Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

213: Clause 203, page 166, line 29, after “storing” insert “gas,”

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move this amendment in place of my noble friend Lady Worthington—who has just arrived, so I will leave it there.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I must start with an apology. My train was delayed for 45 minutes and many others were cancelled, so I am just about here on time. I thank my noble friend Lord Ravensdale for stepping in just as we started.

I am delighted to be here to speak to the amendments in this group which relate to the part of the Bill that seeks to take further powers to ensure that we have fuel resilience in our country. Amendments 213 to 219 seek to extend the scope of the Government’s proposals so that we have a more inclusive definition of fuel resilience beyond oil and liquid biofuels that includes gas.

The measures in this clause are a set of broad powers to allow the Government to ensure that economic activity in the United Kingdom is not adversely affected by disruption to core fuel sector activities, reducing the risk of emergencies affecting fuel suppliers. They give powers to the Government to issue directions for the purposes of managing risk, reducing potential adverse impacts and facilitating recovery from disruptions to core fuel sector activities.

The powers given to the Government by the Bill are extremely wide and potentially concerning, but I will come on to that. In essence they allow the Secretary of State to direct any core fuel sector participant to do anything for these purposes. More reasonably, they also allow the Secretary of State to require information and that certain types of incidents be reported. Leaving aside the wide-ranging nature of the powers for now, we have tabled these amendments to inquire why the definition of fuels excludes gas from the resilience proposals. I am sure I will be told that a draft version of the Bill was shared with the BEIS Select Committee, that no reference was made to gas as a core fuel and no complaints were made at that point. However comments from the committee in November 2021 were informed by the fuel shortages of autumn 2021 and since then we have seen a sharp spike in gas prices and some constraints on the supply of gas, which were exacerbated by the invasion of Ukraine. I should note that in 2021 the UK imported around 60% of its gas for use in all sectors. Although we have North Sea gas, we are by no means self-sufficient, so interruptions to fuel supplies raise problems. Gas is the sector where we remain very exposed—but that is certainly not true of biofuels. If we compare the two, the volumes are completely different and it seems odd to include biofuels but exclude gas.

Helen Thomas wrote last week in the Financial Times:

“The Rough offshore gas storage facility, partially reopened … by Centrica”


last year after having been closed for five years,

“has been steadily withdrawing gas … At about 54 per cent full … it is far from the 80 per cent-plus levels on the continent. And European storage capacity … is about 25 per cent of annual consumption compared with less than 1 per cent for the UK”.

That is equivalent to only three days, so we can see how tight some of these margins might be if there are disruptions. That could have left the country very short, especially had this winter’s weather been harsher than it has been.

Rough is not being refilled because the facility is being operated on a merchant basis rather than the strategic one which the Government might perhaps prefer. Whereas Governments in Europe can mandate storage, here, we are relying on Centrica to find a place where future prices make sense to it commercially to take storage into Rough, and it is of course looking for a decent return rather than strategic fuel resilience. The journalist added that no one thinks that storage operated on this basis will provide security of supply, and I tend to agree. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this question and on what more the Government could and should be doing to include gas in their fuel resilience strategy and indeed in this legislation.

It seems sensible that we would want the same powers, should we need them, to issue directions and to require reporting of incidents and the provision of information. Had we experienced a more severe winter, we could have come seriously unstuck, and I would like to understand how the Government would have intervened to ensure that critical businesses and households were prioritised. That is obviously an issue of some concern to the Government, given that these powers are being taken. Do the Government already have the necessary powers? If so, where are they and how would they work? I would be interested to hear more about that.

I have tabled Amendments 220 and 221 because I am seeking clarification and expressing concern about the wide-ranging nature of the types of financial assistance the Bill will allow. Certain types may be required, but why does the Secretary of State need powers to make grants, effectively, to firms involved in refining, transporting and storing fuels that are commercially very lucrative? We have all seen the headlines about how much money these companies are making, and it seems odd to take such a broad power, which could mean that public money was being spent with no requirement to pay it back to the public purse. It seems unnecessarily broad, providing the equivalent of a grant, and I would like to understand the justification for it. When looking ahead to the transition to net zero, we have described how we need to provide more public money, but it is right to say that investors in the current fossil-fuel-based energy system should have enough resources to ensure that they can meet regulations set by government without the need for further public money. That is a point that needs answering.

