Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because of her rather special style in this House, which I think we genuinely welcome, and her plain speaking.

I must declare a couple of interests. I chair a company called Aldustria Ltd, which is into energy storage—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that that is actually one of the answers to variability on renewables—and I am a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, which holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank.

I want to go back into history, not as far as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, did, to Baldwin and Chamberlain, nor to the OPEC crisis that my noble friend Lord Bruce mentioned, but to 2013 and the last major energy Act, which was presented and introduced by Ed Davey as the Liberal Democrat coalition Secretary of State. It did a number of things but there were two key measures. First, it introduced contracts for difference, which were a major step forward at the time. Again referring to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to some degree, CfDs now produce money for both the contract company and, effectively, the Treasury; the present reference price is much higher than the strike price, so the taxpayer does really well at the moment in that area. We do not have to worry about levies on producers because it is a self-balancing mechanism that comes back to the taxpayer when energy prices are high. The second thing introduced by that Act was the capacity market; it had its issues, particularly with diesel generators, but a lot of that has been solved now.

The 2013 Act changed the way that the energy market worked in this country and it has been very successful. The Bill before us does not change that but is an evolution of it. The noble Lord, Lord Haworth, talked about the weight of the Bill. It might be a thick book but it is not a blockbuster in what it is trying to achieve. It does a number of things and it is a bit of a Christmas tree Bill; I hope we will not have thousands of amendments as we go through eight days of Committee, but there are a lot of areas where we can add things in.

I have referred a couple of times to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I liked seeing decarbonisation and net zero as a constraint. That is an interesting way of looking at this issue and I do not disagree; it is an objective that we are dynamically moving towards but it is a constraint in how we move on energy.

We are looking at energy security, which is particularly important at the moment; decarbonisation of the economy; and, particularly at this time, the cost of energy and the effects that that has. Those of us who were involved in the 2013 Act remember that the big issue we were trying to solve was the energy trilemma of security versus price versus decarbonisation. Amazingly, over the nine years since then, there has been a convergence of those needs. It seems, practically and evidentially, that we can solve all three of them. By decarbonisation and the additional use of renewables and other technologies, we can solve security and decarbonisation, and help to bring down prices, literally, against the fossil fuel crisis at the same time. We have that ability.

We on these Benches welcome the Bill. It has a number of good parts, including on hydrogen—although I entirely agree that its use will be highly constrained. I was interested that the experiment involves gas heating, which is maybe not one of the best areas in which to do it. I shall come to the future system operator later, but it is much more of a strategic look, and I welcome that. On heat networks, heat pumps and carbon capture, storage and usage, I am somewhat sceptical about their overuse but it is good that we move them forward. I also welcome the fact that we are going to continue our interest in fusion.

Let me talk about energy security. One thing that surprises me goes back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Part 10 talks about resilience and the core fuels. I went through that part of the Bill and—the Minister may correct me—it relates only to petrol and oil; it does not refer anywhere to gas. So we still have a resilience problem in an area of energy policy that is very important at the minute. Exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, in 2017 we effectively stopped gas storage in this country when the Rough storage facility was closed. To give the Government Benches their due, the cry went up from that side of the House asking why this was happening. I understand that there are now negotiations to try to reopen that facility. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how they are progressing and whether that will happen.

On the speed of transition, let us remind ourselves that we have a target to decarbonise electricity by 2035, which is only 13 years away, and the Prime Minister has said that we should have 40 gigawatts of offshore wind in eight years’ time. That is really quite something. How do we go about meeting that? One of my criticisms is that there is nothing in the Bill to reduce gestation timescales—an offshore wind farm can take 10 years to go from start to finish. I am interested that the Minister said that one of the areas of amendment to the Bill is around trying to reduce approvals from four years, which was optimistic, to one year because of the change of environmental rules. I would be the first to say that the way that environmental regulation works around offshore wind is probably not the best way it could go. We will want to look at what those regulations will become to achieve that sort of level in timescale.

As other Members have mentioned, the objectives of the regulators get in the way on transition—partly the North Sea Transition Authority, but particularly Ofgem not having a zero-carbon objective. I know the Government feel that that is already covered in the remit but it is not, and it gets in the way. That is one area which it is important to change in the Bill.

The other area is the system operator, or ISOP. I read that long section through. The ISOP is called an independent operator, but there is nothing in the Bill guaranteeing its independence or how that regulator—or planner or operator—is appointed. I see no reason why it should have any real authority. It is unfortunate that this detail is not there. I think back to when the Labour Government put in the Strategic Rail Authority, which in the end did not manage to achieve anything because it did not have any real authority, and so it was abolished. I would like to understand how the ISOP will work and have authority, and not be just an animal of BEIS or the Treasury. I was going ask, “Is ISOP a fable?”, but I decided that it would not work in the House.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned onshore wind. From my house in Cornwall I can see 35 wind turbines. That is fantastic. When I go out on my bike I can tell, as they move, whether I will be cycling against the wind or with it. Most people think that they add character to the countryside. The Government are just not brave enough in that area.

One of the areas completely missing in terms of transition, which I see as vital, is electric vehicle charging. We do not have the infrastructure to support the revolution which is happening through market forces as much as anything else. I know that is for the Department for Transport but, if we really want to transition, the Bill needs to achieve it, so let us not get too much into silos.

In terms of grid investment, we have had the announcement that National Grid is going to spend some £54 billion bringing offshore electricity to the mainland, but what about the money required to upgrade the grid in Great Britain? When it comes to getting access to the grid, whether for storage or renewable energy, we are running out of capacity.

I was speaking to one of the DNOs today, and of its 8 million households, only 2 million have smart meters—an appalling ratio. I am sorry, but that is what a DNO told me this morning on the figures for its area. If you include SMETS 1, the figure rises to 3 million. That is a fact.

I will talk about bringing costs down. Clearly this Bill does not deal with immediate issues, but it could be about the near-medium term. Demand reduction—particularly through energy efficiency, as many have mentioned—is really important.

The price cap is still an imperfect mechanism. It may have served its purpose to a degree, but should we not now be moving to something such as perhaps a social tariff? I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what the Government are looking at post the energy cap.

Many have mentioned local authorities and communities. I word-searched the Bill as well, and local authorities are mentioned in regard to heat networks, as obviously you can hardly do these at all without local authorities. They, and local communities, must be involved. Only through these means can we bring costs down in this industry in the medium term. Yet what have we got? We have already passed this year the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act, which actually puts up energy prices for households. The new Prime Minister might consider scrapping that for a start.

As I said, the Bill is important, and there are many parts that I and these Benches support. It is not a blockbuster, but it is a big Bill. Let us make sure that the really important areas, such as energy efficiency and the systems operator being able to ensure we have a full and proper strategic view into the future, are actually achieved. There is a lot to do.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading; I wrote to the Minister, and I am grateful for his detailed response to some of my points. I will endeavour to be brief, as this is Committee, and will simply explain why we consider that Amendments 7 and 242, together, bridge the divide that is evident between the two sides of the House, as witnessed in this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was absolutely right that you cannot simply declare that you want to win a war; you need to have tactics and a strategy for winning it. Our Amendment 7, complemented by Amendment 242, provides that strategy, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, eloquently articulated, fundamentally underpinned by physics. Energy is a question of physics and, if we understand that, we will know that we are not struggling towards net zero but in fact doing very well on that path.

The clarity with which I now see industry communicating on this issue is far greater than it has been over the last decade. It is saying: “Electrify everything that can be electrified and use our abundant resources of clean electricity to decarbonise.” That is how you square the three principal objectives of energy policy: affordability, cleanliness, and resilience and security. That pathway is so clear now that the Bill could be hugely enhanced by having this set out at the front.

I support the Government’s intentions. They seek to address the trilemma of those three objectives, which are fundamental to winning this war against climate change and against the energy crisis that we currently face. That very energy crisis is an interesting reason why we are powering towards net zero faster than ever before: it is absolutely clear that the volatility of gas and oil underpins it, and we cannot forget that. What is the Government’s current policy? It is to reduce our reliance on those volatile commodities, which would serve everyone’s needs: it would help us reduce bills and would give the consumer a reliable source of energy.

The Bill has many measures which we will come on to debate that will help us along that path. But it lacks an overarching statement of objective. We now need to revisit the debates we had on the Energy Act 2013 about the need for a decarbonisation target to provide clarity over this direction of travel. We all sat there—many noble Lords here today were there—and had debates on why knowing our way towards that target was needed for investor and stakeholder confidence. It is now very clear that it is needed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out, simple mathematics shows that we still have a lot of technology that needs to be put into place to become operational, and we need a plan that monitors progress towards that.

Subsequently, we have added an extra dimension to this: electrification. As I said, physics tells us that electrification is fundamentally more efficient; you will get six to seven times more usable energy from an electricity-based system than if you rely on fossil fuels or hydrogen. Six to seven times fewer wind turbines will be needed to provide the same benefit in terms of heat or transport. That should be of interest to everybody; it saves costs and helps make the system more secure.

So I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment carefully. It adds an extra dimension to this Bill, which will give it so much clarity so that everybody will have a clear sense of the path that we are on. As I have said, the UK should be very proud of the efforts it has taken to date. We are not as exposed to the energy crisis as other countries, because of investments we have made over the last two decades and because we have taken seriously this objective of making our system more resilient and fit for the future. There is an international dimension—I am sure we will come on to talk about this in other parts of the Bill—but it is absolutely clear that the thing that we can do best at the moment is continue on the path of decarbonising our electricity system using technologies that locate cheap power on our shores, to rid ourselves of the insecurity and volatility of gas prices and to move forward to an efficient system that converts primary energy into heat, transport and work. If we can do that, we will show the world how it should be done: do not pick winners but instead create a system that is sensible and will provide the right guardrails for capital investment so that money will flow and we will all benefit. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our amendment.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and although we do not always agree on absolutely everything, I reckon that I agree with about 99.5% of her speech.

First, I declare my interest as chair and director of Aldustria Ltd, an energy storage company; I will try to avoid too much discussion of that area. On these amendments, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for having opened our debate today. I very much agree with the principle of what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to achieve here. What this Bill does not have—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put it very well indeed—is great focus or coherence. It would be good to start trying to improve that through a type of preamble that puts context, including strategic context, at the beginning of the Bill. I hope that we can refine that more on Report; it may not be perfect, but perhaps we can find a way of doing that between us.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the pricing of electricity and how that works. As he says, our European colleagues are looking at that very strongly now. There must be a better way of doing this; it cannot make sense to the public that we charge and price our main energy sources on the marginal cost of the last producer. Clearly, that does not make sense, and it does not do the reputation of the fossil fuel industry any good either. Yes, they might use their money to give back to shareholders—hopefully they will use it for different types of investment and diversification—but it besmirches the whole sector, and we need to find a way around that.

Where I would disagree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is around trying to game or look at alternative dates for net zero. It seems to me that in September 1939 the Cabinet probably did not look at whether to declare war on Germany this month or two years later or four years later. We may criticise Neville Chamberlain for all sorts of things in retrospect, but I guess that is not one of them. It was an absolute threat to our future security, and we made a decision. If we think of the costs to this country, and to us and consumers, of our right stand on Ukraine, I guess that we have not done those calculations either—because we know that Putin’s war has to fail and that, for European security and our long-term security, we in the western world need to pursue the tactics that we have.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments, particularly in mentioning rural aspects of oil—my own household is on oil, and we are not covered by a price cap—and in particular business. In all the media coverage that we have had on this very real energy crisis over the past months, it is funny how business has very much taken second place to households and consumers. Clearly, households and consumers are ultimately the most important, but business is completely fundamental to our economic performance and being able to solve this crisis in the long term.

I am not absolutely sure about energy from waste plants. Clearly, it does not make sense to export it, but the real challenge there is in starting to raise recycling again, or even AD in terms of other parts of household waste. I was so impressed by the forensic look by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, at investment need and the scale of the challenge, and also at how we need to measure that and put proper planning into how we meet it.

The one other area that I would like to mention comes back to 2013 and the then Energy Bill, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. At that time, one big thing that we discussed was the energy trilemma of security, cost and decarbonisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, brought that back up again. But what this crisis, and the almost a decade between these two Bills, has shown, is that it is no longer a trilemma—they all work in exactly the same direction. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, as we know—it is why we have the huge price increases that we do. Our security is reinforced by having much more renewable generation on our own seas and our own land—and, as a result, we have lower costs and a decarbonised energy system as well. We have moved on since that time.

We need to have a focus in this Bill, and I support the amendments. We need to move on in this debate, but I am absolutely sure that we will need that coherence when we get to Report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, has spoiled a lot of my fun today, because I was going to tell the Government exactly what they needed to do if they were going to produce an Energy Bill that deals with the crises that we are facing. We are facing three immense crises at the moment, and one of them is, of course, the climate crisis. There are strong whiffs of climate denialism in your Lordships’ House, which I find absolutely staggering, considering that the science is so very clear on it. However, it is a bit last century, that sort of attitude, so I understand why it might exist here in your Lordships’ House. But we have those crises—the climate emergency, the ecological crisis and the cost of living crisis—and this Energy Bill is so topical. It is exactly the sort of thing that we need to bring forward so that we can deal with all these crises, and I guess make life better for millions of people in Britain and the rest of the world.

I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. He made the point that this does not do the job. Also, I am very sympathetic to Labour’s initial amendments. I understand why they are in there, but it reads a lot more like the sort of issues that a Labour Government would bring forward—hopefully not too long in the future.

I am concerned that our time is going to be wasted on this Bill, because we have a new Prime Minister—a climate-wrecking ideologue who will make it incredibly difficult for us to get the sort of issues into this Bill that we need. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and other noble Lords also mentioned nuclear. We have to get real on the fact that nuclear is not the answer. Nuclear power stations take a long time to come online. There will be all sorts of problems even getting them started, so they are not the answer. We have to think faster than that; they just will not work.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, referred to the construction industry. Are we specific about that when looking at mineral carbonation? There is already at least one company that makes the reasonable claim—perhaps still to be fully attested—to be a carbon capture and storage producer of cement blocks, using a process of mineral carbonation that combines waste slag from the steel industry with carbon from industrial plants. We need to leave these possibilities open and ensure that they are encouraged, to make sure that a company that develops such a plan does not then run into a block of legislation that stops it being able to deliver because it would then be left in a difficult commercial situation.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 10. First, let me say that I very much agree with the drift of the debate so far, in that carbon capture, usage and storage has got a lot more real in the past few years—I give the Government credit as well—in terms of clusters and using carbon capture, primarily for industrial processes. What we should not be using it for is gas power stations that are CS-ready and which through carbon capture become much less efficient in their energy production. Clearly, we should be substituting gas and not using it in that way. The same absolutely goes for usage, where possible. I am sure that a lot of fizzy drinks and other such things use it as well.

In my Amendment 10, I am concerned that there should be in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State. We should have transparency in the sector. What we are trying to do here is stop cross-subsidy between networks and network users. In many ways, this is a probing amendment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction on how we can keep these networks and markets transparent so that we can assess users, sectors and networks in their own right and avoid transfer charging or subsidy from one to the other without understanding whether there is a case for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

If the licence is transferred to another body, it will also have to be approved under the same process. You cannot just wake up in the morning and decide to transfer your legal obligations to somebody else who is not an appropriate, fit and proper person. So, of course, that will be taken into consideration.

I must say that the noble Baroness is wrong to provide the parallel with the existing water companies. I do not think that anybody is arguing that people who hold those licences are not fit and proper to do the job. There is a legitimate argument about levels of investment and how that money is being spent, et cetera. However, no one is arguing about their competence; the noble Baroness is trying to draw a very bad parallel there.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for not understanding some of this, because it has raised a number of questions in my mind. If the CO₂ is put, say, under the sea—as we have been talking about—who actually owns the CO₂ once it has gone there? Who is liable for it and who has the legal right to the storage area itself? Given that most of these are created from the oil and gas that has been extracted, does that belong to the lease of the fossil fuel company that extracted them and does that last for ever? I do not understand how this works and where the liabilities land.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, if an organisation says, “I don’t want to do this any more”, there is no obligation for anybody else to take it on—so there will be a legal limbo. Perhaps the Minister could explain how this licensing works within that context. It seems to me that the Crown Estate will come into this somewhere, but maybe the Minister could enlighten me. I apologise again, because I should know the answer to all of these questions.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am happy to confirm the legal detail of the system to the noble Lord in writing, but my understanding is that the operator of the site would bear the responsibility. That is precisely why we have built in the relative decommissioning costs. The fund will have to be established and the operator will have to show that the ability is there to decommission the relevant pipe work, et cetera. I assume that that assurance and other long-term effects will also be built into that condition, but I will be very happy to confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

That would be very useful.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I say first of all that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Blake said in her excellent speech, particularly that she is looking forward to the return of my noble friend Lady Liddell—so am I. After all, on this issue she is the master and I am the apprentice, as has been fairly obvious today.

The Minister has again given us a very detailed and helpful reply. However, what worries me slightly is that I still think it strange that those involved in the commercial operation of this—the CCSA members and the CCSA itself—have different interpretations of the draft of the Bill from the officials advising the Minister. I hope that, between now and Report, there can be some discussions to see whether all those in the industry accept the Minister’s explanations today. Otherwise, we can look forward to further amendments on Report. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome very much that we have moved on to the area of enforcement because, if there is one thing that is true in anything to do with the environment, we make legislation—very effectively, often—but our enforcement does not work, because of either lack of will or lack of resources.

I would like assurance from the Minister, if possible, that the regulator will be resourced enough—I would be interested to know what conversations have taken place over this—to make sure that enforcement does take place. Of course, for enforcement to happen, particularly in physical facilities, there needs to be inspection. I would be interested in understanding who will be inspecting and what the resource level is likely to be.

I come back to a very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, on safety, which was not answered by the Minister earlier. CO₂, although not toxic like carbon monoxide, is a gas that, if exposed, can be suffocating. I would like to understand how enforcement on subsea storage facilities can take place.

Enforcement is good, but my questions are these: how will it be resourced, what is the programme for it and can it happen sufficiently to ensure safety?

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments appear to correct an oversight in the Bill. If noble Lords are confused then so am I. I am not entirely sure what the Minister was saying, but it appears to me that there was a stage missing in the original drafting of this Bill and the attempt now is to put in that stage—which is, in effect, a final warning to licence holders to act in specific ways in order to become compliant. If that is right, then I understand it and I do not oppose it, but I want to make sure that I understand correctly what the Government are trying to do. If I am right then, other than to point out the original omission, we do not oppose these measures; we just want clarification of what is being put into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

38: Clause 57, page 51, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) When making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must also publish an explanation of how revenue support mechanisms deliver in line with the CCUS Strategy and Policy Statement and the overall Strategy and Policy Statement, and how milestones relate to net zero pathways set out by the Climate Change Committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that policy processes are aligned with the Government’s Strategy and Policy Statement.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I asked specifically that all these amendments be grouped together because they have one aim: to make sure that there is a coherence between policy measures and the net zero pathway that is the Government’s own aim. Of course, the Government have undertaken to produce a government strategy and policy statement and the Bill requires a statement focusing on CCUS to be produced as well. However, our contention is that there is no current requirement for policy and infrastructure planning processes to be based on a consistent set of assumptions about the future. That means, in practice, that two projects could get a green light despite being justified by incompatible visions of system need, ensuring that one would ultimately be left stranded. Of course, that does not lead to confidence in this area. So there could be incompatible visions.

