1 degrees centigrade. It is our ambition to keep it to within 1.5 degrees centigrade, but even if all the promises made last year at COP 26 are realised and kept, we would still see a rise of 2.4 degrees centigrade by the end of the century. We are not doing enough; we have to do better.

I go back to energy efficiency. The Minister has said:

“The cheapest energy is that which we do not use.”


He is on board, but there is nothing in the Bill on energy efficiency. Perhaps I can put to the Minister the same question that I did in the debate on the IEA’s report, Net Zero by 2050:

“A 2015 report from the Association for Decentralised Energy states that 54% of energy of energy produced in this country is wasted, equivalent to more than half the average UK annual electricity bill, or about £592, in 2015. The report said that the amount wasted was equivalent to the power generated by 37 nuclear plants. Maybe the situation is better now than it was in 2015. If so, can the Minister update the House? If the data are not to hand, can he write to me and place the letter in the Library?”—[Official Report, 15/6/22; cols. 1657, 1646.]


I have not yet received a response to my question, but I hope that the Minister will take this further opportunity to reply and, if the data are still not to hand, write to me; that would be very welcome. Perhaps he could include information on how the reforms of the UK’s energy systems in the Bill will address this issue.

Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to incentivise the upgrading of owner-occupied properties, which have fallen woefully behind those in other sectors? Does he think that the minimum efficiency standards are enough?

I also want to ask about the local authority delivery scheme, which is coming to a close. Local authorities are going to play a central part in meeting our net-zero targets, and this is one small way in which they could do so. I am sure that they would welcome more information on how they can play their part.

A major barrier to retrofitting for energy efficiency is the lack of a skilled workforce. It is one of the reasons behind the failure of the green homes grant. I wonder whether addressing this shortfall in skilled labour will be a priority for the Government. We are going to need a skilled workforce, not just in retrofitting our homes but if we are to deliver a just transition. We speak so much about it, but we really need to give the people who work in fossil fuel industries and the oil and gas sector the opportunity to retrain so that they can transfer their skills to other energy sectors. Some polling has been done showing that this is what they want to do—they want to stay in the energy sector. They understand the energy sector and would like to be able to contribute further to energy provision.

I have dwelt on tackling energy waste and making homes more efficient because this is low-hanging fruit. Frankly, it is astonishing that so little has been done to date to tackle it. I hope that the Minister will work with those of us who want to rectify the situation. I am sure that he will; I know he thinks that energy efficiency is something that ought to be tackled.

The future technologies in carbon capture, usage and storage that the Government are focused on are unproven at scale. There is nowhere in the world where it is working. Denmark has some small projects but there is nowhere in the world that we can point to and say that that is what we want to do. Gas will of course be a transition fuel. No one is suggesting that we turn off the taps today. I challenge the Minister to find anywhere in Hansard where I have said that the taps must go off today. It is a transition fuel. We know that we have to move towards a fossil fuel-free future in a sensible way, but we must take hold of the opportunities that we have. We must look at what is working and at what our innovation and technology has already delivered: clean, green energy with zero pollution. These are the industries we ought to be looking at.

Presumably a vast proportion of the £100 billion investment that will be unleashed by this Bill will go towards carbon capture, usage and storage. However, we are misdirecting our efforts and incentivising the wrong industries. Carbon capture, usage and storage may be useful in mitigating the miniscule amount of fossil fuels that we will need as we transition to net zero, but that will be an ever-diminishing amount. I am not sure that the Bill in this form recognises that gas will not make up a vast amount of our energy needs—that is a fact. Perpetuating the future of fossil fuels by investing in big projects for carbon capture, usage and storage is not the right way to go and is very short-sighted.

I want to say something very quickly on stranded assets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has left us all reeling, but two wrongs do not make a right. It would be a mistake to use the short-term Russia-Britain gas issue to decelerate progress on the move away from fossil fuels. To use this as an excuse to invest billions in new fossil fuel infrastructure would be a crime, but this is what the Government are proposing to do—for example, by opening up a new round of licences for exploration in the North Sea this autumn. These new fields would not come online until long after the window to act to keep the global temperature rise within 1.5 degrees centigrade has passed. We are trying to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees centigrade. How will the opening of new fields that come online after the date by which we need to do this has passed help? Much-needed investment in wind and sun will be diverted, and stranded assets would proliferate.

In the debate I tabled last month on the International Energy Agency’s report, Net Zero by 2050, the question of stranded assets was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who I am sorry to say is not in his place, dismissed stranded assets, saying that the cost would be borne by those foolish enough to be saddled with them. Although I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is far more au fait with the workings of the fossil fuels sector than I, I am pleasantly surprised to hear he thinks it will be the investors in new fields who will be saddled with the losses. Can the Minister confirm that the costs of stranded assets will be picked up by those who seek to profit by them and not by the UK taxpayer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the right reverend Prelate and to hear of the encouraging things happening in his diocese. We also heard him mention the fact that they have a cost. He is possibly the first speaker in this debate who has drawn attention to cost; I shall spend quite a lot of my time talking about exactly that.

This is a technical Bill but it has a simple purpose: to give effect to the British energy security policy. In my view, that means ensuring that energy is available abundantly and affordably to the British people and to British industry and businesses, and also that energy is, as far as possible, secure against external shocks. That is how we maintain and enhance our prosperity, and any other statement of the Government’s objective would appear to me to be traducing the obligations we have to the nation.

Net zero is not an energy strategy but a constraint on how we might achieve our energy strategy. Nobody seriously thinks that the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 will have any significant effect on the heating of the planet, since we produce only 1% of global emissions. At best, it is setting an example to the world; its practical effect will be very small indeed. The core strategy for this Government has to remain abundant and affordable energy for the UK. If my noble friend on the Front Bench disagrees about that, I am sure he will say so when he winds up. The question is how the Bill and the energy strategy it effectuates measure up to that objective. It is a mixed bag and, like other speakers, in the interests of time I will be fairly selective about the parts of the Bill I choose to focus on at this stage.

One of the things the Bill does is encourage investment in wind power. Despite claims that the cost of wind power is constantly falling, that is simply not true. Although it has fallen from its early days, it is ceasing to fall; the fall is declining as a result of the maturity of the industry, as you would expect with any industry that matures. But even if the marginal cost of wind power can be brought down to something close to zero—in other words, that it is similar to nuclear power in that regard—none the less, the capital costs required would still require subsidies, in addition to the feed-in tariff, and these are very large indeed when it comes to offshore wind.

Moreover, despite providing in excess of 20% of our energy, there are many days when wind power falls close to zero, and much the same can be said of solar. This means that gas generation has to be available to take up the slack at those times. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, envisage a day when demand for gas would be zero. I do not understand what source of power she imagines will take up the slack when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I challenge the noble Lord to say where I said that the need for gas would be zero. I said it would be minuscule.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am happy to accept the correction from zero to minuscule because it does not change my argument in the slightest. I thought I had said close to zero, but either way I am more than happy to accept the word “minuscule”. I was hoping when the noble Baroness stood up that it would be to tell me what fuel it was that was going to take up the slack in the place of gas.

To make demand for gas intermittent in order to match the intermittency of wind power is, in the words of Professor Sir Dieter Helm,

“devastating to the economics of gas generation and for two reasons”.

First, it takes a much longer time to recover the capital costs, and, secondly, because the gas power is demanded only intermittently, the cost of producing that supply increases as well. So in addition to the high cost of wind generation, we have to take account of an inevitable increase in the cost of electricity generated by gas simply to match it and make up for the intermittency. Professor Helm is a great supporter and advocate of net zero. His complaint is that we are not being honest with the British public about the costs of it. My noble friend the Minister will be able to say whether he thinks the Government are being honest with the British public and that Professor Helm has got it wrong, but net zero is not cheap and the Government need to level with the public. They need to show that their energy strategy is affordable.

Then we come to the question of abundance. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, referred, as did other speakers, to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. My worry was that she had not taken account of how radically that has changed our situation, but my worry on that score rather fell away when I heard my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. He explained very clearly that it is not some minor event; it is a radical change in the energy supply market, and it goes to the question of whether we are going to be able to maintain abundant supplies.

The noble Baroness called for three things to happen simultaneously as a result of the Bill: she wanted to cut bills, increase security and tackle climate change—I hope I have referred to her correctly. My point is that you cannot have all three. The second two require higher bills because the cost of them is largely borne by bill payers rather than taxpayers. Even if you take it out of the bills and put it on to the taxpayers, the taxpayers are of course the bill payers with a different hat on.