This is also arguably a sector that we would expect to go into managed decline as we look to electrify most of the demand being met by the current provision of these fuels, so it may be appropriate for assistance to be given. Transition loans, guarantees or even the Government taking a stake could be required to make the transition happen swiftly and in an orderly fashion, but simply giving out public money with no strings attached seems rather reckless. I would like to understand the specific circumstances and conditions under which a grant would be appropriate. If that cannot be dealt with in detail here, I would be happy to receive a letter outlining a case study that could justify this use of public money, given the economic climate we find ourselves in.

Finally, Amendment 222 is a modest proposal relating to the reporting of such financial assistance to Parliament. I could not see any reference in the Bill to the notification of Parliament in relation to these financial forms of assistance—only in relation to the scrutiny of statutory instruments or guidance. Is it really the Minister’s intention that this assistance would not be made public until BEIS’s accounts are published, which would obviously be after the horse has bolted and we would have to comb through the footnotes to understand what forms of financial assistance had been given under Clause 222? I feel quite strongly that, if it is important enough to have its own separate regime, it should be important enough to brief Parliament and there should be a protocol for notifying us of the intention to use these powers.

I have drafted an amendment that I hope the Minister will accept. If not, I look forward to assurances from the Dispatch Box about how and when Parliament will be notified before the expenditure is committed. With those remarks, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 241, 242B and 242H in my name. In so doing, I declare my interests, first as an engineer and project director working for Atkins within the nuclear industry and as a director of Peers for the Planet.

Amendments 241 and 242H both relate to the renewable transport fuel obligation, the RTFO. I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment 242H, as I believe it is the right amendment of the two to take forward. It aims to widen the scope of the RTFO from renewables to cover all low-carbon sources. I know the Minister will agree that we should, as far as possible, be technology-independent in how we set up subsidy schemes; as long as the source from which the fuel is derived is low-carbon, we should not care about its wider classification. The amendment seeks only to reflect existing government policy.

I note the July 2022 consultation on the related topic of recycled carbon fuels, which was titled Supporting Recycled Carbon Fuels through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Recycled carbon fuels are not classified as renewable fuels, as they are made from fossil-derived waste: for example, non-recyclable plastic waste or industrial waste gases that would otherwise be landfilled or incinerated. However, RCFs can provide significant carbon savings compared to traditional fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel and kerosene. The consultation says:

“To introduce support for RCFs into the RTFO we will need to amend the Energy Act 2004 and lay secondary legislation to amend the RTFO Order 2007. The measure is expected to be part of the forthcoming Transport Bill.”


The Government have already agreed with the principle of taking this important measure forward and there is a great opportunity for them to get it done now, within the Energy Bill, so that primary legislation is in place to begin allowing the significant carbon savings that can be generated from recycled carbon fuels, the constituents of which would otherwise end up in landfill. Otherwise, if we wait for the transport Bill, we are looking at a significant delay, as I understand that it will not be progressed in this Session—perhaps the Minister will correct me. I am sure he will see the sense in this argument, given the benefits of progressing with these measures now. It would not commit the Government to anything. Obviously, secondary legislation would be needed to enact any of this, but it would remove the blocker that currently exists in primary legislation and allow the Government to progress with these measures when they so choose.

The amendment would also have wider benefits beyond recycled carbon fuels. It would also allow, for example, hydrogen produced from nuclear power to be eligible for RTFO support. There are plans being developed to use nuclear-derived hydrogen to power construction vehicles for Sizewell C build. It could be a key use case for hydrogen in transport and in construction vehicles which need to operate for long periods—24 hours a day—on sites with limited electrical or charging infrastructure.

As with the RCF, much further work would be required to implement this in secondary legislation if the Government chose to, not least on additionality rules. However, it would remove the blocker that exists in primary legislation and open an opportunity for the nuclear industry to begin generating hydrogen. It would also demonstrate the Government’s commitment to technological independence.

The question may arise of how exactly we define low carbon. In the RTFO context, the Government have published detailed sustainability criteria which any eligible fuel must meet. These include requirements to deliver at least a 60% greenhouse gas emissions saving versus fossil fuels. Compliance with the sustainability and carbon reduction criteria would be a straightforward way to define this term in secondary legislation.

To summarise, this is a straightforward amendment that reflects existing government policy. It does not commit the Government to do anything but does remove a blocker that currently exists in the Energy Act 2004 in extending RTFO support to other low carbon sources. It would also allow the Government to progress with their plans for recycled carbon fuels, given the delays with the Transport Bill. Therefore, I hope the Minister will agree that it would be sensible to proceed with Amendment 242H and allow the carbon reductions that will be possible through the use of recycled carbon fuels.