For instance, hydrogen electrification visions of the future involve very different supporting infrastructure, and a lack of coherence could create expensive infrastructure which, at the end of the day, is unusable or redundant. The strategy provides an opportunity to set out the latest set of assumptions, projections and decision methodology and I am sure that is what the Government want to do to underpin their policy, to which other processes should align. What we are really trying to do in these amendments is to make sure, practically, that the actions that arise from the Bill are coherent and tie in with the policy statements of the Government. It seems absolutely straightforward to me: it is that missing link, if you like, that pushes together intent in these various areas and makes sure that the strategy is coherent in its delivery. It is as simple as that and I hope the Government and the Minister will look favourably on that approach. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I do not have an enormous amount to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I highlight again the significance of linking strategy and policy: that is crucial. We will discuss in future debates the issues around the role of the ISOP and its independence, and, particularly in the context of this afternoon’s debate, look at long-term thinking, making sure that we get all the checks and balances in place. We are in a very fast-moving environment and need to make sure that we are absolutely on top of all the changes that are taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, highlighted the risk of lack of coherence: we need to make sure that everything is nailed down, line by line, and I am sure we will have further discussion on these areas as we go through different aspects of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s conclusions on this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, given the reassurances I have been able to provide, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and reassurances. Obviously, I am fairly disappointed with the overall reply. On the principles of coherence and delivery, I will read what he has said and think about coming back to this issue on Report. I thank him for going through the Government’s feelings on this issue in detail and may respond fully later during the passage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am slightly sympathetic to the Government on certain of these amendments in certain ways; I expect the Minister will not immediately accept them. First, I re-emphasise my interests in energy storage, as declared in the register. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, back into the conversation. She and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are quite a powerful duo and I am just thankful that they are not both here together—it might be just a little too much, but we might get some movement from the Government if they were.

On carbon use, I have no disagreement with the amendment; it would be positive to include it. In a way, I follow the Minister’s hesitation from Monday in saying that if we have carbon use, we have to make very sure that that use is long-term rather than short-term. I am not sure we have got to that point yet in the amendment. I will say that one obvious area where we should be doing this is in building and construction, where we use wood rather than concrete and steel. Many other economies and housing markets across Europe and other parts of the world use those technologies: they are there, they are strong and they capture the carbon in wood for probably a century or more—however long these buildings last. I would be interested in the Minister’s—maybe positive—response about how we can make sure that that carbon use sequesters the carbon for a long period.

As for the idea of air capture, I very much agree with the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. What concerns me, though, is exactly the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made. Not in this Chamber, clearly, and not among the Members present, but problem with air capture of carbon is that it gives a free ticket out for climate sceptics who say, “Don’t worry about any of this stuff because technology is going to solve it. We don’t have to worry about energy efficiency and renewables because technology will find a way forward”. I very much hope that it will, and there are good signs of that, but the other thing about it—which is why it is not the priority on the scale, if you like—is that it will take out 0.4% of the atmosphere that you have to process. Whereas, if you, as a power station, are using carbon capture, that concentration is hugely greater, so it is a much more efficient process to deal with in the first place. Again, my heart is there in terms of future-proofing, but to me it sends out dangerous signals to the market.

The much bigger issue, which seems to have been forgotten since COP 26, is methane. That is the gas that we need to get out of the atmosphere quickly and effectively. Ever since COP 26, where the Government were very supportive of initiatives to take methane out, science has shown that methane emissions globally are much higher than we expected and very little action has taken place on that since. I see that as a priority, but I will be very interested in the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, back to these Benches. I look forward to any parties hosted by her and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in future—they sound great fun.

I first turn to Amendment 39 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, which seeks explicitly to include the use of carbon dioxide, given that the Bill refers to carbon capture, usage and storage, or CCUS. The carbon capture revenue support contracts are intended to support the deployment of carbon capture technologies in industrial and commercial activities where there is no viable alternative to achieve deep decarbonisation.

The Bill allows for carbon capture revenue support contracts to be entered into with eligible carbon capture entities. Broadly, a carbon capture entity is a person who carries on activities of capturing carbon dioxide that has been produced by commercial or industrial activities with a view to the storage of carbon dioxide—that is, storage with a view to the permanent containment of carbon dioxide. It is important to emphasise that the provisions in the Bill may therefore allow for support of a broad range of carbon capture applications, including those carbon capture entities that utilise the carbon dioxide resulting in the storage of carbon dioxide with a view to its permanent containment. Decisions as to which carbon capture entities are eligible for support are to be made on a case-by-case basis. Prioritising support for carbon storage is considered essential to help deliver our decarbonisation targets.

I turn now to Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which seeks to ensure that techniques such as direct air carbon capture and storage are included in scope of carbon capture revenue support contracts. I thank my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for his remarks in this regard. As part of the Net Zero Strategy published last year, the Government set out an ambition to deploy at least 5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year of engineered greenhouse gas removal methods, such as direct air capture, by 2030.

We recognise that greenhouse gas removal technologies, commonly referred to as GGRs, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, are considered important for making progress towards net zero. That is why in July we published a GGR business model consultation that sets out the Government’s initial views on the design of a business model to attract private investment and enable engineered GGR projects to deploy at scale from the mid-to-late 2020s. The consultation is due to close on 27 September. How direct air carbon capture and storage might be supported by any such business model is still subject to ongoing policy development and consideration. Once we have further developed the policy thinking on this, we can then consider what the appropriate mechanics might be and whether there are any available. We are exploring how early GGR projects could be connected also to the transport and storage network in CCUS clusters and will publish further information in due course.

The questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on carbon-neutral air fuels are not directly covered by my speaking notes, so I shall write to him with more details in due course. It overlaps with another department, so I will write to him and copy it to all Members of the Committee.

I hope that on the basis of my reassurances noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I add my welcome to my noble friend Lady Liddell and I am certain that my noble friend Lord Foulkes will be thinking of organising a party to celebrate her return to Westminster.

I cannot add to the comments she made on her amendment. I completely support what she said. I feel that there is a bit of déjà vu here and that we are going over ground we covered in our first session on Monday, but I think it is really important that we emphasise again, through the amendments that my noble friend Lord Lennie and I have put down, how important it is that we have clarity in all aspects of the Bill. I want to emphasise again the need to ensure that all aspects are future-proofed, thereby giving all parties the confidence that matters of probity, security and appropriate appointments are always taken into account in key positions. It is unfortunate that we need to emphasise this aspect, but I think experience will tell us that it is a very necessary part of all the processes that we bring in place.

To recap briefly, in Amendment 42 we would like to insert the phrase “fit and proper”. As we have said before, this is not the first time this has been used—it was used in the National Security and Investment Bill. Through this amendment we make sure that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State personally to deem the individual as fit and proper.

Amendment 44 specifically refers to the need for the hydrogen counterparty to be

“a fit and proper person”.

The aim is to make sure that responsibility is very clearly accounted to the Secretary of State.

The explanatory statement for Amendment 64 says:

“If the Secretary of State needs to find a new counterparty, this amendment requires that they must ensure they are a fit and proper person, as with previous amendments in our names”.


I do not think that at this point in the state of affairs we can emphasise enough just how important it is to have accountability, clarity and the ability to have straight- forward lines of communication.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I did not like to address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness before she had addressed them herself. I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell; I think it adds clarity. I absolutely agree with the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has just gone through. I think “fit and proper” is used many times throughout certainly financial services secondary legislation, and when it comes to hydrogen production it seems to me that this is something that is really key. I look forward to the Minister arguing that people in this position should not be fit and proper people, and I pass over to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in the interests of time, I will comment only on Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and offer strong support for it—alongside some potential improvements or broadening-out suggestions at this stage.

It is interesting that, in 2015, Steve Holliday, the then CEO of National Grid, said that the idea of baseload relying on coal-fired or nuclear power stations was “outdated”:

“From a consumer’s point of view, the solar on the rooftop is going to be the baseload.”


This would obviously need to rely on batteries for it to work 24/7. Mostly since that time, 3.3% of British homes have installed solar panels, but many of them were installed before batteries were a viable option. Those home owners should not pay the high levels of VAT to enhance the system for the benefit of both themselves and the whole of society.

I have later amendments talking about community energy schemes. I can think of numerous ones that I have visited over the years where solar panels were put on cricket pavilions, community halls et cetera. We have been talking mostly about domestic settings, but there are also many community settings in which the addition of batteries may now be a practical option.

We will be talking a lot in later groups about the issue of energy efficiency and improving energy security by reducing our demand. My understanding of the information from the Consumer Protection Association —and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—is that double, triple and secondary glazing are not currently covered by the VAT concession. It seems to me that this could possibly be included in this amendment; perhaps it is something we can work on.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by making it quite clear that my energy storage interests are not around long-term storage or retail storage.

I absolutely support the amendments put forward by my noble friends, but I will not talk about them. Instead, I will follow up on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and relate it to some of the discussion that took place earlier today in the House around storage, because gas storage is really important at this present time, and it will continue to be in future. I like the way—through a percentage or whatever we use—that we can see a relevant ratchet downwards, as we would expect. However, what alarmed me earlier today was that, in terms of current storage, we appear to be in the hands of independent directors of independent companies that have responsibility to their shareholders under the law, but not to the energy security of the country. That was very clearly stated by the Minister in terms of the decision to turn off the Rough facility in 2017. As I said at the time, if that was the case then, I see no reason why that is not also the case in future; there seemed to be no proposal by the Government to change that situation. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that part of my original question.

I will also go back to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, because part of the Minster’s earlier answer was that our storage is the gas we have in the North Sea. But we all know that that store is going down, and I certainly would not, from these Benches, resist trying to increase that in the short term during the energy crisis to ensure that our energy is there—the situation would be different in the medium and long terms. That flow is going down and our imports are going up. I do not know if these two years were particularly representative, but the last figures from the Minister’s department said that, in 2020, we imported £5 billion-worth of gas. A year later, that went up to £20 billion-worth of imports of gas—a quadrupling. That was not all because of a price increase at that time, most of which has happened in 2022.

Another statistic reveals that, while we think we have multiple sources, 75% of imports came from one country, which is Norway. Norway is a dependable friend of the United Kingdom; we would not argue otherwise. But we must be clear that Norway’s bigger customer is Germany. Germany and the other European countries which import gas from Norway are probably more desperate—this is likely not the right phrase to use—for that resource than we are. As I said, I very much support the outline of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and ask the Minister what security we actually have, and for how long, over our supplies—that is, the 75% of imports that we have from Norway. What is our legal entitlement to that flow into the future?

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, are very welcome and they plug a gap in the Energy Bill. Amendment 50 facilitates the changes proposed by allowing the Secretary of State to

“designate the person to be a counterparty for long duration energy storage revenue support contracts.”

Amendment 51 introduces a new clause which allows the Secretary of State to

“direct a long duration energy storage counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible person”.

Clauses 59, 61 and 63 already allow designation of counterparties for transport and storage, hydrogen production and carbon capture revenue support contracts, and Amendment 50 simply replicates this for long duration energy storage. Similarly, Clauses 60, 62 and 64 already allow the Secretary of State to direct counterparties to offer to contract, and Amendment 51 replicates this for long duration energy storage.

The amendments define long-duration energy storage revenue support contracts as being

“between a long duration energy storage counterparty and the holder of a licence under section 7”

and, as ones

“entered into by a long duration energy storage counterparty in pursuance of a direction given to it under section 60(1).”

This fills a big gap for long-duration energy storage. According to the Government, longer-duration storage—access across days, weeks and months—could help to reduce the cost of meeting net zero by storing excess low-carbon generation for longer periods of time, thereby helping to manage variation in generation, such as extended periods of low wind. This in turn could reduce the amount of fossil-fuel and low-carbon generation that would otherwise be needed to optimise the energy output from renewables.

Long-duration energy storage includes pumped storage as well as a range of innovative new technologies that can store electricity for four hours to supply firm, flexible and fast energy that is valuable for managing high-renewables systems. Introducing long-duration energy storage in large quantities in Britain by 2035 can reduce carbon emissions by 10 megatonnes of CO₂ per annum, reduce systems costs by £1.13 billion per annum and reduce reliance on gas by 50 TWh per annum. That seems to me worth consideration in this Bill.

Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which has general support around the House, requires the Government to produce a strategy for the storage of gas for domestic consumption. This would see the construction and operation of gas storage facilities capable of holding 25%, although it could be more—it could be 100%—of forecast domestic consumption each year beyond 2025. While agreeing that UK gas storage is currently small, which may have left us exposed to higher prices and shortages thus far, is it the solution to the long-term energy supply problems that we may face? It may well be that we need an immediate expansion of gas, but whether it is the long-term solution to our energy supply is open to some question. The UK currently stores enough gas to meet demand over four or five winter days, which is clearly not enough. But the new Chancellor said, when he was the Business Secretary, that the answer to mitigating a quadrupling of the gas price in four months was to get more diverse sources of supply, and more diverse sources of electricity, through non-carbon sources. So there is some doubt about the long-term viability of increasing gas storage.

Amendment 240 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would establish a new clause to store energy generated by solar panels in the list of energy-saving materials that are subject to zero-rate VAT. He had the example of his friend in the south-west. Modelling from Cornwall Insight’s view of the GB power market out to 2030 has shown that between 2025 and 2030 the Government must spend almost one-fifth of their total energy technologies investment, which includes solar, wind, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, on energy storage batteries, if we are to meet renewable targets and stabilise the energy market. Latest data estimates that almost 10% of grid capacity will be provided by battery storage by 2030, at an estimated cost of £20 billion. So, considering both the need and the cost of this, the amendment seems a sensible proposal to encourage the market to take up some of the burden.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that the Committee wants to push me further on the issue of the rough storage facility. Centrica has taken a decision and has applied for the consents to enable it to at least partially reopen the site for this winter. It has submitted a proposal for our consideration, which we are looking at. I can go no further than that at the moment, but I assure the Committee that when we have further news on this, I shall make sure that noble Lords are informed at the earliest possible moment.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

That is moving back from what I understood. I understood there had been an agreement, or is it just that the facility has been licensed? Is that how far it has got, and so a commercial agreement has still to be made? Is that where we are?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said at OQs this afternoon, licences have been granted by Ofgem, by the regulatory bodies, because the safety and security of the facility is important. Centrica has taken a commercial decision to open part of the storage facility for this winter, and it has submitted other plans for our consideration, which we are doing. I apologise to the noble Lord, but I can go no further than that at the moment. As soon I have further information, and we expect progress in the near future, I will inform the noble Lord and the rest of the Committee.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that information, but it sounds to me like Centrica is conducting a very hard negotiation with the Government, maybe at the security expense of the country—I do not know.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will leave that as a comment; there is nothing I can reply to on it. When I have further information, I will update the Committee.

The commitment proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan to have in storage gas equivalent to 25% of forecast domestic consumption by 2025 is extremely ambitious. It is also horrendously expensive to do and, I submit to the Committee, unnecessary. The Government fully recognise the importance of gas storage, as I said, and officials continue to work on the future role that it can play in the clean energy landscape, particularly as gas production, as a number of noble Lords have said, can start to decline. But, of course, the fact that we get 45% of our production from our own continental shelf is, in effect, a giant gas storage facility and that is why we have traditionally had much less than continental countries which do not have those advantages. There is an integrated market—that is correct—and both sides benefit from it. As I said, the interconnectors over this year have been operating massively in the direction of the rest of continental Europe from the UK.

I think I have answered all the questions that were raised about gas storage facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55, 56 and 57 to Clause 66, which are in my name. As has been eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, we absolutely need to put at the forefront of our attention the need to minimise adding costs to consumers at this time. Please excuse my coarse language, but it feels to me that the Government are in danger of moving from “cutting the green crap” to forcing us to take on crap green. That is essentially what we are doing here.

It is an adding of potentially unlimited expense for a commodity which will play a role—I am not completely against the use of hydrogen for certain applications—but the idea that it will be used at scale for homes is completely ludicrous. It is therefore absolutely right that we limit the levy to the people who will benefit from its use. That will not be consumers and certainly not electricity bills. What we want is cheaper electricity. I am confident that electricity will soften as we get off fossil fuels and rely more on more predictable and stable forms of electricity generation, such as nuclear, offshore wind and a whole panoply of ways of making electricity that we can control more easily than relying on imported gas. Those costs will soften, and we want to keep them cheap because that will enable us to electrify whole other segments of the economy.

So I absolutely support limiting this levy to gas, whether that is by saying it should be gas shippers or removing the reference to electricity, as my Amendment 55 does—I am completely agnostic on that, but the issue is fundamental. I will quote from a briefing that some of us may have received from E.ON, a big provider of energy which quite cleverly split itself into a clean electricity part and a not-so-clean one. The clean part says clearly that “recovering the costs of these new technologies through electricity bills is regressive and difficult to justify considering the soaring cost of living and the potential benefits of these technologies to individual consumers are uncertain. It is damaging that the Bill allows the Government to recover the costs of hydrogen revenue through electricity suppliers and, therefore, electricity consumers.” I fully support that and I have to say that my amendment was tabled before I read the briefing.

I considered striking out the whole levy with a clause stand part debate, but I thought that might be more the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, so in Amendment 56 I am simply saying that there should be a sunrise to delay us rushing into adding more costs. The amendment proposes that the regulations should not be brought in until 6 April 2026. Amendment 57 simply states that a financial impact assessment must be made available if and when this levy starts to be added to bills.

My guess is that the use of hydrogen will be limited. It will be very expensive and it is very inefficient, so the costs should not and will not be borne in time. But I am worried that in this Bill we seem to be diverting towards a distraction and risking an illogical transition which will slow us down and add costs unnecessarily. That is damaging to the net-zero cause and to people’s confidence in this transition. We should therefore be very circumspect on this levy provision; we should be narrowing its application and slowing it down. I hope that the Government will consider this, because I am sure they have read the science and understand the physics as well as everybody else. It really ought to be limited.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, maybe we need to take this forward as a way to do it. The cost to consumers is absolutely central at the moment, and this is not a short-term thing—it is at least medium term. Later we will come to an amendment which says we should repeal the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act, which was all about raising costs to consumers in the short term and has nothing to do with nuclear power otherwise.

In my amendment, I am trying to do something very similar to what has already been debated: if we are going to accept this levy—we know levies are always very contentious when implemented in terms of who has to pay for them and who gets the benefits from them, which leads to a lot of argument—it is quite clear that for hydrogen there is only a very limited sector of organisations, people and population who will actually benefit from it. In its own way, my amendment seeks to prevent other consumers who are not benefiting from hydrogen having to pay for that investment.

It is very much in line with other Members’ amendments and it is absolutely fundamental to the messages that we as a Parliament, and the Government, are putting out at the moment to consumers and company users of energy. Let us make sure that, if we have this levy, it is kept to those who benefit from hydrogen rather than those outside who do not.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Blake, for their amendments relating to the hydrogen levy provision. Before turning to the amendments, let me make the general point that these provisions in the Energy Bill will not, as all noble Lords are aware, immediately introduce this levy; they will only enable government to introduce the levy later through secondary legislation.

I will start with Amendments 52, 54 and 62 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Amendments 52 and 54 seek to limit the energy market participants that could be obliged to pay any future hydrogen levy to gas shippers only. The Government intend that the levy would initially be placed on energy suppliers, and it will operate in a similar way to the existing levy schemes, where revenue support is funded through energy supplier obligations, such as the supplier obligation that funds the current contracts for difference regime. That is because these funding mechanisms are well understood by the private sector and have been extremely successful. The Government consider that establishing a similar levy would provide investors and developers with confidence to invest in low-carbon hydrogen production projects.

The option to levy gas shippers has been included with the intention to allow for a greater range of options for future levy design. The Government anticipate that the costs of any future levy on gas shippers would be passed through the energy supply chain and ultimately on to energy users, in a similar way to existing supplier obligations. It is unlikely therefore that these amendments would have the effect of preventing costs associated with the levy being passed on to households.

I turn to Amendment 62, which seeks to guarantee the return of overpayments of the levy to energy customers. The Government’s intention, and our expectation, would be that, in the event of overpayment by relevant market participants, those sums would be returned to market participants, who in turn should then pass them on to their customers.

Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seeks to ensure than an obligation to pay a hydrogen levy would, where possible, be placed only on those who would directly benefit from the low-carbon hydrogen production funded by the levy. Low-carbon hydrogen could support decarbonisation across the economy, which could benefit gas and electricity customers generally.

The powers that we have in the Bill provide options for where a hydrogen levy might be placed in the energy value chain, enabling future regulations to make provisions requiring one or more descriptions of gas suppliers, electricity suppliers and/or gas shippers to pay the levy. The Government have not yet reached a decision regarding which types of market participants will be obliged to pay the levy. That decision will be taken in due course and will no doubt be discussed in our Lordships’ House during the course of the secondary legislation that would be required to implement it. The decision will take into account a wide range of considerations, including but not limited to considerations related to fairness, which I know are the focus of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords. Given the Government’s approach to policy development on this levy, I hope that noble Lords recognise the amendment is unnecessary.