There are things in this Bill that I agree with. I was particularly pleased to see the reference to the promotion of nuclear fusion. It may be a very long way off—nuclear fusion as a solution has always been a long way off—and that makes one a bit sceptical, but I have confidence that something can be done. Nuclear fusion is of course an extremely clean form of energy, not like nuclear fission, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority is a leader in the field. At the moment there are half a dozen places throughout the country competing to be the home of the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s spherical tokamak, which is going to take forward Britain’s next step in developing the prospect of genuine nuclear fusion. If anything, I would encourage the Government to spend more money, as I am told that that would speed up the work; that is all very good. Nuclear fission will be core to providing our baseload, and I welcome the work the Government have done to promote that as well. But large amounts of gas will remain absolutely indispensable to our energy mix—all the more so the more we rely on wind and solar.

The gaping hole in this Bill and this strategy—not only the hole referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, in that we are not sufficiently encouraging increased oil production among the oil producers—is, as far as our domestic policy is concerned, its failure to put increased domestic production of gas at the heart of our energy strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, let me thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what I think has been an excellent, important and constructive debate. I will attempt to answer as many of the questions asked as possible, and of course, I look forward to debating many of these issues further as the Bill proceeds through Committee.

One of the most pressing issues facing many hard-working households and businesses today is the cost of living, particularly the cost of energy. Unsurprisingly, many noble Lords—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Howell—asked how the Bill will address this issue. The Government are acting now to protect households from the full impact of rising prices with a package of financial support worth £37 billion.

However, the cost of living crisis is not just about providing support today. It is also about ensuring that we have an energy system that is affordable for many years to come. This Bill will create a more cost-efficient energy system by increasing innovation and competition, for example by introducing competition in onshore electricity networks and attracting investment in a strong, low-carbon energy sector. The Bill will also help to reduce our exposure to volatile gas prices.

My noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Howell and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, touched on the important issue of energy security. It is an absolute priority for this Government. Thankfully, Britain benefits from highly diverse and flexible sources of gas supply and a diverse electricity energy mix, which ensures that households, businesses and heavy industry can get the energy they need. I am happy to confirm that the UK is in no way dependent on Russian gas. We have highly diverse sources of gas supply, providing us with one of the largest liquified natural gas import infrastructures in Europe, for which, I am happy to say, the EU is particularly grateful at the moment, as we support it. Natural gas has an important ongoing role to play in future as the UK decarbonises its energy system. However, how natural gas is used will need to change to eliminate the CO₂ associated with burning it.

In response to my noble friend Lord Moylan, affordability is of course absolutely key to delivering on our energy strategy. The value for money of the measures that we introduce is completely critical.

As many noble Lords have noted, this is a wide-ranging Bill. I welcome the many questions that were asked in the debate about the wider energy sector; most of them do not necessarily relate to the Bill but I will nevertheless attempt to address them anyway.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Whitty, raised the knotty subject of energy efficiency, which we have debated long and hard in this House. Let me say at the start that huge progress is already being made on the energy efficiency of UK homes. We are investing more than £.6.6 billion over this Parliament to improve energy efficiency. However, cost of living pressures mean that now is not the right time to bring in additional requirements for home owners regarding further regulations on minimum energy efficiency standards. However, we will bring forward measures at a more appropriate time.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked if the Government will introduce windfall taxes back into the oil and gas industry. The energy profits levy will raise around £5 billion in its first 12 months, which will go towards supporting people with the new cost of living measures announced by the previous Chancellor.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about the programme of policy statements and secondary legislation. To implement the commitments in this Bill we will of course publish policy statements for the Lords Committee stage, helping your Lordships to understand the intention of the regulation-making powers in the Bill and the next steps which will follow that.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked about onshore wind. On consultation, we are going to introduce a clear route which enables local communities and authorities to work together to signal their support for onshore wind and for onshore wind developers to respond quickly to this. On planning guidance, while we will not introduce wholesale changes to current planning regulations for onshore wind in England, we have committed to developing local partnerships for a limited number of supportive communities which wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure in return for appropriate benefits, including, for example, lower energy bills.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh all spoke about community energy. Through the introduction of UK-wide growth funding schemes, the Government are enabling local areas to tackle net-zero goals in ways that best suit their particular community needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked if there would be enough electric vehicle charging points. We are committed to ensuring that an inclusively designed EV charging network is available that works for all consumers.

My noble friend Lord Moylan asked what will take up the slack when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, which is an important question. The Government’s long-term ambition is to increase our plans for the deployment of civil nuclear power up to 24 gigawatts by 2050, which would be around 25% of our projected 2050 electricity demand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the use of waste for energy. I can inform both that the forthcoming biomass strategy will consider evidence on the likely support for and sustainability of biomass feedstocks and the best use of biomass across the economy to help us achieve net zero.

I turn to some of the points made about measures in the Bill, starting with pillar 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned the cost and viability of heat pumps—a matter dear to my own heart. With the low-carbon heat scheme and other policies, we are confident that the instalment cost of heat pumps will come down significantly over the coming years as the market scales up, making heat pumps an increasingly attractive and affordable option for more and more UK households.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also questioned whether hydrogen was the appropriate technology for heating homes. Indeed, that is a very good question to pose. It has the potential to make a contribution to fully decarbonising heat by offering consumers a future heating option that works in a very similar way to natural gas, but without the carbon emissions. However, it is important to point out that hydrogen for heat is not yet an established technology. Much further work is required to assess the feasibility, costs and potential benefits. As part of that, a neighbourhood trial will start next year, with a hydrogen village expected to go live in 2025. This is all part of the plan to work out the feasibility of the wide scale use of hydrogen for home heating.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, all questioned whether CCS was an appropriate technology for the UK. The Climate Change Committee has described carbon capture usage and storage—CCUS—as

“a necessity, not an option”

for the transition to net zero, which will enable the UK to deliver upon its global climate commitments. Contrary to what some noble Lords said, CCUS is a proven technology with CCUS projects operating safely globally, in countries such as Norway, the US and Canada. CO₂ storage is a mature and safe technology.

The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Whitty, spoke of the need to accelerate CCUS delivery and have a clear deployment plan. I agree with them; we remain committed to industrial decarbonisation across all nations and regions of the UK. As we work towards net zero, we are clear that CCUS will continue to play a key role in the process. In April 2022, the British Energy Security Strategy restated our commitment to support the deployment of four CCUS clusters by 2030. Following on from a process to select the first CCUS track 1 clusters to be deployed by the mid-2020s, we intend to bring forth further details on the outcome of phase 2 emitter projects in due course.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the hydrogen levy. The detailed design of the levy is ongoing, including decisions on where it will be placed in the energy value chain. The levy design will reflect wider government priorities and policies to ensure that consumer energy bills are, of course, affordable and that the costs are distributed fairly. We anticipate some public engagement on options for the detailed levy design in early 2023.

I move on to some points that were raised on pillar 2 of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for their positive stance on the independent system operator. We are also seeing that across the energy sector. I was asked about the timeline for implementation. BEIS and Ofgem are currently working with National Grid and the electricity system operator on the next steps. Depending on several factors, including the passage of legislation and continued discussion with key parties, the ISOP could be established by or in 2024.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about the interaction with Ofgem and National Grid. The Bill actually provides a power to set out a strategy and policy statement for the ISOP; that is where the Secretary of State will set out their direction for Ofgem and ISOP. The Bill also provides for Ofgem to license and regulate the ISOP, overseeing its activities in its capacity as the independent regulator.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the important point about why heat network customers do not get protection equal to that of gas and electricity consumers. That is because heat networks typically buy their energy through commercial contracts, which are not covered by the existing default tariff price cap. However, I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend that the legislation provides the BEIS Secretary of State with powers to introduce a price cap, should it be necessary to protect consumers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked whether the Bill provides the overhaul needed for the heat networks sector. I very much believe that it does. To address her points on poor design and maintenance, about which I agree, the Bill will include minimum technical standards. It will also introduce powers to regulate decarbonisation; as mentioned, it will also enable powers to set price caps.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked whether zoning, which will of course be run by local authorities as the most appropriate bodies, can be extended beyond heat networks. Our strategic approach in the Heat and Buildings Strategy follows, in our view, the grain of the market. Our policy levers are aligned to certain points of action; for example, when people are replacing their heating systems. Extending zoning to other technologies in our view risks removing choice for households and businesses when consumer choice over heating technology will be best for the transition.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about the effectiveness of the price cap. That is a valid question. The price cap remains, of course, a temporary measure until competition in the market improves. BEIS is currently considering what reforms are needed for energy retail market regulation to ensure that the market is resilient and sustainable and continues to protect consumers.

