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.