I turn to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Amendment 55 seeks to ensure that an obligation to pay a hydrogen levy administrator could not be placed on electricity suppliers. I would contend that it is crucial that the provisions in the Bill allow for a range of options for where the levy might be placed to help enable the Government to future-proof the levy over the longer term and accommodate changes to the wider energy market.

As I alluded to earlier, we expect low-carbon hydrogen to play an important role in decarbonising the electricity sector. This provides support to the case for including electricity suppliers as a possible point of obligation for the levy. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and, if she will allow me, I will take this away and possibly revisit it at Report, but I hope she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I shall move Amendment 59 and speak to Amendments 60 and 61, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who sends his apologies. He had a diary clash, but assures me that he is fully supportive of this discussion. In fact, he informed he that he was around when the very first CfDs were used as private contracts, a long time ago, and is very keen that they remain a trusted and respected form of investment, hence he was keen to lend his name.

These are obviously probing amendments, designed to start a discussion about the need to preserve integrity in the CfD mechanism. The UK deserves huge credit for having introduced this mechanism, which is seen as investable and a dependable way of getting large investment into decarbonised infrastructure—something we all need.

It is regrettable that there is now a set of circumstances whereby contracts, once awarded, are not being taken up. The reason they are not being taken up is that market prices are currently so high that if you took on your contract for difference, you would be required to pay back into the fund anything above your strike price. Some of these contracts have been awarded at around £55, £59 or £60 per megawatt hour—market prices are way above that—so people are choosing not to take up the contract and to delay.

Now, I am aware of three wind farms that have currently delayed this for these reasons. It makes perfect sense for them: they are representing shareholder value and possibly could not do otherwise, because of the existence of a loophole, which is that there is no requirement to take up the contract once it is awarded. What we want to try to do is close that loophole and, if possible, do something about it in the current time. Amendments 59, 60 and 61 all seek to do that.

It is important to note that these three wind farms—I do not want to overblow this; it is not everybody—are all in foreign ownership. Ørsted, RWE and EDP Renewables in Spain own these sites. It is public money that they are essentially not giving back, having got this contract. It feels very wrong, at the time of a cost of living crisis, when we need every penny, for hundreds of millions of pounds to be lost to these companies and their shareholders as a result of this loophole in how the contracts are drafted and can then be delayed.

I am sure that the Government are working hard to try to address this too. It strikes me that we have an Energy Bill and can therefore get this right for future contracts, but if we can also do something about current contracts, that would be enormously beneficial. I thank Carbon Brief for helping me understand how many wind farms are involved in this: they are Hornsea Two, Triton Knoll and Moray East, I am told by an article in the Times, just to get that on the record in Hansard. If the Government know differently, and if they can tell us exactly the extent of the problem, that would be super helpful, because we have not been able to find it from official sources. This is, as I say, from research by Carbon Brief. If the noble Lord, Lord Howell, were here, I am sure he would say how keen he is for this to be resolved. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

The history of contracts for difference is longer than I thought; I thank the noble Baroness for mentioning that. They became a big thing in the last Energy Act during the coalition Government and have been amazingly successful. I have to admit that I did not realise that this issue was quite so significant, but it is interesting that, given the financial investment required for offshore wind farms and the time they often take to implement and build, this is a case where the risk goes up for the financial investor, as opposed to a low-risk contract for difference. I am therefore also interested to understand from the Minister whether these businesses are just delaying until they see the lay of the land and whether they still have those options, because there is that risk-reward ratio.

I very much support the intention of this amendment, but the energy industry has also talked about contracts for difference being a way forward even in the fossil fuel industry, and a way that we could decouple power prices from gas prices. It may be that the Government are not doing anything in that area, but I am interested to understand whether that is something the department is investigating as a way forward on that decoupling.

Contracts for difference are a fantastic invention. As the Minister said, at the moment they are bringing good money back into the public sector—technically into the counterparty company, but effectively into the public finances. I very much support the motivation of this amendment.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, we are also very supportive of contracts for difference and of this attempt to ensure that contracts entered into are adhered to. I was not quite sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, had the total number of these failures to enter the contracts, other than the three she cited, which is probably enough. Maybe the Minister could help with that if she does not have that information.

The only thing that concerns me is that, although I cannot think of what it could be, there might be some reasonable exemption for not signing up. However, apart from that, it seems to me entirely sensible to tighten this obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

We have already announced that we will move to annual CfD auctions, bringing forward the next round to March 2023. The Government therefore believe that the current legal provisions that exclude non-compliant applicants are proportionate and effective, and do not require further strengthening.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I hope I am not pre-empting the noble Baroness, but are the Government then going to use those powers?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

In law, the Government have the power to use them. I am afraid I am not able to comment on what action we might take on the three specific cases which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, mentioned, but as I said, I will take that back to the department and write to noble Lords to set out whatever action is being proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. I have not been clear enough; it is entirely my fault. These are not non-delivery instances. These are instances in which a wind farm is completed, has a CfD and then delays the actual mechanic of the strike price by a certain number of months or years. In doing so, they are ensuring that they can sell at merchant value now and then take up the strike price when the prices fall. Essentially, they have de-risked completely, so that we are carrying all the downside risk and they are taking all the upside risk. That is not how a CfD works. Three of them are doing this, so my fear is that this has almost become quite a clever standard practice. If it persists, this is hundreds of millions of pounds that could be coming back. It completely undermines the integrity of the whole process. So it is not the non-delivery or refusal to sign—I understand that all those provisions are there—it is the delaying out. There is nothing government or the LCCC can use to compel them to take it up at the point of signing. It is on that that I would love to receive a note.

We are obviously going to come back to this. It is all in the interests of getting value for money, keeping up the reputation of this sector and making it as full of integrity as we can. I will withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the conversation.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

This is something that I suspect we all hold the same view on. Could the Minister write to us to clarify the situation before Report? That would be very useful. It seems to me that we are all on the same side on this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am happy to agree to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. When I read the Bill, I looked at Chapter 2, entitled “Decommissioning of carbon storage installations”. My first question was: is not carbon storage all about being permanent? How the heck do you decommission a big hole under the North Sea and move all the carbon dioxide somewhere else? I do not want to understand the detail of this—if the Minister wants to accuse me of being thick or stupid about this, I can take it—but what installations for carbon capture and storage will be decommissioned and where the carbon will go. I should like to understand the scenarios so that I can understand how this part of the Bill works.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

I should also be interested to know that. First, may I say to the new Leader of the House that I would strongly recommend the reappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. That probably does him no favours at all, but that is just how it is. Secondly, I was going to set out a hypothetical situation about an oil and gas plant—

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back in Committee once again, debating the Energy Bill. I thank noble Lords for their patience during the interregnum. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill was necessarily paused following the death of Her Majesty the Queen. However, we have always been clear that the Bill represents a landmark piece of legislation to provide for a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system that is fit for the future, so I am very happy to be debating it again.

Clause 84 makes changes to Section 30 of the Energy Act 2008, which in turn enables modifications to Part IV of the Petroleum Act 1998. Amendments 90 and 91 make consequential changes to definitions in Clause 84 in response to government Amendment 70.

The next set of amendments relate to Clause 85. Amendments 92, 93, 101 and 102 update the heading, labels and definitions in Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008, as amended by this Bill, to avoid inconsistencies with existing definitions in the 2008 Act. Amendment 103 makes a consequential change due to the changes in definitions.

Moving to Amendments 94 and 95, the existing Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008 includes a carve-out in subsections (2) and (3). This prevents the Secretary of State designating an installation as eligible for change of use relief if it is to be used as part of a CCUS project that is in Scotland or is licensed by Scottish Ministers. However, the Scottish Parliament is also unable to legislate to confer such a designation power on Scottish Ministers because oil and gas is a reserved matter. It is important that change of use relief is available to oil and gas assets in Scottish territorial waters to create a consistent application of this policy. Amendment 94 removes this carve-out from Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008. Amendment 95 then updates a cross reference as a result of the proposed Amendment 94.

The process for issuing change of use relief first requires that an asset is designated as eligible. Only after this can the asset then qualify for that relief. Amendment 97 makes clear what conditions must be satisfied for an installation already designated as eligible for change of use relief by the Secretary of State actually to qualify for that relief. The first condition is that the Secretary of State has issued a carbon capture and storage-related abandonment notice under Section 29 of the Petroleum Act 1998 on a person for that installation. The second is that the trigger event has been satisfied.

Amendment 98 describes the trigger event that must occur for the relief to take effect. The trigger event requires that, first, a decommissioning fund must have been established for the relevant asset. Secondly, an appropriate amount must have been paid into this fund to reflect the decommissioning liability that the previous owner is being relieved of. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on the required amount that must be paid into the decommissioning fund, and who may make such a payment, to qualify for change of use relief.

The Secretary of State must also approve that the amount paid into the fund is sufficient. Amendment 96 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the Oil and Gas Authority before certifying that the amount is sufficient. Amendment 104 makes consequential changes to defined terms in Clause 85 as a result of Amendment 97.

I now turn to the other amendments tabled by noble Lords in this group. Amendments 99 and 100, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seek to enable the Secretary of State to accept financial security from the previous owner, rather than requiring the amount to be paid in cash into the decommissioning fund. The Government acknowledge the point made by noble Lords regarding the value-for-money considerations when requesting funds to be set aside for decommissioning. The costs of decommissioning a repurposed asset are likely to be incurred at the end of the carbon storage asset’s life, which may be many years after the establishment of the decommissioning fund. However, the purpose of this trigger event for the issuance of change of use relief is to help protect the taxpayer from the decommissioning liability by having funds available to decommission repurposed assets. The requirement for a cash deposit looks to ensure that funds are available should the carbon storage asset close early and decommissioning of the existing infrastructure is required. This reduces the risk that the burden of decommissioning is left completely to the taxpayer. It is also intended that decommissioning funds will be invested to allow the fund to retain its value over time until decommissioning is required. This is another reason why it is important for the previous oil and gas owner to contribute money into the decommissioning fund.

More generally, the policy intent of change of use relief is to provide previous oil and gas owners with greater certainty over their liabilities, to incentivise the repurposing of assets. In return, however, the taxpayer should equally expect assurance that the oil and gas owners’ liability will be met, in accordance with the obligations that the owners agreed to undertake on commencement of their oil and gas activities. The Government judge that this can be provided only through a cash deposit, and not through a promise of funding, potentially decades into the future. This is the principle on which the policy was proposed in the Government’s consultation in August 2021 and with which, at the time, respondents broadly agreed. Therefore, I beg to move the amendment in my name and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, not to move their amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s return to Committee; I am very pleased that that is the case. I have no comments to make on the amendments, but I note that during that interregnum, as the Minister described it, the Government gave planning permission for a coal mine. Although we are not going to debate it here today, that is a hugely retrograde decision which flies in the face of the Bill and the general way in which it looks forward. However, I have no comments on the amendments that the Minister has tabled.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am also delighted to be debating the Energy Bill again. I am delighted that the noble Lord is still the Minister so that we at least have continuity on the Bill; it remains much the same as it was before we left it some three months ago.

As the Minister said, the amendments refer to Clauses 84 and 85 of Chapter 2 of Part 2 on “Decommissioning of carbon storage installations”. This gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations regarding the financing and provision of security for decommissioning and legacy costs associated with carbon capture utilisation and storage. The decommissioning of offshore installations and pipelines used for carbon dioxide storage purposes is modified by Section 30 of the Energy Act 2008, which modified Part 4 of the Petroleum Act. Clause 84 enables further modifications to the modified Part 4 in relation to the definition of carbon storage installation, and the establishment of decommissioning funds and legacy costs as set out in Clause 82, “Financing of costs of decommissioning etc”.

Clause 85 relates to Sections 30A and 30B of the Energy Act 2008, which make provision for a person to qualify for change of use relief on installations and submarine pipelines converted for CCS demonstration projects—as defined by Energy Act 2010. This relief removes the ability for the Secretary of State, in some circumstances, to take steps under the modified Part 4. This clause makes amendments to Section 30A of the Energy Act 2008 by broadening the scope of change of use relief so that it applies to eligible carbon storage installations more generally, amending the trigger point to qualify for such relief.

Amendments 99 and 100, which the Minister referred to, were tabled by my noble friend Lady Liddell, who unfortunately cannot be here and therefore will not be able to move them. They reflect value-for-money considerations in the decision-making process, meaning that the Secretary of State could accept provision of security in respect of amounts to be contributed on account of decommissioning costs—costs likely to be incurred, as the Minister said, many years after the establishment of the fund—rather than requiring such amounts to be paid simply in cash.

--- Later in debate ---

I beg to move these amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I really have just one question for the Minister, and it is on decommissioning funds. It is not clear to me—that may be because I have not gone through the absolute intricacies of all these lines—who actually holds the funds for the decommissioning fund. Are they banked, are they in the Treasury, or are they in the Oil and Gas Authority? What guarantee do we have that they are there when needed and that they are not just used by the Treasury but are part of offsetting the public sector borrowing requirement? I am very keen to understand whether that is similar to the nuclear decommissioning sector, and where that happens.

I turn to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He has not spoken to them yet. I suspect that the Government might accept—

[A noble Lord]

They are all government amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Forgive me. I am looking at a slightly out-of-date document. Anyway, that is the area that I would be interested to understand from the Minister. We will come to other amendments another time.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I too welcome the return of the Bill. It is quite interesting to reflect back to the first and second days in Committee, when we were recording the hottest temperatures that we had ever experienced in this country and were making full use of that experience. We were also in the midst of the leadership contest and questioning the commitment of the candidates; we had no way of knowing, of course, that both of them would take their turn in No. 10 and have the ability to demonstrate their commitment.

We are really pleased to see the return of the Bill. We were concerned that there would be changes and, as we said on the first two days in Committee, there are some measures in this Bill that are urgent and that we need to get a move on with in order to address the challenges that we face in this space.

I do not have an enormous amount to add to the Minister’s very full comments. I just seek clarification. When I see an amendment on consultation, I am always slightly concerned to know who exactly would come into the sphere of consultation and make sure that it is as full as it could be. The issues around making sure that the fund remains sufficient are very practical and necessary. With that plea for clarification on consultation, I am happy to leave it there.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their remarks. I will start with the noble Baroness’s final question. As set out in the Government’s response to that consultation, it is expected that the owners of the asset will submit their assessment of the decommissioning liability to the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning for verification. This verification will include consultation with the North Sea Transition Authority, which will be able to compare the assessment against its extensive benchmarking data. OPRED will also be able to engage third parties to provide its own assessment if necessary. Once OPRED is satisfied that the assessment is accurate, it will advise the Secretary of State on approving the amount. That is the advice route that the Secretary of State would take.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, transport and storage companies will hold the decommissioning funds, but will be overseen by the economic and operational regulators. Funds to cover decommissioning costs will be included in the allowed revenue paid to the transport and storage company. The proportion of revenue to be paid into the decommissioning fund will be determined by the economic regulator once the decommissioning liability has been calculated. I hope that that deals with that satisfactorily—clearly not.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that very useful answer. Let me get that correct: the funds are being held by the commercial companies that are putting this money aside. Is that ring-fenced? If they go bankrupt, is that lost? How does it work?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

It could be a commercial company. It depends who gets the contract for the funds. Then they will be invested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I do not think we have a detailed enough answer, so perhaps we should follow up in writing.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I have a concern about this area and I think it is important that this is clarified.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will clarify that point in writing before the next stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments refer to Clauses 90 and 91. They concern consultation over the CCUS strategy and its periodic review. I am grateful to Drax for providing definitions. Carbon capture and storage traps and removes carbon dioxide from large sources and most of that CO₂ is not released into the atmosphere. That can be either pre or post combustion. If it is post combustion, the storage usually takes place underground in large silos, the largest of which is in Texas and which is currently processing 5 million tonnes of CO₂ a year. As an advert for Drax, it reckons that it would be able to process 20 million tonnes in North Yorkshire by 2030 or thereabouts.

Amendment 113 is about the requirement to include His Majesty’s Opposition in the list of organisations that must be included in stakeholder consultation. These reviews must happen either every five years or more frequently if certain circumstances take place, including a general election or if there is a material change of policy on CCUS. These reviews are to ensure a stable and predictable regulatory landscape for investors. I would have thought that the amendment to include the Opposition in the consultees’ list would be quite attractive to the Government, given the current state of the political landscape in the UK—but there you go. This new requirement would clearly be of overall benefit to the development strategy by involving a wider parliamentary group beyond just the Secretary of State when a review is required. If the Secretary of State seeks to amend the statement, they will have to follow the requirements in Clause 91, which include the requirement for the statement to have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the Secretary of State can designate it as a strategy and policy statement.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, in this group would ensure a requirement for consultation on the CCUS strategy and policy statement, if the Government should seek to amend it. It sets out the process that would have to be followed, and the Opposition support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was getting ahead of myself on the last group, and I apologise to the Grand Committee for that. I would have thought that the Government would like to accept this amendment, as they are likely to be in opposition in five years’ time. I wait to hear from the Minister.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, for their concern about whoever might be the Official Opposition at the time. I suppose we will see. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, did not want to ask for the fourth-placed political party in Parliament to be a statutory consultee as well.

These amendments seek to clarify those who must be consulted as part of the process of designating a CCUS strategy and policy statement. Amendment 113 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who, sadly for us all, is unable to be with us. This amendment seeks to require the Official Opposition to be consulted as part of the strategy process. I reassure noble Lords that parliamentarians will have the opportunity to consider any draft CCUS strategy and policy statement, which must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before it can be designated, as is provided for by Clause 91(10). So, of course, whoever is the Official Opposition at the time, and whoever is the fourth-placed political party at the time, will have a full opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter.

As the Bill sets out, any CCUS strategy and policy statement that has been designated will be required to be reviewed every five years, although, in the specified circumstances set out in the Bill, a review could take place sooner than five years. When the outcome of a review is that the Secretary of State considers that the statement should be amended, the Bill provides for a statutory consultation process, including consultation with the economic regulator and relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations. An amended statement would also be required to be approved by a resolution of each House, and would therefore be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it could be designated.

The process for designating the CCUS strategy and policy statement mirrors the process set out in the Energy Act 2013 for an energy strategy and policy statement. When the outcome of a review is that the Secretary of State considers that the statement does not require amendment, or should be withdrawn, this also requires consultation with the economic regulator and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. This is to ensure that any impact that this decision would have on the conduct of the regulator’s functions, or in relation to the important matter of devolved policy, is taken into account in the decision-making process. It is also the case, of course, that the Secretary of State can update Parliament on the plans for, and outcome of, any review, as part of the normal process of parliamentary business.

On Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, Clause 91 provides for the Secretary of State to consult whomever he or she considers appropriate, in addition to certain specified persons, in the process of developing a strategy and policy statement. This formulation enables the Secretary of State to consult ahead of laying a statement before Parliament. As I have set out, it is for Parliament to consider and approve any new or amended statement.

Although I thank noble Lords for their concern about whoever ends up being the Official Opposition at the time, and for their interest in this topic, I hope that the reassurances I have been able to provide on these points mean that they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

May I come back to the Minister on Amendment 114? It seems very restrictive to consult as the Secretary of State decides. I cannot pinpoint this, but in many other pieces of legislation the wording is much closer to that in Amendment 114. I do not understand why the Government would not accept that very modest amendment to those “affected” by a revision of the strategy. Surely this is far more restrictive than most government legislation in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to introduce his amendments, but I will say a couple of things about this because low-carbon heating is a key issue. As he will know, 40% of UK emissions, more or less, are from heating. One of the big gaps in the Bill is part of the solution to that: home efficiency, which does not really appear in the Bill at all but should have.

I would like to ask the Minister specifically about energy from waste. Clause 98(4) has a list of fossil fuels, but energy from waste is not there. It is sort of a hybrid of being one and not. Over the last decade or so, one of the issues has been that when we have had energy-from-waste plants there has been a big emphasis on them being compatible with using the excess heat for commercial or domestic heating purposes, but hardly any of them do that. They get the planning permission but hardly anything happens. There are one or two in south London where it works, but generally it is not the case. Where do energy from waste and the high carbon emissions from disposing waste fit into this? Do the Government have any appetite—I do not really see it in this section of the Bill—to repair that past omission and make sure that excess heat from those facilities is used far more effectively, and perhaps compulsorily, in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to the Clause 108 and Clause 109 stand part notices and to Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

We have had wide-ranging debates but, when it comes down to the content of the Bill, the most egregious elements are possibly these two clauses. It seems absolutely incredible that we should require people to enter into a trial for something on which multiple studies have been undertaken already. We are essentially legislating to force people to take part in something we already know the answer to. We know the answer because 32 independent studies of the use of hydrogen in heating—since 2019, so they are relatively recent—by organisations including the IPCC, the IEA, Imperial College, the Potsdam Institute, the University of Manchester, the Wuppertal Institut, Element Energy and the International Council on Clean Transportation, have all found that hydrogen should not play a role in heating buildings. Hydrogen will be hugely inefficient, compared with other clean alternatives and gas, in terms of pure energy efficiency, damaging to health and dangerous. That should be enough evidence for the Government to rule out this unnecessary trial.