On the points raised that come under pillar 3 of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked for more detail on the nuclear decommissioning measures. The proposals do not result in any relaxation in the standards for public protection. Former nuclear sites will continue to be regulated by the relevant environmental agency and the Health and Safety Executive, rather than the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which will regulate health and safety at work activities. She also questioned the reach of the Bill’s core fuel resilience powers. These measures, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, are intended to be used in a light-touch way to complement the additional voluntary approach. The Government will use these powers in a proportionate way, including providing for certain rights of appeal and consultation requirements.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a question in relation to the disposal of nuclear waste. The Bill makes provision in relation to geological disposal facilities which will encapsulate and isolate radioactive waste at great depths. Nuclear Waste Services, the developer of the geological disposal facility, is confident it can meet the additional requirements from new nuclear as set out in the British Energy Security Strategy.

Moving to the point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, in their double act, about dumping radioactive waste in the sea, of course, disposal of radioactive waste in the sea is banned by international conventions and let me be absolutely clear that no part of a geological disposal facility will be in the sea. The waste will be isolated deep underground, within multiple barriers, to ensure that no harmful quantities of radioactivity reach anywhere near the surface environment.

My noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, both asked about small modular reactors. Through the nuclear fund, we are providing funding to support research and development for a small modular reactor design and we are progressing plans to build an advanced modular reactor demonstration by the early 2030s at the latest.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked whether the Government could make sure that nuclear power is eligible for the renewable transport fuel obligation, including hydrogen produced from nuclear power. I know this is something we have had exchanges on in the past. We believe this would be complex and would require firmer, further evidence for industry to understand how exactly it might be compatible with wider RTFO eligibility criteria.

I welcome my noble friend Lord Moylan’s support for the promotion of nuclear fusion, and I also welcome the support from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for the continuation of North Sea oil and gas production. Perhaps he would like to have a word with his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, about this important point, although I welcome her confirmation that she is now apparently in favour of gas as a continuity fuel. My point, which I keep making to the noble Baroness, is that since we produce only about 40% of our own gas in the North Sea and we still import considerable quantities of LNG to be used as a transition fuel, it makes eminent good sense, in my view, to obtain those reserves from our own resources in the North Sea, which of course is of much lower carbon intensity than LNG. I am sure we will continue to have these debates going forward.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Will the Minister address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as well as by me, that the gas we produce in the North Sea no longer belongs to us? It is a global commodity and has to be traded as a global commodity.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is produced by private sector companies under regulation, and there are interconnectors connecting us to the continent. I am sure that the noble Baroness would want us to support the EU in its time of need at the moment. With our energy terminals, those interconnectors play a crucial role in helping our EU friends with their current difficulties. It is of course a global commodity and the price is set globally. However, if the noble Baroness’s question is about carbon intensity, the carbon intensity of domestically produced resources is much lower than imported LNG. As I have pointed out a number of times before, I fail to see why it is, in her view, more sensible to import gas through LNG rather than getting it from our own North Sea resources. I am sure we will have that debate many times again in future.

Finally, I will deal with the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, regarding smart meters. I can tell the noble Lord that we have now installed 27 million smart meters in the UK, and the vast majority of SMETS1 meters have now been upgraded with software upgrades to SMETS2 standards, so that they operate exactly the same as SMETS2 meters and provide full smart meter functionality. Only this morning, I met the DCC to review the progress on that upgrade and was told that the number of meters still to be migrated is tiny—a few tens of thousands of early meters that the DCC will continue to attempt to migrate; if that does not work, they eventually may be upgraded to full SMETS2 meters.

I have addressed most of the points raised by noble Lords. I am sure that noble Lords will say if I have not covered all their points, but we will debate these matters further in Committee. Many of the points made were things that noble Peers would like to see happen separately and outside the provisions in the Bill. However, I think that most of the measures received a wide degree of support in your Lordships’ House. I look forward to continuing this constructive engagement and detailed scrutiny as the Bill progresses through Committee.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

On Amendment 121, the Minister knows as well as I do that extensive work is being done on a 20% hydrogen/natural gas trial to provide central heating, et cetera, in homes. If that is the situation, either this amendment should be accepted or perhaps the Minister could explain how it will be possible for that work to continue.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I rise in support of Amendments 117, 118 and 122. If we are to move towards cleaning up heat, we really need to get on with it and put sensible deadlines in place rather than leaving it open-ended, as it currently stands in the Bill.

Amendment 118 tightens up what needs to happen by when and makes some very sensible suggestions on timeframes for

“the banning of the installation of unabated gas boilers in new properties from March 2025 … the banning of the sale and installation of unabated gas boilers in all properties after March 2035.”

We need to get on with this. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Likewise, Amendment 122 would introduce a deadline

“to include the number of heat pumps in the latest figures on recommendations from the CCC.”

On Amendment 121, like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I add my note of caution about reliance on hydrogen. It is an unproven technology. There are ample studies and research that point to there being substantial barriers before it can be delivered at a low enough cost. Not least, there are technical difficulties: we know that the existing pipelines will not be suitable. So it will not be a straightforward case of replacing a natural gas boiler with a hydrogen or blend boiler. There are far greater changes that need to be made to the whole infrastructure before deployment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with my Amendments 123 and 124. Amendment 123 seeks to provide additional clarity to Clause 100. Clause 100(1) provides examples of how targets for a low-carbon heat scheme may be set. The amendment’s addition of proposed new subsection (2A) clarifies that an average appliance efficiency or emissions intensity target could apply to all of a given manufacturer’s heating appliances sold in the UK, whether or not they were sold or installed by the manufacturer itself. This had been explicit in one of the examples in the list in subsection (1) but not in others. The Government believe that it is prudent to make this explicit and it provides additional clarity.

The Government have tabled Amendment 124 purely to correct a minor drafting error in Clause 100(4), replacing “activity” with “appliance” so that the subsection has its intended meaning.

Moving on to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, I will start with Amendment 117 from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. The Government have always been clear that they intend to introduce the low-carbon heat scheme provided for by this chapter in very short order; namely, from 2024. However, it is the Government’s view that it would not be appropriate to incorporate a timeline into the Bill. If the noble Baroness will take my word for it, we intend to get on with this fairly quickly. It is important that the legislation retains the opportunity, if necessary, to respond to any unforeseen changes in market conditions, et cetera, and to ensure that the necessary administrative and enforcement systems are established. We are indeed looking at the appropriate enforcement mechanism at the moment.

I turn to Amendment 118, the first of four in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her contribution. This amendment would require there to be a link between the introduction of a low-carbon heat scheme and a ban on the installation of gas boilers in new-build and existing properties respectively.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Government will introduce a future homes standard in 2025, which will effectively require that new properties are equipped with low-carbon heating and high energy efficiency, avoiding the need for future retrofitting. New properties would be taken care of in that respect. It would be premature to decide exactly what policy approaches will be best suited to implement the phase-out of natural gas boilers in existing properties.

I do not believe that it is helpful to create a dependency between the ability to launch a scheme on the one hand and a particular, separate measure such as an appliance ban, as the amendment proposes, on the other. That would risk delaying the introduction of such a scheme altogether.

On Amendment 119, the Government have been clear that a range of low-carbon technologies are likely to play a role in decarbonising heating. District heat networks have an important role to play in all future heating scenarios, as do electric heat pumps. Work is ongoing with industry, regulators and others to assess the feasibility, costs and benefits of converting gas networks to supply 100% hydrogen for heating. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, it is indeed a considerable challenge, but we need to do the studies to work out whether it is feasible. Of course, other technologies may also play a supporting role.

To establish whether or not it is a feasible technology, the Government have an extensive programme of work already under way to develop the strategic and policy options for all these technologies and for different building segments. Another plan, seeking restrictively to prescribe the right solution for all properties now and out to 2050, is not particularly necessary or helpful.

I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for his contribution on Amendment 121. This amendment would expand the potential set of low-carbon heating appliances that could be supported by a scheme established under the power in this chapter. However, I emphasise that the set of potential relevant low-carbon heating appliances established in this clause is solely for the purposes of a scheme under this power. It does not in any way serve as a comprehensive statement of all potential low-carbon heating appliances, and it has no wider bearing on what could be considered low-carbon heating appliances in any other policies, schemes or legislation.

