Energy Company Obligation

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

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

The document put out by the Department said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It continues:

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

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

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

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

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

[David Mowat]

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that when the Minister responds he will say that the minimum target set for solid-wall insulation is just a minimum and could be exceeded, but, quite frankly, if we look at the cumulative impact of the changes, no more than that statutory minimum of solid-wall jobs will be done. I raised that point with him when we considered the Lords amendments to the Energy Bill and also at the most recent Energy questions. The impact of the changes means that the number of solid-wall jobs that are done will not be anywhere near what is needed.

As many Members have said today, that is a major problem for the UK, and no one will solve it for us. The Minister modestly suggested that he was responsible for the boom in the solar industry, and I agree that what has happened on domestic solar installations is absolutely brilliant—I am trying to get some solar photovoltaic panels on my own roof. He would surely admit, however, that part of that success has been the drop in unit costs that has come from other countries getting involved in manufacture, particularly China. That will not happen with solid-wall insulation or any hard-to-treat insulation. That is a problem for which we have to find a solution in the UK.

If the Committee on Climate Change wants us to do 200,000 solid-wall jobs a year, 25,000 a year is simply not good enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test hit the nail on the head when he said that if we look at the objectives, the key issue is that ECO was created to do that hard-to-treat work. The policy is constructed around starting to meet that challenge, yet mid-programme the Government have now changed the objectives, leaving us with a bit of a mess.

[David Mowat]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman go much further after his comments on solar. We have heard so much today from the Opposition about fuel poverty yet every time there is a Division in the House on whether we should take an option to reduce or increase energy bills, Opposition Members always vote for higher bills. Solar PV was a great example of that: when the Minister tried to reduce the solar tariff from six times grid parity to four times grid parity—something we did two years ago—to a man and woman the Opposition voted against the measure. Yet now they stand up and talk about fuel poverty. It is not rational and it will not do.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If we got into an extensive debate about the solar industry I am sure you would rule me out of order, Ms Dorries. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about affordability of energy bills, one way that we can guarantee that bills will come down is if people use less energy. That objective is delivered through energy efficiency measures, insulation and the kind of work that was going on in Clifton until the Government made the changes. To withdraw from that work in order to deliver cheaper bills is surely illogical.

[David Mowat]

I completely agree that greater energy efficiency is the best way of reducing energy bills. We are an outlier in terms of the efficiency of our housing stock—although not in terms of our energy costs, which makes the Opposition’s freeze proposal even more opportunistic. The point I was making is that whenever we vote on energy costs the Opposition vote for them to be higher and as a result are not credible.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I completely disagree. We could and should have a lengthy debate about energy companies overcharging as that issue is obviously there—people can see that and our policy is designed to rectify it. That makes the changes to ECO even more illogical. The Government have reacted to our policy, which is sensible and which a lot of people like a great deal, by trying to cut back on energy efficiency, to try to claim that energy bills will be cheaper. If the Government are serious about lowering bills, surely the obvious way to do that is to continue with energy efficiency measures. It is illogical for them to cut back on efficiency to claim that they are saving people money on their energy bills.

In the time available I will address two further points. My next point is about the impact the changes to ECO will have on jobs. The impact assessment predicts that there will be between 7,000 and 14,000 fewer jobs as a result of the changes. That has already begun to happen and a lot of companies have already contacted me about the measures they have had to take. In particular, apprenticeships have suffered a great deal—that is certainly the case in Nottingham. When I visited a scheme there, the apprentice I saw was working on his own property—a marvellous bit of PR from the scheme, but it was brilliant to see such work taking place. Those people should have lengthy careers ahead of them, given the amount of work we need done by the industry they have gone into. For them to miss out or lose their jobs because of Government changes to policy is extremely unfair. So far, the Government have not acknowledged the impact on jobs at all, despite the fact that the impact assessment does. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

The changes severely reduce the Government’s commitment to tackling fuel poverty. When CERO was predominantly concerned with delivering solid-wall and other hard-to-treat measures, the funding would naturally have gone to low-income areas, in particular social housing estates built at a certain time to certain construction standards. However, now that low-cost measures are to be included, will the Minister say what safeguards will be put in place to make sure that the funding does not go to households that could afford to pay? That would be incredibly disappointing, given that one of the already disappointing features of ECO was its modest ambitions for reducing fuel poverty.

The Government are simply not ambitious enough about energy efficiency. The energy companies know that the Government will not hold them to account for failing to meet their obligations. I note in particular that whereas before the changes a fine could be levied on energy companies for failing to meet their targets, they will now no longer face a fine, but simply a rule-based system for increasing targets. It seems that the energy companies will be let off the hook again.

The changes to ECO are poorly judged and fatally undermine much of the original purpose of the policy. I do not accept or understand the Government’s claim that they will lead to a bill reduction of £35. The changes will have severe ramifications for the green deal. The failure of the green deal and ECO to dovetail as they were intended to—their “limited blending”, as the impact assessment puts it—serves only to highlight that further. The Government have again caved in to the energy companies when instead they should be rectifying the serious problems in our energy market, and ensuring that we meet the challenge of improving the UK’s dreadfully insulated housing stock.

The people losing out from this decision by the Government, whether in Nottingham or Southampton, or the other examples given by hon. Members today, are often those who need help the most, and who have been told they were going to receive it, only to learn that the Government have let them down again. The figures are stark: 14,000 lost jobs, 440,000 fewer homes insulated and 2.2 million tonnes in carbon savings forgone. The ECO is this Government’s policy, the changes are this Government’s changes, and the consequences, be they in lost jobs, work that now will not take place or the decimation of the solid-wall supply chain, are also the responsibility of this Government. Ministers have got it badly wrong. They need to accept that and think again.