I honestly believe that this is a consequence of a huge amount of lobbying coming from the incumbents in the industry, including those who today manufacture gas boilers, produce gas and move gas around in the networks. What they fail to mention is that it is not as simple as just switching over to hydrogen: you have to replace virtually everything to be able to burn hydrogen at high levels. Yes, of course, you can burn very low levels, but who wants low levels? We are talking about a net-zero strategy in the next 25 years; you cannot afford to go through increments of 20% hydrogen and 30% hydrogen—it is simply not credible. It will do exactly what we saw in the co-firing of biomass in coal-fired power stations; it keeps the incumbents going for longer, keeps their investors and shareholders happy, and gives them an answer to the question, “How are you going to make your business compatible with climate change?”. It is a glib answer. It is not a full answer—in fact, it is false—but it is an answer none the less. That is why we are being forced into considering this, even though the evidence is absolutely clear that this is not the answer.

If I were a resident living in one of these poor villages—the villages of the damned, as I like to call them—I would be absolutely up in arms at the prospect of being forced into this egregious position in which I am asked to take this technology, which will be more expensive, less beneficial for my health and more damaging to the climate compared with other alternatives. I fully support the withdrawal of the two clauses; the Bill would be vastly better if we got rid of them. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I particularly support the proposal to take out Clauses 108 and 109. I did not put my name to that, but it seems the obvious solution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we have all been on the receiving end of massive lobbying by the hydrogen lobby. I will not go into hydrogen extensively, but clearly there are areas where hydrogen will need to work. It will be important in some energy-intensive industries and some long-term transport solutions, but we seem to have overreached in terms of those applications.

For heating, it just cannot make sense to use green hydrogen, which would have to be produced by renewable electricity, as electricity could be used anyway. Scientifically and in terms of the laws of physics and efficiency, it does not make sense. Heating is an important area—as we said, it represents some 40% of UK emissions—so surely it must be electrification directly, geothermal technologies or air source heat pumps, as we have discussed before. That is why I think these clauses not standing part is the best solution. If that is not agreed, I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, has a similar one. This should not be compulsory and those consumers should be very aware of all the other repercussions.

My second amendment, Amendment 126, is less important. As with previous amendments, it just makes sure that only people who really benefit from these trials should have to pay for them and that those who do not should not. I do not understand how BEIS and the Government have become the victims of the lobbying that takes place.

Finally, perhaps I can cite a gentleman whose work I have been reading, Jan Rosenow. He takes his statistics from BEIS’s Hydrogen Production Costs 2021 and Ofgem’s wholesale market indicators. He is very clear that, depending on how you look at the timescale between now and 2050, hydrogen will cost three to 11 times more than fossil fuel gas at its present levels. Clearly, this is not an acceptable solution or route for decarbonisation.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Clauses 108 and 109—Chapter 2 in Part 3—on hydrogen grid conversion trials, covering modifications of the gas code and regulations for the protection of consumers. The background to this is that in 2021 the Government launched a consultation on facilitating a grid conversion hydrogen heating trial. The Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution sets out the ambition to support the industry to deliver hydrogen neighbourhood and hydrogen village trials by 2025. This consultation sought views on proposals to legislate to allow gas distribution network operators to carry out activities needed to deliver a grid conversion.

It would be unfair to say that the Government did not alert people to the complexity of the trial, because the consultation document announced that it involved replacing gas supplies with hydrogen in consumers’ premises. It also said:

“Existing in-home appliances and devices such as boilers and meters will need to be replaced with hydrogen-compatible equivalents. Pipework may need to be replaced if it is not already suitable for hydrogen. Additional internal work may also be required to make the property ‘hydrogen-ready’.”


On the face of it, the Government understood the complexity. They also said that the trials would be carried out by the gas distribution network operators in partnership with local authorities, and that, in the trial of hydrogen, safety

“will be of paramount importance”—

that is good news—with the Health and Safety Executive being consulted and involved in any measures of conversion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The answer to both of those questions is yes. No one will be forced to take part in the trial. If they do not take part in the trial, they will of course be given an alternative low-carbon solution.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify what areas are being looked at? I have seen Redcar, Whitby and Fife being looked at as potential areas. Are those agreed? Is the number roughly three and when are those locations likely to be confirmed?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There is already a small-scale trial in Fife in Scotland. There are two shortlisted villages, Redcar and Whitby—on the west coast, not Whitby on the east coast. They have been shortlisted for the trial and we will make a decision on the basis of submissions from both communities in the new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

In defence of my noble friend, I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister to come back and give us an indication of the length of the trials. He must know that, and that would be a very useful bit of information.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The initial intention is for them to last two years, but we will want to come back and look at all these details on the basis of proper scientific evidence.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether rounds one to three of the green heat network fund are throwing some light on the potential for expansion in this sector. Are the Government viewing heat networks as something that we will see a lot of, or just little bits and pieces? Coming back to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, if we are going to see a lot, are we seeing green heat sources coming into play in this area? If we are to see a lot of networks, and since the ones I am familiar with, at least, require serious street works, is there a possibility of combining those street works with separating sewage from storm water?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I want to reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in welcoming the fact that the Government really are concentrating on this area and giving it the attention that they have. We are one of the lackeys on heat networks, certainly in comparison with the rest of Europe.

One thing that struck me, though, was that on the occasions when I meet the Minister before a Bill goes through, he normally asks me to keep the number of Liberal Democrat amendments to a minimum. I think he has broken the record on this occasion, but I will keep my side of the bargain.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 161BB to 161BD agreed.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Is there a way in which we can just say yes to the government amendments here? There are hundreds of them—well, about 50—so it would make a lot of sense.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I am applying the usual convention. Okay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

I shall speak to just this amendment and be fairly brief. It would ensure that the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority was designated as the regulator for heat network zones. Those zones are fundamental to the scale of expansion necessary to achieve net zero. As we heard before, this in turn depends on local authorities having the right resources to deliver their responsibilities effectively. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State delegates to GEMA its authority status to act as regulator in this regard, as already described for heat networks. Essentially, they should expand them in the most efficient manner possible if we are to achieve net zero. Given Ofgem’s regulatory responsibility for zoning, as well as for the networks themselves, this would ensure a joint approach to get the best out of heat networks.

While the devil may be in the detail of the regulations themselves—we have heard about some of that already—the Opposition support the proposals in this group of amendments. Essentially, they are adaptable to changes. Monitoring and adapting to market changes will be vital, and we support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Ravensdale, to which they will speak shortly. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we move on to the zoning regulations. I very much agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. When I read through this section, I must admit that I found it extremely opaque in many ways. I will come to my own amendments in a minute, but perhaps the Minister can explain a few things to me. Clause 174(2) says:

“A heat network zone is an area in England”.


I presume that means that this is just English legislation, not for the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is very unspecific about what a network zone would be. I had assumed that it would be a single zone or single heating system, but it obviously is not. I am interested to hear from the Minister what a zone is likely to be in practice.

We then have a zone authority. Clause 175(1) states:

“Zones regulations may designate a person to act as the Heat Network Zones Authority”.


Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, pointed out, we have very vague ideas as to who this should be. I am interested to hear again from the Minister who the authority is expected to be.

Then we move on to zone co-ordinators. Who are they and what exactly do they do in comparison with the zone authority? Of course, in Clause 175(5), we have a list defining local authorities. I was delighted to see the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which I have represented in the past, there—all 2,000 souls are represented in that list. I would be really interested to understand from the Minister how all this works. Clause 175(4) says that the

“Regulations … may make provision for the Authority to require a local authority, or two or more local authorities”,


so it seems to me a very complicated landscape. I would be interested to understand how that jigsaw fits together.

Two of my amendments would change “may” to “must”; I just cannot see how it could remain “may” in those two places. The main thrust of my arguments is in Amendments 165 and 166. They are about making sure that the regulations are in line not only with the strategy and policy statement—which we have referred to many times already regarding the text of the Bill—but with, in particular, local authorities’ net-zero plans. A huge number of local authorities, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has pointed out, now have net-zero objectives and plans to back them up. We should give credit to that and include it in the Bill. My Amendment 166 is very much on the same area of the delivery of heat networks within zones and how they fit in with local net-zero energy systems.

As I said, it would be really useful to everybody to understand how this geography is meant to work. I suppose my question is: is this just too complicated or is there some logical method here that does not get in the way, and does not create a bureaucracy that gets in the way, of these systems?

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I again declare my interests as set out in the register. I speak to Amendment 167 in my name, which really builds on the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, have put forward to better set out the role of local authorities in this picture.

There is a great opportunity here to extend the zoning powers that we have in the Bill beyond heat networks into other areas. Ensuing that the Bill better defines local authority roles is really very applicable to the delivery of heat, because it is local authorities that know best about their housing stock and its condition and how they can deliver clean heat in their areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me first remind the Committee of the broader ambitions of this section of the Bill, which covers heat network zoning, which is a key policy to deliver the scale of expansion of heat networks that will be required to meet net zero. This process brings together local stakeholders and industry, to identify and designate areas where heat networks are expected to be the lowest-cost solution for decarbonising heating. The clauses will enable the Government’s commitment to introduce zoning by 2025.

Amendments 162YYYA, 162YYYB, 162YYYC, 162YYYD, 162YYYE, 162YYYF, 162YYYG and 165A—who gives these numbers to amendments?—are in my name. They will permit regulations to allow the heat network zones authority, which I will refer to as the authority, to directly designate zone co-ordinators and heat network zones in cases where these functions have not been performed by the relevant responsible bodies. This will deliver a more efficient process for establishing heat network zones.

More specifically, Amendment 162YYYA permits regulations to enable the authority to designate a person as zone co-ordinator. This may be necessary in scenarios where, despite directing it to do so using the powers in Clause 176(4), a local authority does not establish a zone co-ordinator. This could prevent the heat network opportunity that has been identified from being realised. Similarly, Amendments 162YYYB to 162YYYG provide for areas to be designated as heat network zones by the authority, in addition to zone co-ordinators as already provided for in Clause 177(1)(b). They also ensure that this expanded role for the authority is reflected elsewhere in Clause 177. This mirrors existing powers for identifying areas as heat network zones and reviewing areas designated as such. The authority or zone co-ordinators may undertake each of these activities. These amendments will therefore ensure that the authority may designate zones directly, avoiding unnecessary delays to the rollout of heat networks.

Amendment 165A concerns low-carbon heat sources. A range of heat sources could potentially be used by heat networks, including heat from thermal power stations, industrial processes or cooling and refrigeration. Clause 180 gives the Secretary of State powers to require heat sources in zones to connect to a heat network. This amendment will allow regulations to ensure that heat sources that are required to connect do not abuse their monopoly position and charge disproportionate prices for the heat that they provide. Equally, it will allow the regulations to ensure that the requirement to connect does not unduly disadvantage heat sources themselves. This will help to support fair pricing, which will give investors greater security and confidence and help to accelerate the delivery of large-scale heat networks in zones.

I now turn to Amendment 162YYYZA in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, regarding designating GEMA as the heat network zones authority. The authority will be a national body responsible for zoning functions that require national-level standardisation or are most efficiently or effectively carried out at a national level. This approach will allow for national standards and consistent rules to apply in the initial identification of a potential heat network zone.

In terms of who could fulfil the authority role, Clause 176(3) is explicit that the Secretary of State may but need not be designated as the authority. The clause as drafted therefore already provides that regulations may appoint GEMA as the authority. We will be specifying the authority’s functions and responsibilities in the regulations; this will therefore be the subject of further consultation.

The authority will fulfil a different function from the heat network regulator, which, as set out in Clause 166, we propose will be fulfilled by GEMA in relation to Great Britain. This role will cover all heat networks, both within and outside heat network zones. We do not envisage a separate regulator for heat network zones in England. We will be specifying the authority’s functions and responsibilities in the appropriate regulations; we intend for the body to undertake functions on behalf of the Secretary of State and be accountable to the Secretary of State.

Detailed considerations regarding roles and responsibilities in zones will of course be subject to further consultation as we continue to develop our policy proposals. Consultation on these issues will take place in due course. Appointing the authority in regulations will allow for amendment should this be required as and when its functions change over time as the networks become more developed in the UK. I hope that this has helped to clarify our proposed approach and the scope of the powers already provided.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his thoughtful Amendments 163 and 164, which would make the provision of the zoning methodology mandatory and require the methodology to include certain details. As always, we want legislation to be flexible and future-proofed. In this context, this means that the regulations can adapt to developments in the heat network market. The Government are clear that a national methodology for identifying zones will be necessary to enable a robust and transparent approach that increases overall efficiency and drives consistency. To this end, a pilot to support the development of the methodology is under way in 28 English cities and towns. The outputs from the pilot will help to inform policy design and future consultation on the methodology and its contents. Accepting these amendments now would, in effect, tie the Government’s hands at this stage to the potential cost of industry, stakeholders and, ultimately, consumers.

Next, I turn to Amendments 165 and 166, also from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which concern interactions between the national methodology and the co-ordination and delivery of heat networks at a local level. Accepting Amendment 165 would mean that the methodology was no longer nationally determined and would have to vary according to each local authority’s requirements. A national methodology will minimise the duplication of effort at the local level and instead ensure that local input is applied at the most appropriate stage: the refinement and designation of the zones themselves.

Heat network zoning will support local net-zero goals by unlocking the lowest-cost pathway to heat decarbonisation in built-up areas. As we expect that zoning co-ordinators will work with the local authority, their work will be brought into local net-zero plans. Therefore, Amendment 166 risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy at a local level, reducing zoning co-ordinators’ capacity to focus on the effective delivery of zones.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 167 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would extend the Bill’s heat network zoning provisions to individual heat pumps. As noble Lords will be aware, various factors, including building density and availability of heat sources, mean that certain localised areas are particularly suited to heat networks. This is why we are introducing a framework to identify where heat networks can provide the lowest-cost low-carbon heating solution.

The noble Lord’s amendment would apply zoning to heat pumps. Our strategic approach, set out in the heat and buildings strategy, is to work with the grain of the market and our policy levers are aligned to natural trigger points to create optionality for consumers regarding their various heating options. For clarity, such trigger points include appliance replacement and change of tenancy or property ownership, among many others of course. An approach where more technologies are zoned risks removing choice for consumers and could cause early appliance scrappage and additional disruption.

I thank noble Lords for this debate and for their amendments. I ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Could I ask the Minister for some clarification? I apologise if I have not got my head around this. What is a zone: a council estate, a county, a region or a combined authority? I am trying to get from the Minister a mental picture of what a zone could be and what determines that boundary.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No specific boundary is set out in the proposals. It can vary from authority to authority. It is very unlikely to be a whole region; it is much more likely to be an inner-city area, an industrial estate or something like that. It will very much depend on the local circumstances and what heating sources are available. Crucially, it will depend on local support, which is why local authorities are crucial to this process. Many local authorities around the country are already in discussions and are very keen to get on with these zoning proposals, presumably including Leeds. Although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, does not speak for Leeds any more, I know that it is one of the pioneers in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support Amendments 237 and 238, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 242F and 242G in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, which, with some variations, aim to achieve the same outcome. Previous speakers talked about the role of community energy generation, which is an important one in future energy supply. It was a small but growing effort in this country and a contribution to the development of renewable energy on a local scale.

However, when the feed-in tariff disappeared for new applications that really put the nail through the head of that growth, and nothing that the Government have done in the last few years to try to reignite it seems to have worked. People have talked about Licence Lite and the smart export guarantee, but neither of these has really produced an uptick in that trend of community energy generation. We need to find a way to get around that. This depends quite substantially on reducing the barriers of upfront capital and the regulatory effort of getting a connection to the system, on making sure that there is a key partnership between the big boys and the small community energy generators, and on some sort of guarantee of purchase price and length of contract. If we do not have those, we will not get any security into the community energy generation sector through investment.

These amendments put forward simple solutions. I shall not go into any detail, because the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has gone through them, suffice it to say that the whole issue is about how local energy generators can sell the power they generate locally through a community scheme to local communities. That is the magic bit in this area of community generation. Local schemes are developed and owned by local people, and they have local benefits in the form of cheaper and cleaner energy. They also provide other benefits for local communities.

When I was thinking about a way of describing this, it came to mind that the Labour Party used to talk about Arthur Scargill in a particular way: “He may be a bastard but at least he’s our bastard”. There is a difference between “damn windmills” and “our damn windmills”, so there is a real attraction in local support. I thought that the Government were keen on improving the popularity of locally determined schemes—I am sure that they are—which gives me huge confidence that the Minister will take these four amendments and do the job that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested some of the rest of us do: draw out the best cherries from among them.

However, I do not intend to do that. I would rather like the Minister to do it and come forward on Report with a government amendment that meets the key needs of obligating the big boys to buy from the small-scale generators; setting a predictable, fair price; and setting a minimum contract period.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Most of what needs to be said has been said. I guess I need to declare my interests: I am a fairly insignificant shareholder of St Ewe community energy, which I have not heard a lot from recently—probably because of the reasons that we outlined here.

The one point I want to make is that this is exactly one of the areas that has been left out of this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said. It should be in here. However, to me, although community energy is about generating power, the real importance of it is in allowing communities to come together and be a part of the national and global march forwards to net zero. When there were feed-in tariffs, there was an enthusiasm for people coming together and being part of this essential journey towards a clean economy, a clean society and the environment that communities, families, households and small businesses wanted to see in their local areas. It is not about participation in that big COP 27 or whatever; it is about the local contribution that allows people to participate in one of the most important journeys and fights that we face at the moment, which is about climate change and all the benefits that come from net zero.

Let us have this issue in the Bill. Let us ignite this sector again. Let communities participate in one of the most important objectives that we have on this planet.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to add my strong support for Amendments 237 and 238, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and her strong team of cross-party supporters. I thank Steve Shaw of Power for People for his briefing. I will speak only briefly, principally to ask a few questions of the Minister; I hope that he will be able to respond to them—if he heard what I just said.

As we face the existential threat from climate change, it cannot be right for small-scale community renewable energy schemes to be rendered unworkable by disproportionate regulatory burdens and costs. Other countries are promoting small-scale energy production, apparently often by community groups, far more effectively. It must be possible for the UK to do the same. I hope that, today, the Minister will agree in principle that this Bill must remove the barriers to community energy production.

As somebody else—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—said, if the Government can come up with improved amendments on Report to achieve this objective, I for one will welcome them. Does the Minister accept that the community renewable energy sector has the potential, as claimed by its advocates and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to provide 10% of the UK’s electricity generation? I hope that the Minister can respond to this question because it is incredibly important. If the Government can really do that—come on—surely we have to enable them to do it.

Does the Minister accept that it is perfectly feasible to reduce significantly the financial, technical and operational requirements to become a licensed energy supplier, and thus to reduce significantly the initial £1 million start-up cost involved? Of course, that makes the whole idea of developing these community energy schemes quite out of the question. Can he assure the Committee that the department will work to resolve these issues before Report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, a number of suppliers already offer competitive tariffs in the market. They will provide long-term certainty on pricing. There are many examples of industrial units that have already put solar panels on. Obviously, the most cost-effective way is for them to use that power themselves and export any surplus power to the grid using the smart export tariff guarantees. I will answer that question again: the Government are supportive of community energy schemes. We want to see more of them, but we think that is best delivered through the market framework. I will happily provide noble Lords with more detail in writing.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Can I remind the Minister that it is government policy to decarbonise the electricity system within 12 years and one week? That is no time at all. I am absolutely a defender and promoter of market forces, but in some places they just do not act quickly enough. We have a very short period of time in which we must decarbonise the electricity system. I cannot see why the Minister would not be in favour of ease of movement into this market. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it does not necessarily require subsidy. To use a Borisonian term, it would unleash the real will of communities in this country to help in that target of decarbonisation by 2035. I cannot see why the Government do not grasp this and make the most of it.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, we are supportive of proposals. We accept the target for decarbonising electricity production and we are moving ahead full-scale with our sails erected—which is no doubt a Borisonian term—towards that goal. Community energy will play probably a small role, but it will play a role. Obviously, larger-scale generators will supply the majority of the nation’s electricity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My little Amendment 177 seems to have intruded on this group of government amendments. I tabled it because I was concerned about the practical implications of the Government’s reliance on smart regulations and smart appliances. I am certainly not arguing with the technology but I am seeking to tease out exactly how this will impact on us and the people of Britain as ordinary consumers.