The Government recognise that low-carbon hydrogen could be one of a few key options for decarbonising heat in buildings. To that end, the Government are working to enable strategic decisions in 2026 on the role of hydrogen in heat decarbonisation; I note the scepticism of a number of noble Members about this. The Government will bring forward the necessary policies and schemes to support the deployment of hydrogen heating, depending on the outcome of these decisions. We will also shortly consult on the option of requiring that all domestic gas boilers are hydrogen-ready from 2026. Since the scheme provided for by this measure would not be suitable or necessary to support the rollout of hydrogen-using or hydrogen-ready heating appliances, it would not be helpful to expand the scope of the power in this way.

Finally, Amendment 122 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, would require that three specific targets be incorporated into regulations for a low-carbon heat scheme. Again, the Government believe that targets are best set and adjusted in the scheme regulations, based on an assessment of the market conditions at the time, rather than in the enabling legislation in advance.

I turn to the specific targets that the noble Lord proposed. I have said a number of times that the Government’s ambition is to develop the market towards 600,000 heat pump installations per year in 2028. That is what we assess to be a scale necessary for and compatible with all strategic scenarios for decarbonising heating by 2050. Although the Government have clear plans to support industry to build a thriving manufacturing sector for heat pumps in the UK, we do not believe that a production quota is an appropriate way to achieve this.

In the light of what I have been able to say, particularly on the consultation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will agree to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to speak a second time—I am not sure whether I am allowed—but may I speak to Amendments 130A and 130B? In my excitement I forgot to speak to them. Those amendments in my name seek to address the carbon removals questions in the Bill.

Amendment 130A is to try to interrogate the Government’s amendments to the definitions of carbon removals, as stated in the Climate Change Act. My amendment would reinstate reference to forestry and other physical activities in the UK. I think this amendment is necessary because we do not want to see definitions used in the Climate Change Act, which are foundational to our understanding of what we need to do to tackle climate change domestically, to somehow allow vague processes such as the purchasing of offsets or some other financial instrument to be eligible for the net-zero accounting. I seek reassurances on that. I also seek reassurances that we acknowledge that forestry and land use need to be referenced alongside mechanical sinks to keep the system holistic and inclusive. So I am probing on those two questions: forestry and land use, and making sure we are talking about physical activity and not financial chicanery or accounting trickery.

I feel quite passionate about Amendment 130B. I am sure the UK will emerge as a world leader in this regard. If we are to become the centre of a market or set of policies that are economy-wide in decarbonising our system, we will have to get to grips with the MRV—the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon removals—to get to a net-zero position. It is hugely important. When you burn a tonne of fossil fuel the impacts are certain and very low in error bars, but when it comes to the biospheric removal of carbon in particular, there are huge uncertainties and an absolute paucity of data. It really has not been looked at comprehensively enough, especially now that large sums of money may be resting on this approach to reaching net zero.

I urge the Minister and the department to really assess what the UK could do to set some gold-standard regulations regarding carbon removals. Let us start the debate with this Bill, pursue it and continue with it. Given that we are at the forefront of reaching these challenging carbon budgets that we have set ourselves, I have no doubt that carbon removals will have a role to play. But let us do it in a world-class way and not use it as a weasel-word excuse for allowing fossil fuels to continue, without the certainty that those removals are genuine, additional and permanent and can offset the almost permanent damage that we know occurs from the release of fossil fuels. It is hugely important that we do this. I tabled this as an opportunity to spark a debate, and I hope we will come back and consider it in more detail. The UK has a great potential role to play in this area.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, as a member of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, I took part in the report we produced on batteries. The genie is out of the bottle on domestic EVs. That is going to happen; I think we are well on the road to better and better battery technology.

When the committee examined transport, we heard that batteries are heavy—a battery to power a bus would be very heavy—so there is a role for hydrogen in public transport for return-to-base vehicles where hydrogen does not have to be moved too far. Where there is a limited number of filling stations, that is a model that could work. Shipping and heavy industry, such as cement, are other applications for hydrogen.

My noble friend Lady Randerson mentioned fuel cells. We found in our report that for some reason the Government are not backing research on fuel cells to the extent that they could. Fuel cells would be another potentially sensible source of power for heavy transport vehicles, so I support the basic thrust of my noble friend’s amendment.

Amendments 130A and 130B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, are really crucial. We are going to have to look at carbon removals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said earlier. We need to do it in a way that gives confidence against greenwashing, of which there is far too much. The only way to do that is if accounting for carbon is rigorous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

Can I briefly support that? The place to put it is under protection of consumers in the Bill. There is a clause entitled “Regulations for protection of consumers”, and the right not to take part in the trial would be one of those protections.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on this—but could I ask the Minister a separate point about how the trials will be carried out? The Minister said they were going to provide evidence. I want to ask how long the trials will last. One of the issues with hydrogen, if I understand it, is its impact on the pipes that carry the gas to the boilers, et cetera. Those pipes perish in time, because the hydrogen makes them brittle in a way that natural gas does not. Of course, that will lead to cracks and leakages. Will the trial take place over a long enough period to see whether that is indeed the case and what the jeopardy from those pipes might be?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me reiterate once again. Noble Lords are getting involved in the detail of what these trials will comprise—timescales, consumer protections, et cetera. This Bill is about giving the Secretary of State the powers to make the regulations, which will then come back this House, when I am sure that we will have a massively long and involved discussion about all these precise and important details—but this Bill is not the place.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, so much has already been said that there is little for me to add. I have put my name to Amendment 192.

The only thing I want to say is that the Government need to understand the strength of feeling across the Committee on the complete lack of emphasis in this Bill on something that is doable, that is within our grasp and that the Government have recognised needs to be done but have done nothing whatever to implement it. Noble Lords are trying to help the Government here by tabling what I think are very sensible amendments; I hope that the Government will take note of them.

We have had lots of briefings on this issue. There is huge depth of feeling in the communities of Britain on this. One of the NGOs that we received some briefings from, the UK Green Building Council—sorry, it is not an NGO; it is, however, a body that knows an awful lot about this matter—published a scorecard assessing the Government’s progress since they published their Heat and Buildings Strategy in October 2021. The council concluded that

“most of the Government’s proposals or plans fail to deliver progress towards—or even actively hinder—a net zero carbon built environment.”

In its Review of Energy Policy 2022, the UK Energy Research Centre is equally scathing.

I hope that the Government will take note of these telling criticisms and do something in the Bill to rectify that.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so far. We on the Labour Benches certainly welcome Amendment 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, and others, which would create a requirement to publish a national energy demand reduction strategy. It seems an obvious point to make.

We received some information from Energy UK. It says that, although we cannot deal with the current crisis in this Bill, it can ensure that long-term strategies are put in place to tackle the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock. This powerful point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. If we do not have targets to measure it against, we cannot really manage it; we just have—I do not quite know what—a sort of wish list, I suppose. We support the targets suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foster.

The Bill outlines its intention to create powers to remove the European energy performance of buildings directive, or EPBD, requirements in the UK. Those requirements are not perfect, but they have been in place in the supply chain, effectively delivering energy efficiency measures and low-carbon technologies. How will the Government safeguard against the potential for the UK to roll back on energy performance of buildings regulations when we remove the European energy performance of buildings regulations? We risk falling behind the rest of Europe, if we have not done so already, in this space.

We also need to see the detail regarding how the Government will safeguard against the potential for the UK to fall behind the rest of Europe. We need clarification on what measures the Government will take to ensure that all buildings are fit for the future, given the lack of measures in the Bill to reform planning and building regulations. The latter requirement could also be backed by the introduction of a net-zero test, as previously set out, but what measures will the Government take to ensure that all buildings are fit for the future, given the lack of measures in the Bill to reform planning and building regulations or set specific targets for delivery?

Finally, in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said about the 19 million homes requiring energy efficiency measures to be put in place pretty quickly, I recommend to the Government Labour’s warm homes plan, which will deliver fully costed upgrades to 19 million homes, cutting bills and creating thousands of good jobs for the future.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Sheehan]

222A: After Clause 227, insert the following new Clause—
“Transparency of decommissioning costs(1) The Secretary of State must publish, within 6 months of this Act coming into force and not less than every 3 years thereafter, a statement on decommissioning offshore installations that includes—(a) a list of decommissioning relief agreements in force and the qualifying companies which are parties to each agreement,(b) the estimated likely range of the total future amount of tax relief to be granted in respect of any decommissioning expenditure under existing decommissioning relief agreements under—(i) current oil, gas and decommissioning prices, and(ii) expected future oil, gas and decommissioning prices,in current prices and as a proportion of tax revenue paid by qualifying companies which are parties to those agreements;(c) an assessment of how the estimates under paragraph (b) would be affected by world oil and gas prices equal to the lowest cost of global oil and gas production.(2) In this section—“decommissioning relief agreement” and “qualifying company” have the meanings given in section 80 of the Finance Act 2013;“offshore installation” has the meaning given in section 44 of the Petroleum Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to bring greater transparency to the future taxpayer liability in respect of decommissioning relief agreements.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 222A and 227AA in my name. I put on record my support for Amendment 223 in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson; Amendment 227 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; Amendment 227A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds; and Amendment 232 in the names of my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to which I have added my name. I regret that I cannot offer support to the remaining amendments in this group, which I am sure will come as little surprise to those who tabled them.