Amendment 242B was originally put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and was transferred to me following her move to the Front Bench, so I thank her for originally tabling it. It is also related to an amendment I put forward regarding the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act. It is a probing amendment designed to highlight a key issue with the financing of nuclear projects going forward, both through the RAB and other investment mechanisms. There are two aspects relating to financing of new nuclear that need to be highlighted here.

First, investors are constrained by ESG criteria that apply to their funds. My concern is that nuclear will not be considered sustainable, or taxonomy aligned, under the green taxonomy, which the Minister assured us last week is progressing at the Treasury. This concern comes from previous positions on nuclear in similar EU schemes, and from the Treasury’s not including nuclear in its green financing framework.

As with the previous group of amendments, this all comes back to technology independence. Nuclear is a low carbon technology, along with many others, and the Government should not be picking winners in the race to net zero but enabling a level playing field. If nuclear is not considered as taxonomy-aligned under the UK green taxonomy, there is a real risk that nuclear projects will not be able to attract capital in sufficient quantity to realise the Government’s ambitions for the sector. ESG alignment is now a key factor in capital raises for pension funds and institutional investors. I would be most grateful if the Minister could again provide some assurance that nuclear will be considered as taxonomy-aligned under the forthcoming green taxonomy.

Secondly, I referred earlier to the UK Government Green Financing Framework, which describes how the UK Government plan to finance expenditures through the issuance of green gilts and the retail green savings bond. Currently, this excludes investment in nuclear, but again I urge the Government to reconsider. The Government need to take the lead here in defining what counts as sustainable within their frameworks. This is so important in leading the markets in the right direction and in allowing these schemes to finance future government investment in nuclear.

[Lord Hollick (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 242A, which my noble friend has just introduced. In the course of our inquiry into the net zero transformation, the Industry and Regulators Committee, which I chair, took extensive evidence about Ofgem’s remit and whether it should be amended to include a specific requirement to have regard to meeting the UK’s net zero emissions target.

Ofgem’s primary statutory duty is to protect the interests of existing and future consumers in relation to gas and electricity. This objective is to protect those interests taken as a whole, including their interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the security of the supply of gas and electricity. This duty guides Ofgem when it is making decisions and trade-offs in the regulatory framework between the three objectives of decarbonisation, affordability and security of supply.

Many of our witnesses told us that the net zero target should be included explicitly within Ofgem’s strategic duties, not least because Ofgem’s responsibility for setting the price and affordability of energy must take into account the substantial level of costs of the transition to net zero which will have to be borne by consumers.

If there is no explicit reference to net zero, there is a danger that the decisions will be very short-term in nature, focusing on short-term costs for consumers and not the long-term costs of failing to achieve net zero and invest in the infrastructure necessary to achieve that. The Climate Change Committee agreed. It argued:

“Giving Ofgem a net zero responsibility”


will help it to

“think … strategically about the changes that lie ahead so that we can minimise the cost to the consumer in the long run.”

Jonathan Brearley, the CEO of Ofgem,

“said that Ofgem is open-minded about whether it should be given a primary duty to achieve net zero, arguing that ‘I and the board have been very clear that we see net zero as fundamental to our existing duty’ … noting that there may be a benefit to clarifying that.”

The impact of net-zero costs on consumer bills is, ultimately, a decision for the Government, not for regulators. The Government promised a strategy and policy statement setting out priorities for delivering a net-zero energy system to ensure that the supplies are available at the lowest possible cost—that was promised in 2022. They also promised to publish a fairness and affordability proposal by the end of 2022. Neither of those documents has yet been cited, and it is indeed unclear whether the consultations are actually taking place. There will be an opportunity in our debate on Friday on the report from the Industry and Regulators Committee for the Minister to enlighten us on the progress of those two very important pieces of work on strategy and affordability.

Without those two statements from the Government, Ofgem will struggle to reflect net-zero costs in its energy pricing; but there is no doubt that those costs will have to be reflected, and Ofgem should have a clear and explicit duty to do that. That is why the Government should accept the amendment, to make it plain to all parties that Ofgem has a strategic duty to take into account the very considerable short and long-term costs of the transformation of our energy system and challenge the Government should their guidance impose unaffordable or unfair costs on consumers. Perhaps the Government might find such an independent intervention from the statutory regulator a little inconvenient. It would be ironic if the regulator most responsible for regulating the journey to net zero is one of the only regulators which does have a specific responsibility in its remit.