If you read Clause 187, you will see that it is very dictatorial and centralised in its approach. Yet if you look at paragraph 438 of the Explanatory Notes you will see that, in practice, the Government’s intentions are going to be carried out by retailers and manufacturers, and they will face penalties if they do not get it right. My concern is that one size does not fit all. For example, the noble Baroness just mentioned washing machines and so on, but my example would be electric vehicles. We are told to charge electric vehicles at times when electricity usage is low, and we are promised that this will become an automatic default position. The Government are relying on smart usage, in effect, to expand limited national grid capacity. At the weekend, when I was reading some background material, I noticed that there are only two regions where there is currently said to be any level of surplus national grid capacity. The rest of the country is in a very stretched position.

I have been asking these questions for some years. I have been asking how a reliance on telling people when they can wash their clothes or charge their cars will impact on consumers and the way we use our gadgets and run our daily lives. There is a current experiment, not using smart technology but with a voluntary agreement, to get people to opt in to using their washing machines, dishwashers and so on at low-demand periods, with a financial incentive to do that. That is great if it is convenient for these people and they are opting in to do it. I am pleased that the experiment is taking place, as I am sure it will produce some useful information, but I want to float past everyone a couple of potential issues.

First, I do not want to bore noble Lords for long with the details of my domestic life but I have solar panels and an electric car. I want to use my washing machine and dishwasher and charge my electric vehicle when the sun is out; sometimes, that is at a time of peak demand. I am saving myself money, which I regard as a good thing, but, more importantly, I am limiting the amount I draw down from the grid because my solar panels provide my electricity. I am minimising my call on the grid. There are lots of people like me with solar panels; let us hope that there are heaps more in the coming months and years. This issue needs to be taken into account.

Secondly, more importantly, there is a host of people whose working patterns require them to charge their cars and do their washing at peak times. A care worker working nights has to fit their domestic life around those daily patterns, which might be peak demand times. This is not just about just care workers; it is about health workers, district nurses or anyone working on shifts—the police, firefighters and taxi drivers. We want taxi drivers to drive electric vehicles but they are going to run out of electricity half way through the day; they must be enabled to carry on their work.

We have all, I am sure, experienced a situation where we have had to take our phone or laptop to the technical experts because it is doing something strange, behaving in a way that is beyond our understanding. We are normally told that it is the factory settings or an automatic download. I am now aware that, because they are so automated, electric vehicles adopt patterns that one might not necessarily understand fully because they have downloaded a new program and so on. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, in reality, consumers will find it more difficult to understand what it is doing, why and to override it when they need to.

My big question is that any reliance on smart charging and smart usage must be able to be adapted for that large body of people for whom it is not convenient. In days of high energy prices, most of us can probably be relied on to know what is best for us financially and, therefore, what draws least from the grid. I am concerned that the way in which this is expressed allows no latitude, judgment or option for consumers to make that decision for themselves.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 181 in my name, which follows on from what my noble friend Lady Randerson was talking about.

The whole area of smart appliances is really important. It is in fact where demand management starts to creep into this Bill; it is about the only place that it does. The popularity of their potential has, I think, been shown by National Grid’s call for people to offer to manage their energy usage over particular times in the winter; the Minister may give us the figures but I think that more than a million people have shown an interest in it. I would be interested to know where we are with that.

There is a risk here, however. We have seen it with smart meters. I will not go back to the smart meters argument but one barrier to rollout has been the fear of people sharing information. Clearly, data is core to smart technology; data is personal so there is the question of how that data will be used.

My Amendment 181 is really a probing amendment; it is not in the form that would finally go into a Bill. It seeks to understand how the Government are going to communicate what is a really important thrust in terms of demand management and the way we use dispersed energy systems in a smart grid. How are they going to explain and deliver the strategy outlined so that we do not have the consumer reaction that we have had in other areas, including smart meters—very much media-driven, I should add? I want to avoid that.

The other area on which I want to tackle the Minister is concerns Clause 187(3)(d). It is one sub-paragraph of just three lines about security of information—indeed, the whole area of security. This is a core, important area: we know that, wherever smart systems or information technology are involved, there are all sorts of threats regarding the use of personal information. There is also the threat of external hacking, with state actors or others going into these systems and making them unusable.

It is easy and right to say that personal and other data used with smart technologies are secure or otherwise protected, but who is actually going to do that? I am talking about security or communication software systems. I would like to know from the Minister who will be responsible for the protection and security of these systems. I believe that it is important from the bottom up in terms of personal information but also in terms of smart grids and external, less favourable people towards the United Kingdom intervening here. I am sure that the Government have this under control and consideration but it is a really important area. We need to understand that it is being taken seriously and that, whoever the person or authority, they are going to make sure that these particular three lines in Clause 187(3)(d) are delivered.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will be brief, but I will continue the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on security. I do not have a sense of confidence when we are told that the Government are going to be responsible for these specific areas. Could we have some more detail from the Minister about how this will be put in place and regulated? As we have heard in this discussion, exposure to cyberthreats could be enhanced by the very nature of smart technology. Therefore, we need a great deal of reassurance that this is being dealt with appropriately, and we know who is ultimately responsible for that reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to strengthen the enforcement powers of the energy smart regulations. This would enable an enforcement authority to investigate and take action swiftly and effectively against non-compliance, and to provide support to industry to comply with their obligations. First, these amendments enable the regulations to place obligations on economic actors to take steps to remedy non-compliance, and to provide evidence of their compliance to an enforcement authority.

Secondly, the amendments allow an enforcement authority to test and make test purchases to assess and to ensure that appliances comply with the regulations. This is an essential requirement, given the necessarily technical requirements the Government will impose to protect consumers and the energy system. If severe non-compliance is identified, Amendment 186 grants a power to an enforcement authority to issue a recall notice to withdraw appliances from the market, if necessary.

Thirdly, Amendment 187 permits an enforcement authority to accept enforcement undertakings. This allows authorities to work constructively with industry to ensure appliances are brought into compliance with regulations, without the need for costly corrective enforcement action being taken.

Finally, Amendment 188 allows an enforcement authority to issue guidance about the enforcement of the regulations and how any authority would exercise its role. This will support industry to comply with their obligations. The market for these appliances is expected to grow rapidly and will play an essential part in the transition to a smarter energy system. These appliances will help consumers save money on bills and contribute to cost-efficient decarbonisation. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an important group of amendments to enable an appropriate and proportionate enforcement regime to develop, which is consistent and compatible with existing product safety legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to probe the Minister so that I understand how this works in practice. What are the Government enforcing? Is it an operating system? Is it the design of a chip? Is it the company that makes them? Will they be type-approved in the UK? Will there be compatibility across different domains? All producers of white goods are international, I think. Will we have our own standards here? I am trying to understand how this will work practically. I absolutely agree with the Minister that this is a key area.

Enforcement authorities are mentioned in the Bill. I just want to understand who they are. Are they the thought police? The Minister mentioned an organisation—the UK cyber headquarters or whatever—so is it that? Is it the Department of Trade, as we would have understood it? Is it the police? Who are those enforcement agencies and how will they work?

I have one last request for clarification. Clause 189(2)(f) refers to

“conferring functions, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion.”

I cannot work out what that means so I would be pleased to understand it.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I agree that the language in that particular paragraph is quite legalistic. I might need to come back to the noble Lord on that one unless I can get an instant answer.

As I have said, the detailed enforcement regime will be set out in legislation. The enforcement powers underpinning these regulations will provide an appropriate toolkit to allow an enforcement authority to work with industry to ensure that appliances are both compliant with the future regulations and proportionate to the risks that non-compliant devices could pose to consumers and the grid. The Government have aligned the enforcement powers underpinning the regulations with other product regulations that have similar enforcement powers, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021.

We are in conversation with regulators on our measures. We are confident that we will have the right knowledge and expertise to resource and regulate this market as it develops. I think that is probably as far as I can go at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have some more government amendments for his delectation. I will also speak to Amendments 200 to 211, 243 and 244, 246 and 247, which all stand in my name.

Amendment 199 introduces a new Part 9A to the Bill which relates to the existing energy savings opportunity scheme, commonly referred to as ESOS. I committed at Second Reading to table these new clauses regarding improvements to ESOS. For those noble Lords who do not know, ESOS is a mandatory energy audit scheme for large organisations, covering their buildings, transport and industrial processes. ESOS provides businesses with cost-effective recommendations on energy efficiency measures. The existing scheme is estimated to lead to £1.6 billion of net benefits to the UK, with the majority of these benefits applying to participating businesses as a result of reduced energy costs.

The power in the amendment would replace the repealed power in the European Communities Act 1972 under which the UK established ESOS in 2014. Without this, ESOS is a frozen scheme and cannot be updated. The changes are aimed at encouraging businesses to take action on recommendations to increase their energy and carbon savings.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify: did he say that this Bill revokes that EU legislation? Is that what he just said?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The power in the amendment would replace the repealed power in the European Communities Act 1972, which I presume was repealed after Brexit, or rather the end of the implementation period.

The changes are aimed at encouraging businesses to take action on recommendations to increase their energy and carbon savings. The benefits to existing participating businesses are estimated to be savings of £1.12 billion from 2023 to 2037 through reduced energy bills. The savings would of course help to support businesses to keep the costs of their products and services affordable for consumers.

Amendments 200 to 202 outline some of the details of the ESOS regime and associated powers to make regulations. They include provisions regarding which undertakings ESOS should apply to; provisions regarding when, how and by whom an ESOS assessment should be carried out; and ESOS assessor functions and requirements.

Amendment 203 enables regulations to introduce a requirement for ESOS participants to publish an ESOS action plan covering intended actions to reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. This requirement aims to increase participants’ engagement with ESOS and stimulate greater uptake of energy efficiency measures. Amendment 204 enables regulations to impose requirements for ESOS participants to take actions that directly or indirectly support the reduction of energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.

Amendments 205 to 207, 209 and 210 concern the administration and enforcement of the scheme. They enable regulations to make provisions about the appointment of scheme administrators and their functions, including compliance monitoring and enforcement, provisions on penalties and offences, and rights of appeal. These amendments also enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance and to give directions to a scheme administrator, with which it must comply.

Amendment 208 concerns procedures for making regulations. It requires the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons considered likely to be affected by the regulations and, where provisions relate to devolved matters, the respective devolved Administrations. It describes where affirmative procedure would be required, for example if extending ESOS to smaller businesses, mandating action by ESOS participants or creating offences.

Amendments 211 and 243 define certain terms used in the ESOS provisions, explain where provisions fall within devolved competence and set out the extent of the ESOS provisions to be England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments 244 and 246 clarify when the amendments will come into force. Amendment 247 inserts into the Title of the Bill a reference to the new clauses on ESOS, introduced by Amendments 199 to 211. With that, I beg to move Amendment 199 in my name.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The clause enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to scheme administrators and ESOS participants. It does not, of course, compel us to do so but we are taking a power to have that option. If we decide to provide financial assistance, I will inform the House accordingly.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, there was a reason for my question. I absolutely agree that the Minister warned us that we would have these amendments coming down the track, and on ESOS I welcome that fact because it has been a very good scheme. Although companies occasionally bitch about it, as he says, it has caused actual change.

As the Minister will know, being a former MEP and so on, the ESOS scheme at the moment is based on the energy efficiency directive of 2012, which was updated in 2018. It came into force in the UK in 2014 and, as the Government’s website says:

“Government established ESOS to implement Article 8 (4 to 6) of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU).”


The reason I asked him for a clarification on his opening statement is that nowhere in his amendments could I see anything that repealed the existing directive or regulations that related to the energy efficiency directive.

Is this a sort of parallel scheme to the one that still exists, or is it still based on the original EU directive? If it is still based or relies upon the original EU directive, what happens if ever the retained EU law revocation Bill becomes a statute? Does all this fall away because it still relies on that EU legislation? If it is a parallel scheme, when does the existing one stop under the EU directive and this one actually start? That is what I am trying to understand. The Minister may well have explained this—forgive me if he has—but I do not get a flavour for what the big difference is between this one and the existing one. What would he see as the big positive change?

My last question is a more general one. I have not counted the non-government amendments that have come forward, yet—despite having on this side, and even part of that side, combined brains the size of a planet, excluding mine—the Government have not seen one amendment worthy of thinking, “Yes, that could be useful and might be something that could improve the Bill.” I just ask the Minister before the end of the year—and I wish him and the Bill team a very enjoyable Christmas and break—why has none of the brainpower on this side has been worth taking notice of in terms of the Bill going forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are not proposing to extend it to medium-sized businesses at this stage. We would want to work with stakeholders on the detail of any potential future implementation, which would be subject to a further consultation and, ultimately, a cost-benefit analysis. This is a complicated area and there are a number of different views. We have had a couple of consultations on this. With these amendments, we are taking the powers to implement the scheme. Of course, the regulations would be subject to further debate in the House.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I just want to check something with the Minister. Are we saying that, if the retained EU law Bill became an Act, with its sunset clause of 2023, this scheme would still remain in force and there would be no legal ambiguity about it? Also, I believe that the next deadline for reporting is December 2023. Can I check that this still holds?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is asking for commitments on a different piece of legislation. When that Bill arrives in the House, we will no doubt have a full discussion on it. My understanding is that it is at Report stage in the House of Commons now. The sunset date is still set at 2023 although there are powers in that Bill to exempt particular pieces of legislation and Ministers have the option of extending the sunset date for pieces of retained law that it is not possible to update or review in the short time available. I am sure that we will have a long, involved discussion on the retained EU law Bill when it arrives in the House and that I will get déjà vu from the Brexit withdrawal Act, with many of the same people no doubt making many of the same points they made during that time.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Since we are having this conversation, it is not a question of putting off these measures but of proportionality and ranking those impacts according to the scale on which they are occurring today, taking into account the positive impacts of offshore wind on no-take zones and the artificial reefs they create, as well as the advances in technology that mean that floating platforms will be more common.

Then there is subsea cabling. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, did not pick up on the fact that the 30% loss she cited is very old data. We do not see those losses now, with modern technology. Subsea cabling will be the future of connections into existing places where there are already reinforced grids, thanks to the closing down of thermal plants. I do not see that we should be unduly raising issues and putting more and more barriers in the way of clean technologies delivering great reductions in emissions, as well as providing energy security and jobs. I support the Government’s amendments and I am sorry that I cannot be more supportive of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, before I start, as we may talk about energy storage later, I declare my interest as a director of Aldustria Limited, which is into energy storage. I am also chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.

First, I congratulate the Government on the Chris Skidmore report that has just come out. It is one of the best reports sponsored by the Government, and I look forward to hearing their reaction to its recommendations. There is some really good stuff in there that must be applauded.

Generally, I welcome these amendments. We know that we have to decarbonise our energy and, in particular, our electricity system; the Government have committed to do so completely by 2035. To do that, we have to make sure that we can deliver. Probably pretty well everybody agrees that methods of implementation, planning and getting wind farms into the gestation period all need to happen quicker, but we also know that there is a biodiversity crisis.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I deal a lot with the Wildlife Trusts, and it is about nature recovery, not stopping stuff. No other organisation is more into pointing out that we have been in retreat, we continue to retreat and that we need to reverse that—and the ways of doing so, primarily through agriculture but also, in the marine environment, various other ways as well.

I get a bit involved in the Celtic Sea development, which, I am pleased to say, the Minister mentioned. Down in the south-west we have been saying that there needs to be a holistic look at the effects of that programme on the environment—marine and terrestrially, where it comes on board—and that the research needs to be done in advance. That should quicken it, in that it is done in one whole system rather than by individual planning applications for individual farms or floating facilities, and so on. Through that, there is not necessarily a conflict between the two.

I very much support the exposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the hierarchy, because I am certain that, as we know from onshore and things we have talked about before, off-setting as we knew it is an excuse, mainly for developers—I declare that I have a developer role. It is sometimes too easy to push the problem somewhere else and not confront it where you are actually causing the damage. One of the problems is enforcement and making sure that those things actually happen.

As I said, I generally welcome these amendments and trying to speed up the process, which is necessary, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am concerned that we need to make sure that the powers given under these amendments are restricted to environmental improvement, in that they do not detract from that. I am particularly interested in how this compensation might work. The mitigation hierarchy absolutely needs to be put in primary legislation, but I want to understand from the Minister whether it is the Government’s intent that mitigation elsewhere should be a last resort. That is the fundamental question, and I would be very interested to hear the answer.

On the voluntary marine recovery fund, the idea of a voluntary fund seems very strange to me. What does it mean? I would like to understand from the Minister whether it means that, ultimately, it is voluntary. Is it voluntary for a developer that cannot do mitigation as we would all wish to contribute to this fund, or is it, at that point, compulsory? I do not get it. If it is voluntary, I am heavily concerned.

In addition, who will manage it in England? I understand well and I agree that it should be farmed out to the devolved authorities, but who will be the manager of that fund? I assume that it would involve rather large amounts of money, so how it is managed will be particularly important.

I also understand, although I do not think it is in the amendments, that there will be offshore wind environmental standards; I think that is in part of the briefing. I presume that these will have to be done by Defra. Defra is absolutely useless at doing environmental standards anything like on time. It has the whole of the EU repeal legislation Bill to do; I think the Defra Minister, Richard—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Benyon.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Yes; the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said that there were 1,200 pieces of legislation. I am therefore very concerned about how those standards will be produced and when. Perhaps the Minister could just give us an idea of those deadlines. I have a concern about enforcement generally but I am sure that the Minister will say, “They will be enforced.”

I have a further question in this area, which is around making sure in future that we have much better co-ordination on new developments and sharing infrastructure. I know this has come up in the Bill, but can the Minister assure us that this will be much better managed than in the past and that it will be a network rather than point to point? I again congratulate the Government on their agreement with the EU last month on the North Seas Energy Cooperation forum, which the UK has now joined. That makes complete sense to me. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what the next step on that co-operation is.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Minister for his full explanation of the amendments in this group. I also thank all those who have contributed to the discussion so far and I very much look forward to the answers the Minister will give to the relevant questions that have been asked.

Obviously, the Government’s ambition of delivering up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, including up to five gigawatts of innovative floating offshore wind generation, is to be welcomed. However, as we have heard, this is a challenge in terms of delivery and obviously, it poses questions about the impact on the wildlife in the areas where these installations will go.

I understand that Denmark is well advanced in this respect, particularly on innovative floating offshore developments. Are we in dialogue with Denmark about its experience in this area? What has it learned, and does it have the same measures in place? It does not seem that we need to be setting this out if some of these challenges have already been met or understood, or indeed through implementation. I know that one of Denmark’s real concerns is moving the energy off the island and how that will be achieved, but also energy storage. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to the thinking on putting in these installations and how we will get the maximum benefit from them without losing, as we have heard, some of the valuable energy delivered through the process.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall finish by saying a few words on Amendment 224 because I think it beggars belief that anyone still thinks that the solution to our energy woes is more gas. It is clear that we need more, not less, energy, but that energy must be clean. It must be sourced on UK soil or from our waters. Gas from the North Sea is sold on the international commodities market; we cannot buy it directly. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I shall speak to my Amendments 223 and 232, but I am in sympathy with my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s amendments. On flaring, we are undoubtedly the dirty man of the North Sea. Although the Minister may say that over the past year we have reduced our flaring by some 20%—we are starting to get there—as my noble friend said, really it should be zero, as many North Sea neighbours have been able to do.