I start with my Amendment 222A on decommissioning tax reliefs, and why I think it necessary. I hope that I can provide some useful background information, taken mostly from the National Audit Office report of January 2019 entitled Oil and Gas in the UK—Offshore Decommissioning. The report sets out the landscape of oil and gas decommissioning so that Parliament is in a position to consider whether the various government departments involved are protecting taxpayers’ interests effectively. The report states that:

“There are currently around 320 fixed installations, such as oil platforms, in production in the UK, primarily in the North Sea. … Oil and gas operators … are increasingly decommissioning their assets as they are reaching the end of their useful economic lives … Decommissioning affects the government’s finances because operators can recover some of their costs through tax reliefs. These enable operators to deduct decommissioning costs from their taxable profits and potentially claim back some taxes that they have previously paid.”


That is all well and good, and fairly normal practice. However, the report goes on to say:

“With decommissioning activity increasing, the government is paying out more in tax reliefs for decommissioning at the same time as tax revenues have fallen due to a combination of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure.”


That represents a triple whammy for UK taxpayers such that, as the report says:

“In 2016-17, the government paid out more to oil and gas operators in tax reliefs than it received from them … for the first time”.


While oil and gas expansion looks artificially secure, with very generous tax reliefs, it is nevertheless clear that government is, on behalf of taxpayers, taking on a liability that is ultimately unknown. The lower and upper estimates of decommissioning costs from the Oil and Gas Authority, now known as the North Sea Transition Authority, are £38 billion and £61 billion respectively, but even that is only a guestimate. With another round of new licences being issued—potentially up to another 100—the risk is enormously compounded. Furthermore, it used to be that a ceiling was kept on the overall cost to the taxpayer by the fact that a firm cannot claim back more in decommissioning tax relief than it has previously paid in tax. However, since 2017, when firms default, government has explicitly said that partner firms that pick up the Bill can claim back more in tax relief than they have ever paid.

This amendment is designed to put more information into the public domain about who the taxpayer is on the hook to; what the liability amounts to, as a proportion of tax received; and by how much this amount will increase in a low-demand world, which is the way in which we are headed.

The amendment asks for three things. First, in proposed new subsection (1)(a), it asks for

“a list of decommissioning relief agreements”

and who has signed them—because at the moment we have no idea. We know how many there are—approximately 100—but not who those agreements are with. As the taxpayer faces a liability from each of these agreements, at an average of £200 million per agreement, some public transparency is desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The name of the regulations that I am suggesting we review is the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations, so I fully acknowledge that this is a question of safety, but it is not necessarily the case that these regulations, passed in 1996, that we are still adhering to could not be looked at to see whether, precisely as I say in my amendment, they could be

“safely amended to allow more efficient use of extracted … gas.”

It may be that they cannot but, nearly 30 years on, it would be helpful if the Government could look more closely at this.

My principal point in raising these amendments relates to Amendment 224. A bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, earlier, I want to know whether the Government have a strategy for resilience. Do they contemplate the dependence on foreign supplies going on endlessly in very large measure, and what would they like to do about it? I think that an awful lot of people in this country were shocked to discover our level of dependency on imports and would like to hear that we are becoming more self-sufficient.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, may I address some of the noble Lord’s responses to my comments earlier? It is clear to me that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the science behind climate change. I believe that climate change is real, as is shown by the change we are experiencing. What evidence can the noble Lord point to that climate change is not real? There is substantial evidence of it, including the unprecedented levels of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as verified by ice core samples from the Antarctic and tree rings over millennia. The changes in carbon dioxide correlate precisely to the changes in climate that we have seen in historic times. That is the basis on which my amendments have been tabled, and they are clearly designed to meet the Government’s legal duties under the Climate Change Act and their need to reduce oil and gas consumption to meet net zero by 2050. The noble Lord’s amendment talks about a strategy for increasing domestic gas production. That cannot be compatible with meeting climate change targets—the Government have a legal duty to do that. Will the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, please accept that?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful for those points, which I will try to answer briefly since they were put to me directly.

First, I hope that nothing in what I said suggested, implied or stated that I do not accept that climate change is happening. I am also perfectly happy to accept that there is a man-made contribution to that. What I reject is the language of climate alarmism and climate crisis. The questions around the consequence, in practice, of climate change and the best means for dealing with it remain absolutely open. Over the last 20 years, we have seen wild, extravagant and unjustified claims about how large parts of the world are going to sink under water and we are all going to scorch; in fact, we see very little of that, but we see a few weather events being played up as if they are great catastrophes. Even if that were happening, the question that arises is what you do about it.

Many of us would rather put the emphasis on mitigation and adaptation rather than what we are doing at the moment, which is absolutely damaging our economy, in order that we should try to avoid those emissions. The cost of that damage to our economy has been estimated by the Climate Change Committee as at least 1% of GDP per annum—most people recognise, I think fairly, that it is closer to 4% or 5%. There are those who would say that that that cost is both necessary and justified, but it is none the less a damage to our economy, and not all of us accept that it is necessary and justified—we think that there are other methods of dealing with it.

I have not rejected climate change. I accept that net zero is a statutory target—I said nothing contrary to that. If I may repeat myself—this is my fault entirely; it is the problem with having an amateur such as myself drafting amendments—I apologised when I spoke for using the word “increase”, which I can change if we come back to this on Report. That was not quite what I meant; I meant increase relative to imports, such that I explained that my amendment would be applicable even if our consumption of gas was falling.

There is not that much in the substance of the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, made about my remarks. None the less, we have a profound disagreement—less about the science and more about what to do about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

If that the best argument against the thesis I put forward, I know I am on strong ground. The noble Baroness says that we might end up with cheap fuel and the oil companies losing money: well, I can cope with both those things.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Will the noble Lord at least agree that, when we are looking at supply and demand and prices going up and down, that will work only where we have a level playing field? Where you have a market that is skewed, with perverse incentives, such as tax reliefs in the example I gave on my first amendment, that really negates his argument: you cannot say supply is going to be one factor and then have it overridden by incentives to investment that reduce the risks for the people taking them.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I think that is a rather different set of arguments. My point is that we can approach net zero by reducing demand and let supply find its own level, with or without incentives. Incidentally, the idea that there are incentives to oil production, when the taxes at our pumps are a massive proportion of the price we pay and when oil in the North Sea pays double the corporation tax rate that other companies do in any other industry, is simple nonsense.

However, now I will turn, if I may, to my own Amendment 226, which would ensure that the conditions relating to vibrations from drilling for shale should not exceed those applied to other industries, for example under British Standard 5228. There is no reason that shale drilling should face different conditions as to the tremors it may cause from, say, quarrying, mining, construction or pile driving. In particular, there is no reason, other than environmentalist virtue signalling, why standards for shale as far as tremors are concerned should be stricter than drilling for geothermal or carbon capture and storage—other than that they get positive ticks from the green lobby whereas shale does not, even though we are going to continue using gas for many decades to come.

Indeed, recently, there was a 1.6 magnitude tremor in Cornwall as a result of drilling for geothermal. People could feel it. It did not do any damage, of course, and it is an order of magnitude higher than the maximum tremor that we allow without stopping production in shale. The level set by Sir Ed Davey when he was Secretary of State for Energy was a magnitude of 0.5 and the one in Cornwall was 1.6. Sir Ed Davey has since admitted that he was proud that, by setting this limit, he effectively stopped the fracking industry in this country. Of course, that was not what he said at the time.

At the time, he said that he was accepting the report that came out at the time. It was an excellent report, produced by the Royal Society for Science and the Royal Academy of Engineering, called Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: a Review of Hydraulic Fracturing. The opening paragraph states:

“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”


So it gave a pretty clear vote of support. It said that the

“magnitude of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be no greater than”

magnitude 3, which would be

“felt by few people and result in negligible, if any, surface impacts.”

So we are left with this absurdly low criterion, which is an order of magnitude more severe than that applied to any other industry.

It is not only an order of magnitude; it is entirely unreasonable. Natural earthquakes in this country can be several orders of magnitude greater than is permitted as a result of fracturing for shale gas, and these natural earthquakes occur with little damage. I can remember being woken up at midnight on 23 September 2002 in London. My whole house shook and the windows rattled and I was woken. It was the only time—no, I will not say anything about that. The earthquake was actually centred in Dudley in the Midlands and was a force 4.7 and had that effect in London. There were no reports of damage anywhere in the United Kingdom as result of it—and that was 500 times greater than the highest seismicity induced so far by fracking in the UK, let alone the low 0.5 standard set. Over the last 50 years, according to the British Geological Survey, there have been 25 natural earthquakes of greater than or equal to magnitude 4 and in the last 60 days we have had 29 minor earthquakes in the United Kingdom about which no one has complained at all.

The University of Liverpool produced a study using seismicity measurements which showed the impact of a whole range of household events. I have a copy of it here. It showed that, for example, a door slamming uses more vibration at its surface than the maximum magnitude permitted from fracking in the United Kingdom. So does sitting down suddenly on an office chair, or a building site piledriver 15 metres away. They are all similar orders of magnitude—they are 0.6—but you can find things which are an order of magnitude higher, and we should remember that this is a logarithmic scale. Dropping a large bag of shopping has a magnitude of 1.5 and a toddler playing on a wooden floor, I am astonished to learn, can produce seismicity of 2.1. So we are talking about having such a degree of security against any seismic shock resulting from fracking as to be completely ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for avoiding the question.

I thank everyone who has contributed today; it has been a fascinating debate. In the context of the Energy Bill, I think it is the first we have had on the fundamentals of our energy policy, with both sides: those who, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seem to want to ban everything, and those who take a more pragmatic view of the issues. I will attempt to set a centre course of a sensible, pragmatic energy policy, which is the one we will follow.

I will address the various amendments, starting with Amendments 224 and 227, tabled by that fascinating pairing: on the one hand my noble friend Lord Moylan and on the other the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will also address the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.

I begin by stating our fundamental policy of driving down demand for fossil fuels as we transition to our legally binding net-zero economy. Of course, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 227 would have significant ramifications. At a time of global energy crisis, an orderly transition underpinned by oil and gas is the best approach and it is crucial to maintaining our energy security of supply.

Outside the rarefied world that the noble Baroness lives in, Greens in other parts of the world are having to live up to these difficult choices in the real world, in real policy. At the moment, the German Greens are quite hilariously justifying the expansion of a massive new coal mine—producing lignite coal, one of the dirtiest forms of coal—in northern Germany, because of the energy crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might think it is funny for us all to sit in the cold and dark, relying on unstable sources of power, but the rest of us think that we need to supply this country with the energy it needs. We need to set the country on a net-zero transition, but we need to do it gradually and responsibly. We set this out in the British Energy Security Strategy, where we set out our long-term plan for greater energy security, including references to domestic gas supply. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor built on that and set out that the Business and Energy Secretary will publish further details on our energy independence plans in due course, and we will do so.

The North Sea Transition Authority launched the 33rd licensing round on 7 October 2022. This is expected to deliver over 100 new licences, which will put more UK gas on the grid. I repeat: it will not put more gas on the grid—it will put more UK gas on the grid. I have had this debate many times in the Chamber with the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I still fail to see how she does not think that this is a good idea. In our transition, as we are reducing our demand, it makes sense to have that gas from relatively low carbon-producing sources rather than importing highly polluting, high-carbon fracked gas from other parts of the world.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

So the gas produced from the licences that will be issued in the 33rd round will not be traded on the commodities market—is that what the Minister is saying?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The decision was taken by a different department, by DLUHC, in a quasi-judicial manner. It is likely to be the subject of judicial proceedings, so I cannot comment in detail on that decision, as the noble Lord will understand. I am sure we will be having this debate lots of times in future.

I move on to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. The reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision are set out in full in his published letter on GOV.UK, which takes into account matters like the demand for coal, climate change and the impact on the local economy. To reiterate the point of my noble friend, coking coal is used in the production of steel—it is not used in power generation—which is, of course, crucial to building the infrastructure that we all wish to see more of, such as offshore wind turbines.

On fracking, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her contribution. The Government have been clear that in line with the commitment made in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, it is adopting a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consents for the extraction of shale gas. That position is, in effect, a moratorium. This will be maintained until compelling new evidence is provided that addresses the concerns around prediction and management of induced seismicity.

I move on to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment. I welcome his thoughtful contributions to today’s debate, as well of those of my noble friend Lady Altmann. British Standard 5228, which my noble friend quoted, recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction and open-site operations. It is not a measure designed to reduce the risk of induced seismicity. The potential for induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing is a result of the injection of fluid deep underground, at depths of one kilometre or more. Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing is therefore different in nature from vibration directly induced by a construction site, and the application of BS 5228 would therefore not be appropriate.

My noble friend Lord Moylan tabled an amendment about the composition of our domestic gas supply. A review of the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 is currently under way. The Health and Safety Executive has been reviewing these regulations, which govern gas quality, and is consulting on a set of proposed changes. The HSE’s consultation closed in March 2022, and it will be aiming to publish its response in due course. BEIS has worked closely with the HSE and has taken regular opportunities to input into the process in both an analytical and a policy capacity. A statement by the Secretary of State at this stage is therefore unnecessary as the publication of the Government’s formal response will be tantamount to just that. I hope my noble friend will understand that in advance of that document, I cannot comment as it would not be proper.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, tabled two amendments in this group. On Amendment 222A, I should say at the outset that tax matters are an area for the Treasury. Since the introduction of decommissioning relief deeds—DRDs—the Treasury issues a Written Ministerial Statement at the end of each financial year updating on DRDs, including the total number of DRDs in force during the past financial year, past payments under DRDs and the projected value of future payments under ongoing DRD claims. While a DRD claim may arise where a company has defaulted on its decommissioning obligations, the tax system also provides tax relief for decommissioning costs in recognition that decommissioning is a significantly expensive and statutory obligation. HMRC publishes information annually on the estimated sum of all forecast tax relief payments due to decommissioning as part of its annual report and accounts.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his comments on decommissioning. He is unwilling to move further on the amendment, but will he at least commit to writing with the current estimate of the Exchequer costs of decommissioning if prices were to fall to less than $5, in line with Clause 1(3)(c), and to explain how these risks are being managed? I think that would be within scope.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Decommissioning relief deeds are private contracts between the Treasury and the relevant company. That is a matter for the Treasury. I cannot give a commitment on behalf of the Treasury. I suspect that the best option would be for the noble Baroness to take it up with Treasury Ministers.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I hope the Minister will not mind me pressing on this issue. I am not asking for anything commercially secret but just for some assurance, which I think the PAC and the NAO have sought, that the Government have a handle on the liability and risks which they are potentially exposing taxpayers to in the future.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, the noble Baroness should take this matter up with the Treasury. I cannot give commitments on its behalf. I do not know the details. I have set out the position on DRDs. As far as I am aware, this is not tax or revenue legislation. I suggest that the noble Baroness take this up with a Treasury Minister.

I move on to Amendment 227AA on the prohibition of flaring. The Government are already taking steps to drive down routine flaring and the similar practice of venting. The UK has committed to the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative, and we are working with regulators towards eliminating this practice as soon as possible. Through the North Sea transition deal, industry has committed to accelerating compliance with the World Bank initiative ahead of 2030. We are making good progress: in 2021, total flared gas and vented gas reduced by 20% and 22% respectively, relative to 2020. Furthermore, the North Sea Transition Authority, as the lead regulator on these matters, expects all new developments to be planned and developed on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.

With the explanations on these various points, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister, but I have to say that I am not hugely satisfied with the responses on decommissioning tax reliefs. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about stranded assets and who will pick up the risk. In a scenario where, say, Shell decides that a particular field has become uneconomic for it to exploit commercially and decides to sell on that asset, which is then picked up by another entity which, in turn, goes bust, who will pick up the cost of that decommissioning? I hope that the Minister will be able to quickly address that.