Amendment 223 effectively bans fracking. It is straightforward, in black and white. I shall go through a bit of modern history—this Government’s view of fracking. In November 2019, there was a moratorium on fracking. In September 2022, fracking was allowed. In October 2022, fracking was banned. Let us be clear about this: we need a little certainty and the firm smack of decisive government here. Let us put this to bed by putting a ban on fracking in primary legislation.

With the cost of energy from gas at the moment, the problem is that in the UK we are still overdependent on gas, but our production, even with fracking, would be minuscule in terms of global production, so it would have little effect on the market price. Looking back to last February, Kwasi Kwarteng tweeted

“UK producers won’t sell shale gas to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities.”

Indeed they are not. Fracking in this country will make no difference to gas prices at the moment. It will take some years to develop it, and the time is past. Let us be decisive about this and make clear where the UK stands.

Amendment 232 is very similar; it concerns England, because this is a devolved area. We should end the licensing of new coal mines. I was quite shocked at the end of last year that the Whitehaven mine in Cumbria was approved, and that it was approved by the Levelling-Up Secretary, Michael Gove, who should know better, having invented the 25-year environment plan, knowing all about these issues and being one of the best Environment Secretaries we have had for many years and a member of a Government who have sufficient respect and leverage to say no to something that should not happen. We have become an international laughing stock in many ways. Our reputation has been straightforwardly destroyed by hypocrisy.

I looked at a BEIS press release from just over a year ago, on 3 November 2021, regarding COP 26. It says:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26, with countries such as Indonesia, South Korea, Poland, Vietnam, and Chile announcing clear commitments to phase out coal power … Business & Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: ‘Today marks a milestone moment in our global efforts to tackle climate change as nations from all corners of the world unite in Glasgow to declare that coal has no part to play in our future power generation. Spearheaded by the UK’s COP26 Presidency, today’s ambitious commitments made by our international partners demonstrate that the end of coal is in sight.’”


A year later, just after COP 27 has finished, we have the Government declaring that a coal mine should open in England.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Would the noble Lord remind the Committee that that coal mine will not produce power—all the pledges that he has just talked about concern the use of coal to produce power—but steel?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. One-fifth of that production is estimated to be going towards steel, an industry that needs to decarbonise and has said that it will do that itself. The other 80% is to be exported and will be used as energy. I cannot understand what else it would be used for.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Steel.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

But that industry should be decarbonised. Whatever the noble Lord says, it goes exactly against what we as a nation have said about the future of coal. That brings disrespect, I am sad to say, on not just this Government but this country. That is why I believe this amendment is an important one to go forward.

If the Government cannot agree to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on the name of the Oil and Gas Authority then there is absolutely no hope for the Bill. I also very much support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I remind the Committee that the International Energy Agency’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said at the end of last year:

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 224 and 230 standing in my name. Before I do so, I shall make a supportive remark about Amendment 226 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley.

I remind the Committee, since it is such a long time since Second Reading back in July, that the context in which it was introduced was one of a very serious energy crisis. Whether or not we have a climate crisis is highly debateable, and many of us do not accept that alarmist language. However, that we undoubtedly had an energy crisis in the course of last year is absolutely manifest in the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people living in this country. Although we have been assisted by the weather in having a very moderate winter and therefore less demand for domestic energy, none the less that energy crisis has not abated; prices remain extremely high and energy is in short supply. We all know the reprehensible reasons lying behind that and we condemn Russia’s action in Ukraine, but none the less there is no likelihood of it ending very soon, as far as anyone can see, and we have a very serious crisis. That is the background to the amendments that I am speaking to. It is remarkable that in the same group there are a number of other amendments that seek to cut off—radically, permanently and, by statute, for ever—access to energy supplies that we have available to us.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, was somewhat surprised that I should talk in Amendment 224—which I will speak to in more detail in moment—about increasing gas supply to reduce foreign dependency. The noble Baroness seems to think that we have a target of zero carbon emissions set in law in this country. We do not; we have a net-zero target and there is nothing that I am aware of in government policy that says that the use of some amounts of carbon, including gas, in our energy mix over the long term is not both foreseeable and acceptable, provided that it meets a net-zero target.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I come to Amendment 230, concerning Amendment 226 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, again, it is astonishing that we should want to cut off access to what could be an important source of energy in this country, the fruits of which we have been importing in huge amounts from the United States without any qualms whatsoever, it appears, because so much of the LNG coming here from the United States is in fact the result, I believe, of fracking in that country. Here, we are happy to consume it, hypocritically, at the same time as saying that we cannot possibly allow it in Britain, as if the relatively modest amount—I agree to a certain extent with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—certainly in comparison with the United States, that we might produce here was somehow globally unacceptable in climate terms, while consuming the product of the United States is fine and we can carry on doing that and turn our noses to one side.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am not objecting to importing. I have supported fracking in the past. The point is that the time has gone; it has all changed. The United States has been fracking for some time; I have no problem if we import that. My whole concern is about new sources and new exploration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

That is a very good question. It is partly answered by the fact that I put my amendment down first before the other amendment went down. The other answer is that in all legislative processes—the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will know far more about this than me—you try to go for what might be possible, and I suspect that the Government are less keen on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, whereas all my amendment does is confirm present government policy.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

So, had the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, got her amendment in first, the noble Lord would have signed it. It is interesting to know that the Liberal Democrats are against any new fields in the North Sea.

What I want to try to get home to those members of the Committee who have not yet taken it on board is that up to now we have pursued a path to net zero which involves reducing demand for fossil fuels by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. That is a logical path to pursue. We have not been seeking to achieve it by reducing supply of fossil fuels. As a result, if people choose to produce more fossil fuels than there is demand, as demand falls fossil fuel producers will be left with stranded assets and lose money. It could not happen to a nicer bunch of people, but why should we think that our judgments are better than theirs or worry about them erring and producing too much, investing too much and not getting their money back? That is up to them.

--- Later in debate ---

We will, of course, keep under review the Coal Authority’s statutory duties with respect to licencing extraction. Extensive changes would be required to the Coal Authority’s duties to establish an enforcement regime for it to monitor the purpose and the end use of coal extracted from future coal mining. The phasing out of future coal-powered generation, in our view, is a more proportional response than introducing a completely new regulatory regime at the coal mining end of the production chain.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I will not detain the Minister for long, it was interesting that he referenced the Climate Change Committee in response to my noble friend’s amendment. That same letter said,

“the evidence against any new consents for coal exploration or production is overwhelming.”

I am sorry that the Minister accepts part of that letter, but maybe not the other part. The Minister has nobly and served well a number of Administrations, including the one during COP 26, and I would like to know how he reconciles the COP 26 statements by his own department with the opening of that new coal mine.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

As I say in the Member’s explanatory statement, this debate is to raise issues that many people have raised with me about the purpose of Clause 230, which covers licensing nuclear sites that are on or under the territorial sea of the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in talking about offshore wind farms, referred to the impact on marine mammals of seismic testing in particular. In the middle of last year we saw seismic surveys being carried out in the Irish Sea off Cumbria in order to assess the potential of undersea nuclear storage. At that time the Marine Management Organisation noted in a letter that those tests could cause disturbance to certain cetacean species. Those tests were carried out before this Bill became law. Those are interesting circumstances for them to be carried out in, which I will come back to.

In the Government’s own words, they need to keep the waste safe and secure for hundreds of thousands of years, give or take, for the radioactivity to decay. That is why they are seeking long-term storage for hundreds and thousands of years. The UK has the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste, more than 100 tonnes of plutonium, and the total volume is 750,000 cubic metres. We are talking about a lot of nuclear waste. The chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, David Blackburn, who for full disclosure I will note is also the leader of the Green Party group on Leeds City Council, has said:

“The waste would be left in situ for millennia and, no matter how effective the barriers, some of the radioactivity will eventually reach the surface. The rate at which radioactivity would leak … can be poorly predicted and is likely to remain so for an indefinite period.”


I was in Cumbria a decade ago when there was talk of onshore storage of nuclear waste there and a great deal of local resistance. We are aware that there is no certainty. Putting it under the sea would seem to add to that uncertainty, to the risks and to the difficulties of dealing with anything should it go wrong. I put down this clause stand part debate because there is a great deal of uncertainty. People are unsure what the Government’s intentions are, which is why I hope the Minister may be able to provide more certainty.

I also refer to the fact that seismic testing was going on. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill appear to suggest that Clause 230 is actually to close a possible loophole that nuclear sites under the sea might not currently require a licence or be subject to the nuclear regulator. Page 71 of the Explanatory Notes states that:

“This clause amends section 1 and section 26 of the NIA 1965 and section 68 of the Energy Act 2013 … to make it expressly clear that certain nuclear sites located wholly or partly in or under the … sea … require a licence and are regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation”.


That raises a question that I will put explicitly to the Minister: are the Government aware OF or concerned about any unlicensed or unregulated nuclear sites on or partly on or underneath the sea in UK territorial waters?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. When I first read this clause I assumed it was effectively to give permission to go out to sea from land, like some coal mines. I am interested to know whether that was the Government’s intention.

I was also quite interested that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. Territorial waters go out to 12 nautical miles, so that seems to suggests that it does not. I wonder why there is the stipulation that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. It seems to me that if this is done it really needs to be within territorial waters. I have no other questions.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also be brief. I do not want to provoke another debate—two hours on this would be unnecessary. We are all doing our bit by keeping this Room at low temperature in terms of this debate. I do not know whether they can turn the heat up a bit, as I think that would be helpful to all of us.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, Amendment 248 amends the long title to reflect these new amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

One thing that the Minister did not mention, although I may have missed it, is the employees and staff of the NDA. What consultation has taken place as far as they are concerned?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have a few questions and, if it is not possible to answer them all, I shall accept a written response. It would appear that the Government are bringing forward legislation that breaks promises of previous Governments, going way back, in relation to nuclear workers’ pensions. The statutory pensions protections that Parliament previously legislated for were vital to the success of privatisation. Is it right for the Government to promise those protections to ensure that success, and then to rip them up that many years after the event? We would like some clarification as to whether the Minister believes that that is the case—and, if not, why not?

Is it accurate to claim that these reforms would bring pension provision across the NDA group into line with wider public sector pensions? These pension schemes underwent much more radical reform long before my noble friend Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions. They have been closed to new entrants for many years. My noble friend recommended that public sector pension accrual should remain on a defined benefit basis, but pension provision across the NDA group is mostly on a defined contribution basis. I have it on good authority that there is an appetite from the trade unions to discuss these reforms with Ministers. Would the Minister be prepared to accept this course of action?

Several more questions are coming up, particularly on technical issues and questions about the proposed amendments. The amendments should allow for the implementation of the agreement between BEIS, the NDA and the recognised trade unions. There is a lot of detail about the proposed career average benefit structure in the heads of terms, but the proposed amendments are drafted in more general terms. Regulations are the proper place for the detail to be set out, but might the agreed accrual rate be an important enough term of the agreement to be in the Bill as well? The average member contribution rate of 8.2% is specified.

There are concerns about proposed new subsection 3(c) of the first proposed new clause that adds this chapter to Part 12, which provides for the increase of pensions in line with CPI, not RPI, for active and deferred pensioner members. However, it says that only increases for active and deferred members—that is, re-evaluation—cannot be capped. This opens the real possibility that the Government intend to bring forward regulations that provide for pension increases for at least some members, possibly members of the Magnox group, to be capped. This is contrary to the heads of terms, which explicitly states that pension increases will be in line with inflation as measured by CPI, with no reference to any cap. Would it be possible to propose an amendment so that we can look at ensuring that regulations cannot propose capped increases for any pensioners?

I will end by asking: how confident are the Government that they can identify people in and out of scope of future regulations, given that there is a fair degree of geographical mobility around the industry?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

228: After Clause 237, insert the following new Clause—
“Net Zero duty(1) In section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986, after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) In exercising its functions in relation to the principal objective the Authority has a duty to assist the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.”(2) In section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) In exercising its functions in relation to the principal objective the Authority has a duty to assist the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority a duty to assist in the delivery of Net Zero.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 229 and 233 in my name. Amendment 228 is around Ofgem. We have debated this many times, in many contexts, within the House. It is about Ofgem having a direct net-zero responsibility and objective. That is what this amendment does, and I know another amendment is trying to do exactly the same thing. I am indifferent as to which one is accepted, as long as we achieve this.

The thing about Ofgem is that it is, rightly, customer focused in many ways, but it is focused very much on the short term and not so much on the long term—and that is why we are here. I believe that, in many ways, we have high energy prices because we have not transitioned enough towards net zero in the past. This is partly around the lack of infrastructure and the way that Ofgem assesses investment by the national grid and DNOs, in particular to upgrade the transmission system in the United Kingdom.

Ofgem’s objectives have not been updated since its establishment in 2000. Although Ministers have always said that there is, in effect, a net-zero obligation on Ofgem, I do not believe it is specific enough. There are a number of blockages in the system at the moment: solar farms are not all able to connect and we have talked before about slow offshore wind, which will be more likely in the future. I hope that new onshore wind is coming on, but I am sure the connections for that will be equally difficult. We even have housing developments in the south-east that are not able to connect to the grid through lack of capacity. This is all around Ofgem not being balanced in the way that it looks at investment programmes.

Page 10 of Chris Skidmore’s report says that one of the needs is

“to finally update the mandate of Ofgem”,

which must be to

“accelerate the connection of our cheap renewable generation”.

So let us bite the bullet with my Amendment 228 and finally put a net-zero objective into Ofgem.

As I said, I was impressed that the Government’s future systems operator—which, we understand, is, in effect, a subsidiary of Ofgem, although I am sceptical about that structure—does indeed have a net-zero objective. I welcomed that at the time and welcome it now. Let us reflect that up the management chain to Ofgem as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sure that we will have lots to discuss about lots of issues on Report.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, there have been some excellent responses. We are getting somewhere on the capacity market and onshore wind. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her support on onshore wind and my amendment. I had not realised there would be the contract for difference, and I take that as very positive. As the Minister knows, I like to be positive about these things.

However, I find it very difficult that the Government and the Minister will still not bite the simple bullet around Ofgem and the decarbonisation of the grid. It is having a practical effect as regards moving the whole transmission system forward—it really is. Those dilemmas about objectives that he talks about are the same for the future system operator, yet it has that objective.

I am sure that we will come back to this on Report. It is certainly my intention to work with others of a similar mind to find the right amendment and back whoever wishes to bring it forward. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 228 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have a question for the Minister that follows on from that. I very much support the idea of an energy commission, although Chris Skidmore says very strongly in his report, on decarbonisation, that:

“None of this will happen without a step change in the government’s approach to delivering net zero.”


He says that an office for net-zero delivery within government is needed but, if we cannot get that, energy efficiency must be part of it.

When we were in the European Union and single market, part of energy efficiency was around appliances and all sorts of things that we use or do, and we have had an increase in energy efficiency—not fast enough, but a sectoral trend—largely because of the sorts of implements we use; cars, vacuum cleaners or whatever. I therefore ask the Minister: in terms of energy efficiency and standards for equipment and pieces of machinery, what is happening now? Is BEIS doing this itself? Does it have a programme? How does that relate to our export markets and manufacturing sector? I would be interested to understand.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has presented very interesting proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think this offers us one way forward on the crucial issue of energy efficiency, but I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Would he agree that a useful role for the energy efficiency commission would be ensuring systems to educate people to install this new technology properly, so that people such as the plumber whom he cited had the information available to ensure that they knew that what they were installing would work for their customers?

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am aware of the desire to get to votes, so I shall be brief. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Hayman. They have overwhelmingly made the case for Amendment 133 and the need for the systems operator to have that net-zero duty.

I shall briefly address Amendment 1, which sets the tone and direction of this debate in an important way. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made the case for the need for an energy system to deliver for net zero. I want to focus on one word in Amendment 1—“resilience” and the need to increase it. We are now in the age of shocks. So many shocks have hit the world and our country, whether they be climatic, health or economic. There is a need for resilience. There is an idea that we can pick off these new, shiny technologies and say, “Great, we will chase after this or after that”. We should look at the basics, starting with an energy system which understands that the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, best possible energy is the one you do not need to use.

I am not sure that the report is out yet, but it is worth noting anecdotally the interesting experiments in energy demand that have happened during the winter. They will ensure that we can manage the peaks of demand and have less need for generation overall. I wanted to set out that focus on resilience because, in later amendments, we will get to the issue of community energy—local energy generation systems in local communities, spread around our islands. These will give us a real foundation of resilience and security that we desperately need for the future.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps for the purpose of the whole of Report, I should declare my interest at chair of Aldustria Ltd, which is concerned with battery storage.

I liked the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, today, as well as the speeches he gave on the levelling-up Bill debate yesterday evening. There is an important need for an understandable programme that moves us forward—a route map that works, rather than just targets and slogans. Of course, we will have Green Day on Thursday. When the Minister replies, could he give us a few clues as to what will be said then? The House would be all ears and grateful for the advance information. I thought that the net-zero report, commissioned by the Government and produced by his honourable colleague, Chris Skidmore MP, was an excellent document. I hope that the Government can say that we will be moving ahead in a comprehensive way in much of the area under discussion.

I will speak mainly about the three amendments that we have around Ofgem. It is just stark staringly obvious that Ofgem, our regulator for the energy industry, should have a net-zero objective. I cannot see how you can argue against that, for all the reasons that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Altmann, have gone through so well. If there was one example of that to me, it is that Ofgem has clearly been very effective in its own mind at making decisions for customers of today but has been utterly unable to make decisions for customers of future generations. That area of the grid is now utterly incapable of delivering; whether it is offshore, onshore or developments on the residential side, those connections and that grid are unable to help us to move towards those net-zero objectives. On connection dates, I know one of 2035, which just happens to be the year when the Government’s target is to have finished decarbonising the electricity grid. Clearly we are not going to make that unless we move it forward very quickly, and I have concerns that we will already not be able to meet it.

The Minister and others in his position have said, all the time, “This is not necessary—it is already covered.” However, those examples already given by the noble Baronesses in the debate show that the directions and the objectives that the Government now have are not sufficient, and that this needs to change. We need to change it now, otherwise our decarbonisation of the grid by 2035, let alone net zero by 2050, will be missed. That cannot be allowed; these amendments must be part of the Bill.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, my thanks to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Altmann and Lady Bennett. I will quickly review what I think they said and set out our amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, set out the principal purpose for the Bill. Split in four ways, it will: increase energy systems’

“resilience and reliability … support the delivery of the UK’s climate change commitments … reform the UK’s energy system while minimising costs to consumers and protecting them from unfair pricing”,

and improve the overall efficiency of the UK energy system and economy. It also requires an annual report to Parliament on the above. The first three of those points are lifted directly from the opening paragraph of the Explanatory Notes, while the fourth is also an objective of the ISOP simply made wider.

Labour tabled an amendment in Committee, and I will remind noble Lords of its contents. The context of that was, at that time, the cost of living crisis; the energy price cap was going up to £3,549 per year. National Energy Action predicted that the number of UK households in fuel poverty would rise to 8.9 million. Tory leadership candidates at that time were vying for leadership to be Prime Minister but were running away from the issue of net zero; the High Court found that the net-zero climate strategy was inadequate, and the Climate Change Committee found that credible plans existed for only 39% of emissions, citing “major policy failures” and “scant evidence of delivery”. As regards energy security at that time, gas prices were expected to surge to record highs the week after the Nord Stream 1 pipeline was shut down, and European prices had risen by nearly 400% over the past year. The UK relies on gas for about 40% of its power generation, and even more on the coldest days when demand is high and wind generation tends to be low. In 2017, a BEIS report included a scenario for a complete cut-off of Russian gas and found that the UK could see “significant unmet demand” if the cut was prolonged and continental European countries paid whatever was necessary.

However, the Bill is a hotchpotch of things thrown together, lacking an overarching theme to tackle these issues. Our amendments would have set out a purpose for the Act, increasing resilience and reliability; supporting the delivery of UK’s climate change commitments; reforming energy systems; binding the Secretary of State and public authorities to these purposes; requiring the Secretary of State to designate a statement as a strategy and policy statement with regard to the purpose of the Act; and requiring the Secretary of State to review the strategy and policy statement on a five-year basis. That would have forced successive Governments into long-term thinking about the specific purpose, not limiting the impact and ambition of the Bill to what has been tacked together, which simply does not go far enough or tackle the immediate problems.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would place gas and electricity markets under a duty to assist in the delivery of net zero, and our amendment would require the Secretary of State to designate a statement giving GEMA a mandate for considering the role of energy in supporting government policy in achieving net zero. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would include in Ofgem’s general duties a specific requirement to have regard to meeting the UK’s net-zero emissions.