In terms of flaring, I am really disappointed. It is such a no-brainer. Since 1991, Norway has been able to ban flaring—and, within that, I would include venting—yet our Government cannot give that commitment, when we have made commitments at COP 26 and COP 27 under the Global Methane Pledge, and we continue to do this. It really is on a par with asking countries to ban coal and then giving permission for our own coal mine in Cumbria to go ahead. It is just incomprehensible, and I hope that the Minister can quickly address that before I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Sheehan]

227AA: After Clause 229, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on flaring(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the practice of flaring by oil and gas installations within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.(2) In this section “flaring” means the burning of gas, produced during oil extraction, in order to dispose of it.(3) Regulations under this section must be made so as to bring the prohibition into force by 31 December 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prohibit ‘flaring’ which is the burning of gas, produced during oil extraction, to dispose of it. This is in line with recommendations made by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee and would help ensure the UK fulfils commitments it made at COP26 and COP27 under the Global Methane Pledge.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Despite the Minister’s lack of response to my comments, I will not move the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 227AA not moved.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 33, which is around the decommissioning costs of carbon capture and storage installations. First, I will read what is in Clause 85(1) about financing costs:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for requiring relevant persons to provide security for the performance of obligations relating to the future abandonment or decommissioning of carbon dioxide-related sites, pipelines or installations.”


It is not often that one is shocked in Grand Committee in the Moses Room. Normally it is a feeling of impotence when you are going through SIs, rather than some sort of greater emotion, but I was shocked when we discussed this. I asked the Minister how we protect the funds that are for decommissioning at some point way into the future. How are we sure that they are not like the dodgy builder who takes your deposit and then, when you ask him or her to decorate your house, the phone is no longer answered and the money has disappeared? How do we know, in this rather difficult area of energy, that those “relevant persons”, and more importantly their banks accounts, will still be there so that in some distant future, maybe decades ahead, this money is available?

If I am honest, when I had the answer from the Minister—which I cannot quote as I have not looked it up—I was shocked that there did not seem to be any provision for protection of the rather large sums that I expect to be there. That is why I have introduced this amendment. It is very simple and demands that when these payments are made they are effectively put into an escrow account, or at least a ring-fenced fund of some sort, so that they are there when these facilities need to be decommissioned. It is then up to the Secretary of State to agree when that money can be disbursed so that decommissioning can take place or disbursed because the funds are no longer needed.

It is as simple as that. It is about protecting that money that we as taxpayers and citizens of the UK are owed when that decommissioning happens and making sure that the money really is paid rather than having disappeared at the time. I see no guarantee within the three pages of other details about how these funds should work. I hope the Minister can come back to me and reassure me that, if he is not going to accept this amendment, the Government will ensure that this money is ring-fenced and is there for us and future generations when we reach that decommissioning point.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as a director of Peers for the Planet.

I shall speak to only one amendment in this group, Amendment 33, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, to which I have added my name. It aims to ensure that decommissioning funds, as the noble Lord has explained, are available for decommissioning when the time comes. I support it not least because it complements Amendment 222A, which I tabled in Committee, on transparency of decommissioning, particularly with respect to future taxpayer liability for decommissioning relief deeds, which are agreements between the individual oil and gas companies and the Treasury. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both expressed concern about this public liability. I quote from the 2019 NAO report on decommissioning:

“With decommissioning activity increasing, the government is paying out more in tax reliefs for decommissioning at the same time as tax revenues have fallen due to a combination of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure.”


That represents a triple whammy for UK taxpayers since, as the report says, for the first time ever, in 2016-17,

“the government paid out more to oil and gas operators in tax reliefs than it received from them.”

The scenario under which that public subsidy of oil and gas production took place in 2016-17—that is, the triple whammy of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure—is the future outlook for the gas and oil sector as the world moves ever more rapidly towards decarbonisation. The USA’s inflation reduction Acts and the imminent EU response via the green deal industrial plan will turbocharge that transition, and rapid transformative change is very visible on the horizon.

While oil and gas expansion currently looks secure, it is only artificially so, given the very generous tax reliefs, subsidies and other support that the Government continue to provide, not least via decommissioning relief deeds. With over 100 new licences for exploration and production on offer, the risk of stranded assets is compounded hugely. Why do the Government persist in giving preferential treatment to fossil fuel producers? That is a question that I have put to the Minister before on several occasions, and I hope that this time there might be an answer.

It used to be that a ceiling of sorts was kept on the overall cost to the taxpayer by the fact that a firm could not claim back more in decommissioning tax relief than it had previously paid in tax. That makes sense but, since 2017, the Government have explicitly said that when firms default the partner firms that pick up the bill can claim back more in tax relief than they have ever paid. That certainly needs some digesting.

It cannot be right to put on life support an industry that has had its day—life support that is publicly funded. The amendment asks the Government to take precautions with the public purse, uphold the “polluter pays” principle and ensure that operators of new fields and buyers of existing ones accept that they cannot escape their responsibility to our planet, the one and only planet that we have.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for the well-informed and detailed explanation of why the amendments in her name and that of my noble friend Lord Foulkes are so important and relevant. What we heard was the crossover between the considerations within these amendments and the discussions that we had on the previous group regarding the work that we believe needs to be done to strengthen the hand of Ofgem, particularly to justify and evidence decisions, as we heard, enabling strategic anticipatory investment.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise for the long update but, reflecting on these points, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I will ask him to clarify a couple of things. First, I welcome his statements on decommissioning, but can he confirm whether the safeguarding of decommissioning funds will include all fields, both existing and new? Secondly, can he confirm that it is the FCA that will provide the regulatory oversight for decommissioning funds?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It would depend on what the noble Baroness means by “decommissioning funds”. What would the decommissioning funds be for? In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I outlined our intention to ring-fence the CCUS decommissioning funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 40 relates to the carbon take-back obligation. We had an excellent debate towards the end of Committee about the question of what government policy is on the supply side of the equation of tackling climate change and environmental impact. On one hand, we had a group of Peers who were talking about the need to increase our extraction of fossil fuels and to move into fracking and other types of exotic extraction. On the other hand, we had an amendment which said, “Absolutely no more—turn off the licensing completely”.

It struck me that there needs to be a path through those two positions. We need to start making this industry responsible for the impact of its product. When we look back, we will wonder how we allowed ourselves to carry on extracting fossil fuels in an unlimited way and putting them into the market without the Government having a policy on that aspect of the problem.

This amendment is designed to introduce a policy that would make the extractors of fossil fuels—the oil, gas and coal producers—responsible for the greenhouse gas impact of their product. A requirement to bury back the greenhouse gases arising from those products would be phased in over time. If the industry cannot find sufficient carbon capture and storage opportunities to permanently store those greenhouse gases, it should be paying a buyout price of £200 per tonne of CO₂, representing what is expected to be the social impact price of carrying on this unlimited extraction.

Should the UK be seeking to do this in what is essentially a global market? The international dimensions are at the core of why we need to do it. At the moment, as individual countries and companies, we all tell ourselves that it is important to extract every last gram, ounce or therm of gas, oil and coal out of our economy because others are going to have not to use theirs. Everyone is incentivised to think that they will be the one burning the last therm and the last tonne. Continuing with that approach is a collective international suicide pact. If every country carries on extracting to the very last atom of carbon left in our oil and gas fields, we will go well beyond 1.5 or 2 degrees. In doing so, we will remain hooked on this commodity. It will remain cheap, affordable and available. We will not make the break from fossil fuels that we know we need to in order to address not just climate change but the security, resilience and efficiency of our energy systems.

It is important that we start the debate about government policy on the continued extraction of fossil fuels in this way. At the moment there is no policy. That is why it falls to the planning inspectors to decide whether we should have a new coal mine and to other regulators to keep exploiting the economic value of the North Sea for oil and gas without reference to its future unsustainability. It is not sustainable now. We need to signal a move and acknowledge that this industry needs to adapt. If it wants to pursue carbon capture and storage, let us oblige it to do so.

I am perfectly happy with the Government supporting the first carbon capture and storage projects to get them started and for cost discovery, but there should not be a continued subsidy of that solution. We should oblige the industry to do it. In making it responsible for the impact of its products, it will discover whether it is cost effective, whether it can be done cheaply and whether carbon capture and storage is real. Let us allow industry to discover that. If we give it the obligation, everyone will move forward together on an equal playing field. We could take the responsibility away from the taxpayer and the bill payer and give it to the industry. Quite frankly, at the moment it has more than enough resources and profits to be able to invest in that and to find the least-cost solutions.