Briefing from RenewableUK sets out the argument for Ofgem remit reform. It states:

“Ofgem’s remit has not changed since its establishment in 2000, and does not prioritise electricity decarbonisation”—


in line with recent government legislation or stated ambitions. It has only a consideration of greenhouse reduction. It continues:

“As a result, Ofgem has been unable to substantially reform its working practices and regulatory frameworks in response to the 2008 Climate Change Act and the UK’s subsequent net zero ambition, to detriment of renewable energy investment and decarbonisation pace.”


It goes on to say that the Government have an opportunity to reform Ofgem’s remit in the Bill we are addressing today.

There is some key evidence for that. Mike Thompson, the Climate Change Committee’s chief economist, noted the integration of energy with transport and heat, including the potential for

“cars sitting on driveways acting as batteries and putting electricity back into the grid”.

He argued that there is a

“need for real integration and a regulator that can think from a systems perspective”,

suggesting that hydrogen and heat networks should be within Ofgem’s remit.

Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, said:

“Planning the system and setting how it evolves should not really be done by the regulator. The regulator’s job is to make sure that that is done efficiently and effectively by the companies concerned.”


We appreciate that argument.

A number of witnesses told the committee that the net-zero target should be included explicitly within Ofgem’s statutory duties. Dr Hardy said that he would

“put net zero up top”,

balancing out its other duties against the context of

“hitting that legislated carbon target”.

Professor Mitchell said that

“net zero has to be the raison d’être of Ofgem”

and argued that

“delivering on legally enshrined commitments to decarbonise”

should form part of Ofgem’s principal duty.

The committee concluded:

“To ensure that, on an enduring basis, the appropriate focus is given to net zero within its competing priorities, we recommend that Ofgem’s duties should be amended to include explicit reference to having due regard to the net zero target. While Ofgem maintains that net zero considerations already factor into its decision-making, adding net zero explicitly to its statutory duties will serve to make this clear.”


We feel that the UK needs not to be left behind but to show similar ambition in its plans for the future of the electricity industry, including Ofgem’s remit.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will take this seriously. If I have not convinced him, will he sit down and talk to the industry itself?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and to partly agree and partly disagree with her comments. I speak in strong opposition to government Amendment 58, which is the substantive amendment in this group, buried in the depths of a whole lot of technical detail.

It is worth focusing on what Amendment 58 actually does. The Minister said this in his introduction, but it deserves to be highlighted. The Minister acknowledged that these are not renewable sources of energy, but what we are doing here is to treat them as though they are renewable. That is an important distinction, which clearly needs to be made. It is quite significant.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said earlier, we have been debating this Bill for eight months or so. The second element of the government amendment, referring to nuclear-derived fuels, reflects something that the noble Lord brought to Committee but, so far as I can recollect across those eight months, recycled carbon fuels have suddenly popped here at Report, without any previous debate at all. That is something that presents an issue when it comes to scrutiny and examination—an issue which the other place, when this Bill reaches it, may well need to look at and consider in some detail, given that your Lordships’ House has not had the opportunity to look at recycled carbon fuels along with some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, raised and which I am going to expand on.

It is worth highlighting that nuclear-derived fuel is now an extremely hot political issue—no pun intended—in Europe. Germany, Spain and Denmark are among the countries opposed to nuclear-derived fuel being classed as a renewable there, in a debate that is going on this very week, as we are meeting now in your Lordships’ House. The opposition from those states says that nuclear energy does not belong within renewable targets and that there is a risk that treating it as though it was renewable will undermine the massive expansion of renewables that we need to hit our climate goals. So this is a replacement-type issue—and that raises a very important point.

When I speak in opposition to this amendment, I am not necessarily saying that we should not, in a limited way, be using recycled carbon fuel of the industrial waste type to which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred, or even, while we have the nuclear plants, nuclear-derived fuel. The question is whether it receives treatment as though it was a renewable when it is not a renewable—that is the question that arises from this amendment.

On recycled carbon fuel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, there are some grave concerns about burning fossil fuel wastes, particularly plastics, in incinerators or hydrolysis processes to produce fuels. I can quote some figures on this. When municipal solid waste containing 65% of non-biogenic waste, which is usually mostly plastic, is turned into fuel, the emissions range between 52.6 and 124 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule. When the waste is all non-renewable, the impact is actually worse than conventional diesel, petrol or kerosene. Even when there are some reductions, at best they are 1% to 14%.

We come to a broader issue, and here I mention the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who I see is not in his place. Yesterday, on the levelling-up Bill, he was expounding the virtues of the circular economy. Of course, in a circular economy, and thinking about the waste pyramid, the best thing we can possibly do is reduce the amount of waste. There is a risk if we are providing a way out at the other end for plastics, subsidising them as though they were renewables: this could encourage the production of more plastics, which is absolutely the last thing this planet needs, both for climate reasons and for all the other reasons of human health and well-being, microplastics and all the issues we have on a planet that is choked with the stuff already.

There is also the problem, of course, that while recycling is the third-best option—a bad option but not as bad as the others on the waste pyramid—anything that encourages the production of more plastics is an issue. I am aware that the Minister, when we were debating methane earlier this month, complained that people keep quoting scientists at him. I am afraid I am going to do that again, and I make no apology for continuing to do so, because I believe that we should have evidence-based policy that relies on the science. A study was published in Energy in 2017, “The utilisation of oils produced from plastic waste at different pyrolysis temperatures in a DI diesel engine”. I apologise that that is a bit of a mouthful. To boil down the point of this study, there are different ways of doing pyrolysis with fuels made from plastic, but whichever way you do it the air pollution results are worse than diesel.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has taken the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill right through the House and has received very wide backing. There is a real issue here: climate is only one of the many threats we face. Air pollution is a very serious issue. Essentially, we are in a position where it is very clear that we have to stop burning stuff and polluting our planet, whether that is carbon dioxide pollution or other pollutants that come from burning fossil fuels or organic materials. There is a very grave danger in this amendment, I suggest.

Given that we are where we are, I am not going to call for a vote on this; I do not think your Lordships’ House is ready. I do not think we have had sufficient debate on this issue to do that, but I very much hope that today’s debate—and others may contribute as well—will be taken on board when the Bill gets to the other place.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I also have great concern about this amendment. It seems to me that, on renewable transport fuels, we have a government amendment, in a group of some 20 amendments or more, that changes the taxonomy in the UK, exactly as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the definition of a renewable fuel. I do not think that is particularly good practice; it is the wrong way to do this. I hope that the Commons, when this goes down the other end, will debate it rather more, because it requires a lot more thought.

I can get my head around the nuclear bit with hydrogen, which has now been well explained to me. I was trying to understand this amendment, I must admit, before the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, spoke, but whether it is renewable or not is a debate to be had. I do not have quite such an issue over that, maybe, but it needs to be debated fully. What I have a problem with is more the carbon side, because what we are talking about is no different from energy from waste. Energy from waste is one of the dirtiest forms of energy that is produced. It has other benefits—it does not produce landfill and all that sort of side—but it is not, in any description, a renewable fuel. So I too have great reservations about this amendment. Clearly I am not going to oppose it here today, but I very much hope that the other end of the building will give this much greater scrutiny and see it as a major decision around the taxonomy of renewable fuels and renewable energy when the Bill reaches there.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment would allow two other low-carbon fuels to be supported under the existing and forthcoming renewable transport fuel schemes. As we have heard, these are recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels. While the noble Lord has created a degree of happiness with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, some unhappiness still exists around the Chamber. These fuels can provide similar carbon emissions savings to the renewable fuels already considered under these schemes. Furthermore, these fuels are crucial for the production of sustainable aviation fuel, which is imperative to achieving the jet zero strategy and fulfilling the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel mandate.

I will not speak for long on this, because we want to move on, but this amendment would insert a new clause in Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill, providing for recycled carbon fuel and fuel derived from nuclear energy to be treated as renewable transport fuel. Amendment 74, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, would make it clear that the regulator needs to ensure that consumers of heat networks have equivalent consumer protection to those of other suppliers. The Explanatory Notes say of Clause 166:

“This clause provides that GEMA will be the regulator for heat networks in England, Wales and Scotland. The Secretary of State may introduce regulations to appoint a different regulator by affirmative procedure. The regulator in Northern Ireland will be the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation (NIAUR) subject to a similar power to make changes by secondary legislation.”


I think that is something we can all agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Teverson]

33: Clause 85, page 75, line 30, at end insert—
“(7A) Any decommissioning fund must be ring-fenced and held in an escrow account, or similarly ring- fenced fund.(7B) The funds may be released only when—(a) decommissioning work takes place;(b) it is determined by the Secretary of State that the funds are no longer required for the purpose of decommissioning.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that funds for decommissioning are still available when required for decommissioning.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am very happy with the Minister’s reply, and I will not move Amendment 33.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

53: Leave out Clause 111
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the amendment in the name of Lord Teverson to leave out Clause 112, would remove the Hydrogen Grid Conversion Trials from the bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, the powers that we propose to provide are essentially similar to those that the networks already have on the basis of essential safety works. Still, I am happy to provide the noble Lord with further information and details.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, when the IPCC report on the global warming challenge came out last week, and it gave a pretty dire view, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, who I think had just been watching the Oscars, said it was

“everything, everywhere, all at once”—

but I do not think he would have included the village hydrogen trials within that broad definition. I understand what the Minister has said, and I welcome all his assurances to local citizens about how the trials will work, but, frankly, the science clearly says that hydrogen sent through the gas pipe network to a range of residential properties does not work, does not make sense and is not going to happen in the future.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

59: Clause 116, page 102, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The person designated under subsection (1) must be a public body with no other roles or interests in the energy sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the ISOP is a public body, not an individual or a private company, and has no conflicting interests.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 59 is about the independent systems operator and planner, which we know as the future system operator. I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 59, 61 and 62—and I shall briefly speak to all of them. It is a big gap in the Bill as written at the moment that the so-called independent systems operator and planner is not actually independent in any way, which is why this amendment is down. I also very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. For the ISOP to be independent, I believe it is fundamental that it needs to have an independent revenue stream. That is why my Amendment 61 would enable it to raise its own money; it should not come through Ofgem. We all know that the person who pays the piper calls the tune, and the future system operator needs to be independent of Ofgem. Lastly, Amendment 59 would ensure that the ISOP is a public body. I beg to move.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that the Minister will confirm the Government’s support for an independent ISOP, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and this being the case, we know no longer need to divide the House on our amendments. So, rather than listening to me putting forward the argument in favour of achieving this, I think we would be better served to listen to the Minister in his reasoning for an independent ISOP: I thank him for his time over the weekend, when we reached this position.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

Let me first thank all noble Lords for their amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for the time he gave to discussing this matter. As always, there were valuable contributions from all parts of the House.

On the details of the amendments, Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seeks to establish an industry-led advisory board for the ISOP. In the original consultation, the respondents strongly indicated that the body should be independent of energy sector interests, and I think that is a view shared by the Opposition. The Government therefore remain concerned that inserting in legislation a formal oversight role, as is being suggested, will place decision-making back in the hands of the energy sector and go against the reasons and mechanism for creating an independent ISOP in the first place. This could make the ISOP risk-averse or unwilling to take action that is potentially challenging to market participants but could be on the side of consumers, even if that action might be beneficial to the system itself.

We are therefore concerned that, rather than enhancing independence, members of such an advisory board would likely hold various energy sector conflicts. There are many ways this could crystallise, including resistance to systemic reform, more strident advice in favour of compensation for energy sector participants, or incumbent bias, for instance seeking to frustrate new market entrants which could stifle the innovation that I think everyone, in all parts of the House, is agreed that we need to reach net zero.

Establishing an industry-led advisory board for the ISOP would be similar to establishing one for, for instance, the Climate Change Committee—an organisation which, in our view, also needs to remain independent of industry interests. I hope noble Lords would agree that we need genuine, independent, expert thinking, rather than vested interests. Thankfully, this amendment is not required to ensure board independence; the Government intend to require that a number of sufficiently independent directors—or SIDs, to use the acronym—sit on the ISOP’s board. A SID is a board member who meets certain criteria to ensure that, as well as being skilled, knowledgeable and experienced, they are impartial, with restrictions including on certain shareholdings in the energy industry. Requirements in the ISOP’s licence will set a minimum number of SIDs to ensure that the ISOP’s board has strong representation from those outside the ISOP and is unconflicted by the interests of the energy industry.

To ensure effective scrutiny of the appointment of the ISOP’s chair, we are also asking the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the new departmental Select Committee, once established, to conduct pre-appointment scrutiny. Energy sector experts will have opportunities to input to the ISOP’s work, of course. For instance, the system operator’s business plan submissions, assessed by Ofgem, will continue to be open to consultation with market participants, including members of the specific industry forums mentioned in this amendment. Finally, through its price control process, Ofgem will ensure that the FSO is fully resourced to fulfil its objectives and obligations, including the funding of its statutory duties towards consumers, energy security and net zero.

Turning to Amendments 59 and 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, again we agree with the sentiment of the noble Lord’s amendments, and the Government remain resolute that the ISOP shall be an independent public body. We continue to act to make this so. However, it is critical that the ISOP remains a dynamic organisation capable of adapting and evolving to the future conditions of the energy sector. I therefore hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it is preferable not to constrain the ISOP pre-emptively in legislation at this fairly early stage but to maintain some flexibility. With the rapid deployment expected in the energy sector, reasonable circumstances may arise in which the ISOP is well placed to take on some future energy sector role or interest.

Regarding the specifics of Amendment 62, I believe there are already significant controls and limits upon the Secretary of State in acting as the sole shareholder. These will include limits in the framework agreement, which we will of course make public. These controls will ensure that the ISOP’s operational independence is protected.

Legislating for the ISOP to “be independent” does not, in my view, appear to offer a material benefit beyond the controls already established in Part 4 of the Bill and the framework documents, but it risks preventing the intended corporate composition of the ISOP, thereby undermining its effectiveness.

Finally, on Amendment 61, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Government agree that it will be important to ensure that the ISOP is fully resourced to fulfil the objectives and obligations set out in its licence. In our view, the most effective funding mechanism to achieve this and realise our vision for an independent ISOP is for it to be funded by consumers through price control arrangements, much like the current gas and electricity system operators are today.

Levies placed on licensed bodies can be expected to filter through to consumers. However, we are concerned that the requirement to establish an audit board risks duplication with the current well-understood and transparent regulatory model established under Ofgem. Without a price control process run by the regulator, there is also a risk of poor consumer value for money. As with other regulated bodies in this sector, the ISOP will have the operational freedom it needs to manage and organise itself to effectively deliver its roles and objectives. We also intend the ISOP to sit outside the regime of Cabinet Office controls on spending, which bodies funded by taxes and levies are required to operate under.

With the explanations and reassurances that I have been able to provide, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very encouraged by the Minister’s response on the control of the board and the ISOP. I am disappointed about the funding flows, but I guess that it will work out as it works out. I think that is unfortunate, but I have no intention of pressing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

65: Clause 159, page 131, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Those standard conditions must contain provision by which the holder of the MPI licence will contract with the relevant transmission licensee for the connection of offshore distribution networks, generating stations or offshore installations to the multi-purpose interconnector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify whether the regime for MPI licences will operate in a similar way to the Offshore Electricity Transmission regime in that generation and demand users will have contracts with the system operator, who will in turn enter into back-to-back arrangements with the MPI licensee.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief on this group, but I believe these are important issues which we did not reach in Committee. I speak first to Amendments 65, 66 and 67 on multipurpose connectors.

Multipurpose connectors are intended to provide links between the electricity transmission systems in the UK and other jurisdictions while simultaneously connecting new offshore generation, such as offshore wind—a key part of our energy strategy—and demand, such as oil and gas installations. Ofgem is bringing together an interim regulatory framework, but I believe that there is a lack of flexibility. There is a potential difficulty in the existing interconnector/offshore transmission operator licensee being able to carry out its functions as an MPI—that is, a multipurpose connector—licensee. These amendments aim to clarify the situation.

Amendments 125 and 129 in this group are about the decarbonisation of offshore oil and gas installations. In the North Sea Transition Deal, published in March 2021, the UK Government committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from North Sea oil and gas activities by 50% from 2018 levels by 2030—I very much welcome these targets—and, of course, to achieve net zero for the basin by 2050. The electrification of offshore production facilities is the route to achieving this. It is generally agreed that that is the way to do it.

The annual volume of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions produced by offshore oil and gas installations is some 10 million tonnes, which is roughly a tenth of the total emissions from UK energy supply. It is far from insignificant, but there is a narrowing window of opportunity to achieve these targets due to the life of these installations and the constant decommissioning programme. They just stop being economic in terms of those investments. We need action now, but there are a number of obstacles: uncertainty around how offshore networks will be treated by regulators, questions around the offshore transmission owner and well-known issues around connections to the UK grid—hence these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

In light of the reassurances that I have been able to provide, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will withdraw his amendment, and that other noble Lords will feel able to not move theirs.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his long and detailed response to my amendments. One always knows in this House that you are in big trouble when Ministers start talking about unintended consequences of amendments, so I accept that. Having said that, I am mortified that we cannot, at this stage, change the name of the Oil and Gas Authority; just a promise of a Third Reading amendment would have made my day, but there we are. It is obviously far too difficult. But I take encouragement from the Minister; I think he suggested that that is a work in progress and will happen at some time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

That is all I am asking. I suspect that the Minister does not want to incorporate it in the Bill but it would be nice if he could give me an indication that, together with the regulator, the Government are at least thinking of better ways to ensure a more socially just structure of tariffs in this country. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. There is no easy answer to the question of a social tariff—all solutions to fuel poverty have downsides—but the industry feels that this is the direction of movement and consumer groups agree, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I have also tabled two amendments in this group: Amendments 70 and 71 about prepayment meters. This is a particularly important area to me. I will not take up the House’s time by going through the arguments again, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister where the Government stand now on prepayment meters and self-disconnection.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to a number of amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Teverson. The arguments on prepayment meters put by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, are very clear; we have seen that all over the media.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the fact that this is a long-term issue, but it is worth highlighting that, since we debated this in Committee, the Government’s own figures have come out. They show that the fuel poverty level in the UK increased to 13.4% over the course of 2022 and predict that it will reach 14.4% by 2024.

Of course, these figures use the highly questioned government definition of fuel poverty, which does not allow for anyone living in a home above D classification to be classed as fuel poor even if they simply cannot afford to heat that home. According to the National Energy Action definition of fuel poverty—households spending more than 10% of their income after housing costs on energy bills—there were 7.39 million households in that condition in 2022, and the NEA estimates that this year, after April, 8.4 million people will be in households in fuel poverty.

These measures would be highly targeted to address the poorest. They are simply common sense, enabling people to live and be healthy in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will not take the time of the House to repeat comments that have already been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others have made a very powerful case for these amendments. It is ludicrous for us not to be enabling community energy production when this does not involve a subsidy and when it could create additional energy sufficient for something like the 2.2 million homes mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. This is a completely neglected area; it can be resolved as set out in these amendments in a straightforward way. The main thing is that these community energy projects need to be able to sell their energy to big suppliers in the locality—those with more than 150,000 customers was the figure quoted, I think. So there is very strong support for these amendments and I hope the Minister will be able to accept them. I cannot see any reason why not: it is not going to cost the Government anything.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I welcome particularly the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I will not detain the House except to say that it is quite clear that community schemes have not operated effectively for many years. I should declare that I am an insignificant shareholder in a local community scheme in my own home area, which was set up under the feed-in tariffs. The schemes as put forward are not a kind of feed-in tariff regime: they are really looking for stability of price and are not around subsidy. I just say to the Minister that the Government’s overall target is decarbonisation of the grid by 2035: let communities play a big part in that, because one thing that is really important here is that community schemes allow for communities, individuals, households, families and small businesses to participate in the decarbonisation of our economy and net zero. They can be a part of it and that is why these amendments are so important.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, it is indeed very important that local authorities are involved and are movers in this area. All I can say is that I have to learn from him: he has the ear of the Government and the Minister far more than I do, and perhaps I could have some lessons afterwards about how to be successful in getting amendments into Bills.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It will come as no surprise to Members of the House that I support all these amendments, particularly Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Going by my personal experience, not giving a broader role to local authorities is such a missed opportunity and I cannot understand why these amendments would not be supported, particularly since it is, in all honesty, such a mild request: better definition of local authorities’ role; and asking for guidance, which is a perpetual demand from local authorities, I have to say, in trying to move things forward. As we know, other key reports and reviews have recognised just how important it is to get local buy-in and to get local stakeholders involved.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and signed by others. It is essential that we bring these elements together. What we are talking about, without repeating the technical issues that have been raised so powerfully today, is that we need to aim to have a framework that will support the growth of community and smaller-scale energy schemes and also provide regular reporting so that everyone knows how things are progressing. I have to say that all we are asking for is the following of an evidence-based approach. We can look at the success of other, related schemes in these areas that have been successfully led by local authorities. These include the rollout of electric vehicles, with local authorities leading by example in changing their fleets to electricity. District heating is another example where, when you have very strong local buy-in, the success moves forward. What we are asking for here is the ability to inform, shape and enable key aspects to deliver energy decarbonisation.