Admittedly, Amendment 40 is a big thing to introduce on Report. I am simply seeking to start a debate about this. I hope that I receive some support and that it will be considered in the other place. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—I hope I can refer to her as my noble friend. I have done so in solidarity with her and in acknowledgement of her dexterity and expertise in handling the excesses of the oil and gas sector, rather than from a steadfast conviction that the carbon take-back scheme is the deterrent needed to curtail the enthusiasm of the financial markets in their continuing and increasing support for the sector.

I want to find out more about the scheme and to raise some questions posed by it. I get that this novel scheme is cleverly devised, accounting for not just the carbon neutrality of the production of fossil fuels but their deployment, subsequent combustion and release into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. I support that, but I also have concerns.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the intention of my amendment is quite stark and seeks to take out those provisions which allow the so-called hydrogen village experiments to take place. Why? Primarily to save British taxpayers a huge amount of money on something which is clearly, as one would colloquially say, a white elephant. Even if we had the trials—which I suspect might not happen anyway for various reasons—the lessons from those would show us that this should not be rolled out.

In order to have clean hydrogen, it has to be produced by electrolysis. There are other ways of producing hydrogen, as we know, and there are all the different colours, but at the end of the day we have to use electrolysis in the long term to produce hydrogen that is seen as a renewable fuel. The cost of that hydrogen is estimated by scientists to be something like five times the cost of the electricity used to generate an equivalent amount of heat through an efficient heat pump—it is five times more expensive. Even if we talk about economies of scale, there is no way that that cost is going to come down; in fact, it would come down only in relation to the cost of renewable electricity itself, which is its source of energy.

I suggest that we scrap this plan because clearly science says that this is not the way to use hydrogen for heating. I am a great fan of hydrogen, as I am sure most people in this House are, and it needs to be used for certain applications for which it is very difficult to use other renewable resources. We know what those are: they include a number of industrial processes and heavy transport, and it may be used for trains in certain areas and for heavy goods vehicles for some while. It is important that we use hydrogen for those purposes. It can never ever be used as a grid gas as methane is at the present.

Let me give an example of what perhaps is an even better way of achieving what we are doing. Down in my own neck of the woods, in Cornwall, we have a scheme financed by the fag end of ERDF funding. A village called Stithians has put in ground source heat pumps as a street utility, much as you would with a gas grid. I suspect that this is far more economical, and it is also liked by the residents. There have been demands for other streets in the village to have the same application.

This is in contrast to the towns in these experimental areas. As I judge it—my postbag says this to some degree, although I hear it from others as well—there is a mounting resistance to these trials going ahead. There is no great trust in hydrogen as a domestic fuel because of its properties—its ability to escape and its high flammability. These amendments take out Clauses 111 and 112, so that we can stop these trials and use hydrogen far more effectively. The money saved can also be used more effectively for decarbonisation in other areas as well. There is consumer resistance.

Assuming that the Minister is not going to accept this amendment, I have tabled another amendment arising from conversations with people involved in these trials. Many people want to opt out of them, and I fully sympathise with that. In Committee, the Minister said that households could opt out. What would the compensation be in such a case? Will the Government ensure that households can keep gas or methane, as at present? Can they guarantee this? If not, will they provide other forms of heating appliances, either electrical or an alternative form of heat and energy? Can they guarantee that there will not be forced entry into homes to make sure that the conversion takes place? I will be interested to hear from the Minister the alternatives to participating in the trial, as will people in the trial villages.

I cannot see that these trials will go ahead. There is considerable consumer resistance, and all the science genuinely says that this cannot work on a larger scale. Even if the trials do go ahead, there is no way that hydrogen is going to replace methane in the national grid or in large local heating systems. This can be done in far better ways, and the Bill allows for that. Let us call a halt to this now, save money, ease local concern and concentrate hydrogen in the areas where it can contribute and is important for our transition to a net-zero economy. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I realise that I am a little late arriving for this debate. Having been here from the start of this afternoon’s proceedings, I hope that the House will allow me to make my contribution.

I will speak to Amendments 53, 54 and 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson. I support Amendment 56 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. I will not bore your Lordships’ House with the details of why my name appears on Amendment 56 in the Marshalled List with a line through it. Suffice it to say, I support the measures in it.

However, I support even more strongly Amendments 53, 54 and 57, which aim to get rid of the hydrogen trials altogether. Although hydrogen has a role in decarbonising our future in many sensible ways, domestic heating is categorically not one of them. I would recommend anyone who is not convinced by that statement to look at the work of the Hydrogen Science Coalition, a group of independent academics, scientists and engineers who give their time voluntarily and have no public or private vested interests. Its briefing is very clear on how it arrives at its conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence against the use of hydrogen for heating homes in the UK and in favour of using heat pumps and district heating networks. Equally, it makes a well-argued case against the provisions of Clause 111 that compel consumers to take part in hydrogen heating trials, not least because the introduction of hydrogen into UK homes will significantly increase the risk of serious explosions and fires, as well as increasing exposure to NOx emissions, which pose a significant public health risk.

To back up its own analysis, it cites the overwhelming techno-economic evidence against the use of hydrogen for heating buildings compared with other sources. There have been 37 independent studies on the use of hydrogen for heating since 2019, by organisations such as the IPCC, the IEA, McKinsey, Imperial College London, the Potsdam Institute, the University of Manchester, the Wuppertal Institute, Element Energy, the International Council on Clean Transportation, the Energy Transitions Commission, et cetera. Every one of these studies has ruled out hydrogen playing a major role in heating buildings because it will be too expensive and inefficient compared to other clean alternatives such as heat pumps and district heating. Too expensive is putting it mildly; it will be six times more expensive than going down the heating networks route.

Chris Skidmore, chair of the net zero review, said in a recent article in the Times that he

“did not think the UK should embrace the idea of repurposing gas networks to run hydrogen boilers, a proposal that is being trialled at a pilot project at homes in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.”

The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee recently said that hydrogen is

“not a realistic replacement for natural gas”

and is “not a serious option” for heating. A House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report in December 2022 said that hydrogen is likely to play only a limited role in home heating and is not a panacea. Lastly, in a report in January 2022, the International Renewable Energy Agency—IRENA—said that residential heating is the lowest-priority application for hydrogen

“because heat pump solutions and district heating options already exist.”

I apologise for labouring the point but it is important for the people in the trial villages of Ellesmere Port and Teesside. The provisions of the Energy Bill that give gas companies a new power of entry into homes to cut residents off the gas network without their consent are particularly worrying. The bottom line is that the Bill should not be promoting hydrogen heating trials that expose consumers to health and safety risks and excessively high energy costs.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group but I do not propose to detain the House for long. My views on hydrogen are relatively well known, and we had a good debate in Committee on Clauses 111 and 112. I support the previous speeches and the approaches taken to get the Government to think again about the need for these trials to be included in the Bill.

I welcome government Amendment 55, which would provide for regulations that would make some rules for the trials a “must”, rather than a “may”, which is at least an acceptance that this is a prerequisite. We need clear regulations setting out the rules that must be adopted and followed by anyone involved in these trials. But I do not think that goes far enough, because there are still a number of unaddressed issues. Therefore, I am quite sympathetic to the idea of simply removing this from the Bill and thinking again. I am also sympathetic to the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who have suggested that the Government ought to undertake a certain number of measures before they embark on a decision about these trials, including involving statutory agencies such as the Environment Agency in the trials, and the Health and Safety Executive on safety issues, so that we can properly assess their environmental impact—so that we actually are using them to trial something.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124 in my name, but, before I do so, I will take some time to support my noble friend Lord Teverson’s Amendment 131—I will not say much else until he has had a chance to speak to it. I also support the amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would stop the issuing of new licences for fossil-fuel exploration and exploitation in the North Sea.

Amendment 124, on “flaring and venting”, follows on quite neatly from the two amendments in the previous group on energy conservation in the home. I am delighted by, and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on, her decisive win on that issue. The Government ought to have grasped that low-hanging fruit with both hands already, and flaring and venting in the North Sea is more low-hanging fruit that the Government have failed to grasp. It too could use energy that we already generate in a much more effective and efficient manner. A ban on oil and gas flaring and venting in the North Sea is the single most effective action that the Government could take to dramatically reduce methane emissions from that sector.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and hope, perhaps without too much optimism, that with these reassurances they feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Flaring and venting is something that I am keen on eliminating, and I will use every opportunity in the House to progress the issue further. Therefore, would it be sensible for the Minister to agree to meet with me and other noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this issue, so that we can talk sensibly about it, going forwards?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I did organise a recent meeting with officials to discuss the issue, at the request of the noble Baroness’s Front-Bench colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The noble Baroness had the opportunity to attend if she had wished to.