I believe very firmly in involving local stakeholders from the beginning; they are far more likely to come on board with schemes that might have aspects that they find work against their interests if they understand and are included in the bigger picture. Many people will make compromises when they understand the greater good, and the opportunity has been highlighted over the past year by the dramatic increase in energy prices and the risk of energy scarcity. I think the landscape has changed in this regard. Let us give confidence to local people and communities by developing the framework for the growth of communities and smaller-scale energy schemes. It is regrettable that more progress has not been made so far. The role of Ofgem in this, giving clear methodology and quality standards, is essential and will give the credibility that is needed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, so eloquently pointed out.

Through the involvement of local communities, we are asking for a more effective and better targeted delivery of national priorities; and we all know that we need more determination to deliver on the ground. I hope we will see some movement in this area and can only echo other comments: if we fail to make progress, this is such wasted potential, and I hope we will hear some positive comments with regard to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and to offer the strongest possible Green support for her Amendment 124, which would prohibit the flaring and venting of hydrocarbons other than in an emergency. The case has already been very powerfully made, but I will add that this has been a recommendation of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee and what is known as the Skidmore report—the Mission Zero independent review. It is something that other nations are well in advance of us on—a point that forms something of a theme for my remarks.

I also support for Amendment 131, which we have not heard fully set out yet, on no new coal mines. It has broad cross-party and non-party support, and it is obvious that we cannot have new coal.

I shall speak chiefly to my Amendment 138B, which goes further. Very simply, it would prohibit new oil, gas and coal extraction. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee and will not go over the same ground, but I want to briefly make three points. First, in May 2021, the International Energy Agency—not known as a group of radial greenies—called clearly for no new oil, gas or coal. Therefore, my amendment would deliver what the International Energy Agency said had to be done in 2021. We are now in 2023.

Since we were in Committee, we have seen increasing momentum behind the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, one element of which is no new oil, gas or coal. Six Pacific nations have issued a joint call to the world to say that this has to happen. The Prime Minister of Vanuatu said that polluting industries would not break from their “business as usual” behaviour without being forced. He said that we had to “explicitly stop the expansion” of production.

We often hear about the Government’s desire to be world-leading. It is actually this week, on 19 April, that the state of California is considering a resolution to formally endorse the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, which would deliver no new oil, gas or coal. It is going to have a Senate hearing on 19 April, introduced by the Senate Majority Whip, Senator Lena Gonzalez, and co-sponsored by the Indigenous Environmental Network. If the Government really want to be world-leading, they are going to have to catch up.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for emphasising the mitigation hierarchy in her amendment and for her speech. It is something that is really important to take notice of offshore. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, and I have great sympathy with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, I will speak primarily to Amendment 131.

I guess that if this Bill had come before this House three years ago, I would not have even contemplated putting an amendment down about no more coal, because it would have been totally and absolutely obvious that it would be a really stupid thing for any nation—let alone the United Kingdom—to do. However, we are in the situation where we have the Government saying that a coalmine in Cumbria should actually go ahead. I put this amendment down because I now wonder, if we have one, what else could happen. It is not specifically about Cumbria, but Cumbria is important.

Let us look at Cumbria for a moment. First, the issue does not revolve just around the production of coking coal for steel. That is estimated to be only 15% of production. The other 85% is expected to be exported. Of course, once that coal leaves our shores, we have absolutely no control over it; it is a commercial decision. We have no control over what that coal is used for, and almost certainly it is going to be used for energy and power generation. Even if we take that 15%, which is supposedly for coking coal, we have a situation where the UK steel industry is actually moving away from carbon-intensive methods into green steel. At the moment, we are some way behind our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in that they have some 38 green steel plants under plan and 10 operating at the moment, all mainly green hydrogen produced by electrolysis. The one proposed in the UK is blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage, but that is the future. The future is not steel produced by coking coal.

So, in a way, the Cumbria mine project should be unacceptable to us, yet Michael Gove, who I had huge respect for when he was Defra Secretary of State and who introduced a huge number of important environmental improvements and plans that are still echoing beyond his tenure in that role, in December last year—only five months ago—approved the plan for that coal mine. Rather cynically, he approved it up to 2049, one year before we have to have net zero in the United Kingdom.

One of the main reasons I have tabled this amendment, apart from the fact that I would not have thought it even possible that the United Kingdom would contemplate opening a new coal mine, is our international reputation. Of course, as Members will remember, we were the president of COP 26. We had a very successful conference in Glasgow and most of us—all of us, probably—congratulated Alok Sharma on the work he did as president of COP 26. During that conference, the UK Government put out a press release about their own success. This was in November 2021, only some 18 months ago, and it heralds:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26, with countries such as Indonesia, South Korea, Poland, Vietnam, and Chile announcing clear commitments to phase out coal power”.


The end of coal; that is the message.

The BEIS Minister at the time, someone called Kwasi Kwarteng—noble Lords may have heard of him—said:

“Today marks a milestone moment in our global effort to tackle climate change as nations from all corners of the world unite in Glasgow to declare that coal has no part to play in our future power generation. Spearheaded by the UK’s COP26 Presidency, today’s ambitious commitments made by our international partners demonstrate that the end of coal is in sight. The world is moving in the right direction, standing ready to seal coal’s fate and embrace the environmental and economic benefits of building a future that is powered by clean energy”.


I applaud that statement. It is strong, determined and absolutely to the point. Yet we are about to have a coal mine that will produce coal not just for an outdated steel technology but to be used for power generation.

I am very proud of Britain’s reputation on climate change. On my Benches and others we have criticised many aspects, but we have shown, over coalition Governments, Labour Governments and even the present Conservative Government, that we have moved forward—further, in many ways, than our fellow G7 countries. That is why it is absolutely wrong that we should trash that reputation by one decision to open a new UK coal mine. Who knows? If that happens once, it can happen again. That is why this amendment is so important.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, first, I have to say to the last speaker that I did not like that word “even”; this Government have introduced the highest targets of any country in the world. They have led the world in the most remarkable way and we should thank them for it—but that makes the argument against coal mines even stronger.

The Climate Change Committee is very careful not to overstep its mark. Its job is to advise on alternative methods and on the aims that we need to set the targets. Very rarely does it say that a particular measure is unacceptable. Indeed, in dealing with the question of new oil and gas, we have been very clear that the Government have to take into account the geopolitical position: you cannot just talk about the whole issue of the environment, because we are at war in Ukraine. We have a country determined to squeeze freedom out of Europe. We are concerned in all sorts of areas and we have to make very difficult decisions, so I hope my noble friend will remember how careful the Climate Change Committee has been in looking at these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

131: After Clause 264, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition of new coal mines(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the opening of new coal mines and the licensing of new coal mines by the Coal Authority or its successors.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will prevent the opening of new coal mines in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will just say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben—whose speech I very much appreciated—that, in the first group on the levelling-up Bill tomorrow, I have an amendment to include “net zero” in the planning organisation.

I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 131.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I want to offer a few words of support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is something that the Government should take very seriously if it is to be used in a very specific and limited way for off-grid properties—the key point being the feedstock availability, which needs to be understood in more detail.

On the link with sustainable aviation fuel that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, there is potentially an important counter-cyclical benefit here, in that jet fuel is dominant in the summer months and heating oil is dominant in the winter months. They are essentially the same fuel, so there is potentially a good economic fit between those two cases, and the relevant departments—DESNZ and DfT—should work together on that.

I would suggest some potential improvements to the amendment, such as limiting it to those off-grid properties that already use heating oil and specifically stating in the amendment that this is only for recycled fuels, to eliminate the unintended consequences of biofuels being eligible. Overall, however, this is something that the Government should take seriously.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I certainly echo the question that the noble Baroness asked about the timing of the boiler scheme. There has been a big debate in the past on the use of frying oil, and getting the fiscal measures and the subsidy right so that it can be used as a transport fuel. Those arguments went on for a long time. However, I believe that there needs to be fiscal-incentive neutrality between the different types of renewable fuels, whether they are used within transport or indeed off grid.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for this amendment, which is asking the Government to introduce renewable liquid heating fuel obligations that mirror the renewable transport fuel obligations as a choice available for decarbonising heating. I do not know—perhaps the Government know—whether there is any reason why they cannot accept this proposal, given that these fuels can be produced and distributed using industrial facilities that seem to already exist, and in turn using local raw materials, making it possible to diversify the energy base of the country in order to keep moving forward and achieve energy independence. Would it work? If so, why not give it the go-ahead?

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, this huge Bill leaves the House in far better shape than when it arrived. A combination of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, other parties, individuals and, most importantly, Cross-Benchers have secured measures that should see ISOP’s independence assured, community energy export markets develop, warmer homes and an efficiency plan to achieve that, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority strengthened, and the ceasing of any further coal mining in this country—thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It is to be hoped that the Government will support these changes in the other place and will not bring this Bill back for ping-pong. The range of supporters across the House should be sufficient to convince the Minister to back the changes to the Bill made by this House.

In the meantime, my thanks go to the Minister—remarkably, he has stayed the course while his Government have changed leadership three times and his Secretary of State twice since we began in September 2022—and his advisers from BEIS, and subsequently DESNZ, who have continually briefed and been available to answer questions and clarify intentions as we wended our way through this tome of a Bill.

My appreciation goes to my noble friend Lady Blake for her continuing support and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a pleasure to work on the Bill. My thanks are also due to a number of Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, mainly drawn from the Peers for the Planet group, particularly including the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Boycott, Lady Bennett and Lady Worthington—sadly temporarily departed from this House—and my noble friend Lord Whitty. Thanks also go to the House staff and the doorkeepers for arrangements during delays in advancement of the progress of the Bill, which were not of their making, and for keeping the quick-quick-slow dance rhythm to the Energy Bill.

My biggest thanks go to the remarkable Milton Brown in Labour’s legislative team of advisers for always being up to date with the progress of the Bill, for his liaison with the other place and for his political briefings and judgment, which allowed my noble friend Lady Blake and me to keep focused on this Bill over a long period. We wish it well on the next stage of its journey.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that strikes me most about the passage of the Bill through this House is that it is has been the opposition parties saying to the Government, “Get on with it. We actually need this Bill through to give the powers that we need to meet decarbonisation and modernise the energy production system in this country”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, that the amendments that have been made by this House are absolutely in line with the Government’s decarbonisation objectives. I hope that the Commons, as well as the Government themselves, will consider them as positive rather than negative.

I will not go through the long list of other Peers named by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. What I will do is to say a great deal of thanks to Peers for the Planet for its work in the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, whom I have enjoyed working with very much indeed. From our own offices, I thank Sarah Pughe and Sarah Dobson.

We look forward very much to not having to play ping-pong on this Bill. Maybe that is too much to hope for but I thank the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their co-operation during the passage of the Bill. I also thank their teams. I look forward most of all to the Bill being implemented, so that the country as a whole can move ahead in its aims and objectives.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering such a major Bill through. I am mindful of the fact that it was originally going to be an energy security Bill. I know that I and a number of noble Lords focused on the environmental aspects, particularly the mitigation hierarchy. I welcome the fact that this is to be enshrined in the levelling-up Bill, and look forward to pursuing it further on that Bill with my noble friend on the Front Bench.

I ask my noble friend to be mindful of the fact that the Scandinavian countries, led by Denmark, have raised a flag about Russian vessels masquerading as fisheries vessels. These are, it is assumed, purposefully undertaking spying operations, particularly to look at the underground cables and the major offshore wind farm operations, notably operated by Denmark. I understand that we are to have a major operation where a lot of this work will co-ordinate around the Dogger Bank, so I urge him to be mindful of the security risk associated with such a major area of the North Sea, where we are extremely vulnerable to such operations by Russian and other forces which may not be so conducive to our energy security as we might wish.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister—he knows that I like to praise his work—particularly on the change in the Ofgem amendment, in that our major regulator will now have a net-zero objective. To me, that is absolutely stark staringly obvious, and the fact that there has been government resistance to it while the Bill has been in this House I find strange, so that is a real move forward. The other thing that is to me stark staringly stupid is that we are talking about opening a coal mine in 2023. That makes no sense at all, and I will go through the reasons why.

It is not just we on these Benches or the Opposition who have that view. Let me quote from the Commons at Report. The then Energy Minister, Chris Skidmore—highly respected in this area and highly respected by the Government, in that he wrote their independent net zero review—said:

“Legislating to prevent the opening of new coal mines simply maintains the commitment that the UK sought to make to the rest of the world at COP26”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 303.]


That was Chris Skidmore, former Energy Minister, valued by the Government for his net zero review, and by all of us for that great piece of work.

At COP 26 in Glasgow a couple of years ago, which we chaired very successfully under Sir Alok Sharma, we nailed our colours to the mast and led a coalition of countries—I think the government press release says 190—and celebrated the fact that we would phase out coal. What motivates me most to put Amendment 272A forward again is that our international reputation is being shredded by the fact that we are moving ahead on this basis. Let us not pretend that it is not noticed internationally, because it is. Even the White House, under John Kerry, the climate envoy, has remarked on this piece of government policy planning and Michael Gove’s proposal to open the coal mine. So, our international reputation for climate leadership, which all of us on all sides of this House have been particularly proud of over the years, is being literally trashed by this decision.

That has other effects as well. During a Private Notice Question yesterday, we debated the fact that we had no investor take for offshore wind on the CfD pitch when it concluded last week. That shows that we need rock-solid commitment to net zero in order to attract investment into this country. To me, our saying internationally that we are starting to open coal mines absolutely goes against what we are saying to bring in investment. It questions UK government policy, which is competing with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and a green deal industrial plan in the EU. We are trying to get a slice of that global investment, yet our environmental and climate focus is wobbling. That is absolutely wrong.

This amendment would apply to any sort of coal mine, but the Minister mentioned the Cumbrian coal mine, which is what that decision is all about. Let us be clear about that proposition and the company West Cumbria Mining. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said already, that industry is moving—indeed, must move—competitively towards a much greener stance; for the UK steel industry to remain competitive, it must do so as well. As I understand it, scientists have questions about West Cumbrian coal, including whether its sulphur content is even sufficient for the steel industry. However, the main facts are these: first, the steel industry generally is not that interested in that coal; and, secondly, the company itself says that some four-fifths of the coal will not be used by the UK steel industry, which means that it needs to be exported. Once coal is exported, we have no control over how that substance is used.

That brings me to transport. The argument is that it is better to provide our own coking coal than to import it. However, if we export 80% of this coal, that will put transport costs up because we will have the cost of transporting it to other, international markets.

The one argument that I do have sympathy with concerns jobs. We all know that the region of Cumbria is hugely challenged in terms of levelling up, jobs and income. However, it is completely obvious to me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just talked about with regard to Labour’s amendment, we have the ability to provide green jobs and proper energy efficiency. It is clear to me that this coal mine will not be there for a particularly long time, so those jobs will be transient.

I will leave it at that but let me come back to the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our important share in global investment in the green sector. I quote the Government’s own website, which said this after COP 26:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26”.


That was a proud moment for not just Alok Sharma but the Government. It is being trashed.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 274B in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register.

I will speak briefly about community energy but let me just say that I absolutely support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also very much support the noble Lord’s words, especially about what this measure is going to do to Britain’s reputation, and his reminding us of where this country was just a couple of short years ago as the leaders of COP, playing a proud role on the world stage; that seems to be in tatters right now.

Community energy is wildly popular in the country—it is extremely popular with all sorts of people. I find it puzzling why the Government are not bending over backwards to make this easier and simpler for people. I do not want to get into the arguments about onshore wind, but surely one way to mitigate communities’ concerns about renewable energy is to give people a stake in it so that it is about not just a bit of money but owning something. My sister has lived on a small island in Denmark for 60 years. The people there are completely energy independent. It was the first place I knew of that had wind farms everywhere. Everyone knows how much electricity is coming in and what it is doing. They have ownership and share prices—that is just the way it has been done, and it is kind of brilliant. Why can we not say, “The local energy we produce off that hill heats my towel rail all year round”? They can report, “I co-own it”, “It has paid to put solar panels on the roof of the community hall”, or “It has paid for energy efficiency advice and deals for the other homes in our village”.

In fairness to the Government, they have acknowledged this, but we seem to have spent an incredible amount of time hand-wringing about the difficulties rather than finding the easy, appropriate ways of supporting it. All that the sector wants is a deal comparable with all the other renewable energy that we have in this country, via a guaranteed minimum price. This gives communities the certainty that they need to raise the funds to go ahead. This is true across so much of the alternative energy sector.

I supported the establishment of the £10 million community energy fund but, quite honestly, that is not very much. If you look in the Evening Standard, you find that you can buy a flat for £10 million within about 100 yards of here. It is not going to go far enough. We need real reform, so the commitment made by Andrew Bowie in the other place

“to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 281.]

was particularly welcome.

That is why I have come up with this compromise amendment, which I hope that the Minister feels able to accept. It would give the industry a boost to know that there was something coming down the tracks on an agreed timeframe. A problem that we have seen before is consultations which do not receive a response—or do but with serious delays. That is all that I am trying to avoid with this amendment in lieu, which sets a generous timescale of 18 months for a consultation and a further six months for bringing forward proposals to remove the barriers to community energy schemes. This times nicely with the end of the two-year community energy fund and would avoid a potential cliff edge.

I believe that the Minister will appreciate the need for clarity for the sector and the need to reassure over 300 MPs, including 147 Conservative MPs, who backed the original Local Electricity Bill, which recognised the barriers to community energy and proposed remedies. I therefore ask him to give this house more clarity on timescales, or I may be required to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, for the reputation of the UK internationally and for the health of the planet, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure following the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has done such an enormous amount of work on this issue—I pay tribute to that.

I was the person who started these amendments on their way back in December 2022, after we started work on this Bill last July. A consultation is something but what we really need is action, so I have a simple question for the Minister. As he said, this consultation has already started this month; if the Government see or identify through that consultation some simple, easy-to-remove barriers, will they act on them immediately rather than waiting for the end of the formal process? Surely, if action can be taken then projects, such as the one in Kensington to which the Minister referred, can go forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on her persistence in this area. One of the strong messages that came out between Committee and Report in this House was the slow progress, and lack of progress, on community schemes. I very much hope that this consultation will reverse that trend. It seems slightly ironic, though typical, that the objection from the Commons is on there being a timetable, whereas we all know that for anything to happen, you need a timetable to focus.

On these Benches we are now keen to get this Bill on the statute book and that it becomes an Act. It has been delayed a number of times, mainly from the government side, as it has progressed through both Houses. There are a lot of important parts of this Bill that need to happen. I very much hope that the future systems operator will be quickly nominated and can move into action, so that a number of the strategic bottlenecks that we have in our energy sector can be swept away and solved. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for her persistence in this area, and I hope that consultation will move to action very quickly.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her persistence on this. I agree with what she is trying to achieve. The Minister came dangerously close to Rumsfeld-speak when he effectively said that we cannot know the unknowables. All that we and the amendment were suggesting was that a report needs to come forward and then we can determine how we need to act, which seems entirely sensible.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson: it is time that the Bill got on to the statute book. The Bill has been far too long in digestion. Let us hope we can now eat it all and enjoy its flavour.