Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andrea Leadsom]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman. I think this is the first sitting of the Committee that he has been able to attend and it is good to see him here. He will appreciate that grace periods have to be set and a line has to be drawn somewhere. We have tried to accommodate the need for investor certainty and to be fair both to the businesses building onshore wind and to the consumers who are paying for them. We will get on to that in due course.

The first part of our manifesto commitment is now well on its way: clause 79, together with supporting secondary legislation, will ensure that the Secretary of State is no longer the primary decision maker for any onshore wind applications in England and Wales. New planning guidance for England, issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Communities and Local Government, complements this change by ensuring that local people have the final say on new onshore wind planning applications.

It is imperative that we deliver the second part of our manifesto commitment—to end new subsidies for onshore wind—to protect consumer bills and manage spending under the levy control framework. These amendments will ensure that we do exactly that by reinstating the provisions that were removed in the other place. We are committed to delivering our manifesto commitment while protecting investor confidence. It is my view that these provisions, including our grace period proposals, strike a fair balance between the public interest—including protecting consumer bills and ensuring the right mix of energy—and the interests of onshore wind developers and the wider industry.

At the end of April 2015, there were already 490 operational onshore wind farms in the UK, with an installed capacity of more than 8 GW—enough to power the equivalent of more than 4.5 million homes when the wind is blowing. That significant achievement was made possible only by providing consumer-funded subsidies. The Government estimate that in 2015-16, £850 million of support will go towards funding onshore wind across the UK, of which about £520 million, or approximately 60%, will fund Scottish onshore wind farms.

Recent levy control framework forecasts indicate that spending on low-carbon generation in 2020 will be £9.1 billion in 2012 prices. The Government previously set a limit of £7.6 billion, so the current forecast is already £1.5 billion above that, and additional costs would need to be met through increases to consumer energy bills. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said on 18 January,

“New, clean technologies will be sustainable at the scale we need only if they are cheap enough.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1152.]

When costs come down, as they have for onshore wind and solar, consumer-funded support should, too.

Let me reassure all Committee members that we already have enough onshore wind in the pipeline to meet the projected 11 to 13 GW needed to meet our ambition of generating 30% of electricity from renewables by 2020. That 11 to 13 GW is the deployment range clearly set out in the electricity market reform delivery plan. It is our best estimate of what we need to meet our 2020 targets, compared with what we can afford under our low-carbon spending cap.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that if we do not make up lost ground on heat and transport, we will have to do more on renewable electricity to meet our EU renewables target?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are separate binding targets for different types of renewable energy. He also knows that we are making good progress in meeting our targets. We expect to be within the deployment range for onshore wind that was projected in the electricity market reform plan.

If we do not implement the early closure proposals in these amendments, there is a risk that we will deploy beyond the range that we forecast. There is the potential for up to 7.1 GW of further onshore wind under the renewables obligation. Without action to close the renewables obligation early and manage the spending under the levy control framework, there is a risk of deploying beyond the delivery plan range, which would add more costs to consumer bills.

I remind the Committee that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said on 18 January,

“Subsidies should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1152.]

That is what we seek to implement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am just coming to a close, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Rather than jiggery-pokery such as applying for two turbines in a 22-acre field to establish the principle and then coming back for more through variations to consent, which the amendments from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill sought to protect, we may well find that local communities and their planning authorities will see the whole picture at the start of the planning process rather than planning by salami-slicing, having established the principle.

The Government are absolutely right in their approach to the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry spoke wisely about the civil war. I must say that I would probably have found myself more of a cavalier than a roundhead, but there we are. However, there is an important point to make. If the civil war was about the proportionate balance between Crown and Parliament, the clauses inserted in the other place are, without over-egging this particular pudding, potentially as significant. If the Salisbury convention is to mean anything, something that passed the survey of the general election and a policy that commanded strong public support should not be challenged by the other place. I hope that we do not get involved in an overly long game of ping-pong with their lordships, because the view of the democratically elected House, certainly on this matter, must prevail.

[Matthew Pennycook]

When I drafted my notes for this speech earlier today, I did not comprehend that it was quite on an English civil war-type level of debate, but I will do my best.

Before I move on to my substantive comments, I will refer to the very interesting debate we had earlier about variability and balancing. It is worth returning to because—like so much of the debate on this issue, and not only in Committee and on Second Reading—we hear less about the costs of particular subsidies or how onshore wind forms part of our energy mix and more about the politics of onshore wind, which is really not what we are discussing when we consider what is the contentious part of the Bill.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Daventry raised the issue of intermittency, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he did so in a way that did not shed much light on the subject, because the notification of inadequate system margin event that he talked about—I believe that it was a NISM event in November, and incidentally it does not mean that the lights are about to go out, but merely that the National Grid would like to see a larger safety cushion of spare generating capacity being brought on to the grid, which is not an unusual practice for the industry—was not caused just by an extended period of low wind, although that was part of it. It was also caused by unexpected plant faults and losses, so it was not just the fault of wind. When one drills down into the costs of that NISM event, one finds that it was in the hundreds of thousands, and not the calamitous figures that we got in the press.

Similarly, I am sure that we can have an extended debate about base load and about whether the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations for base load is outdated, as Steve Holliday, the CEO of National Grid, has himself argued.

However, what cannot be denied is that onshore wind is a flexible technology that helps National Grid to balance the network quickly, by ramping output up and down at times of constraint or system imbalance and, as the Royal Academy of Engineering has estimated, it requires no specific extra back-up until we hit 50 GW of onshore wind, which is five times the current level on the system.

When it comes to the costs of balancing to account for the increased variability, which is a product of moving towards a more decarbonised and flexible energy system, gas is far, far more expensive than wind. For 2014-15, 7% of the costs of balancing the grid were due to payment to wind. In the equivalent year, the balancing costs associated with gas amounted to £240 million, which is five times as much as the costs associated with wind. So we need to bring some sense to the debate about what these technologies do and, in a sense, approach it—as I hope the Government still do—in a technology-neutral manner.

By bringing the Committee’s attention to this point, I am only drawing attention to what I believe is actually the driving force behind the early closure of the RO and the Government’s insistence on reinserting these clauses, which is not a hard-headed calculation of what is required to balance the energy trilemma, or to meet the costs of controlling the levy framework; it is about the politics of the windy caucus and the understandable anger of constituents in parts of the country who have had onshore wind projects foisted on them when they do not support such projects.

As we have heard, onshore wind has been a success story. It is proven; it is mature; and its costs are coming down. That is precisely because of the conducive framework for investment that was provided by 10 to 15 years of energy policy consistency and a large degree of consensus about that policy. It is that consistency and the investor confidence that comes with it that the Government have played fast and loose with since May 2015.

The hon. Member for Daventry said that this whole debate turns on this point, and in a sense he is right to say so. However, to label it dancing on the head of a pin does him a disservice, given the number of people who have invested substantial amounts of money over long periods of time, because—as we heard from hon. Members before—the lead-in times for these projects go back years. Those people invested in those projects in good faith and they did not invest to see them close early.

I am very clear about the manifesto commitment. We are not talking about the localist aspect; there is no dispute about that. The manifesto is very clear that local people will have the final say. On the nebulous wording

“we will end any new public subsidy”,

it is clear that the renewables obligation is not a new public subsidy. It is an existing subsidy that was legislated for by the coalition Government in 2013, and investors were right to think that it would continue. As recently as 13 October 2014, the then Minister—now the Secretary of State—said that

“the RO will be closed to new capacity from 1st April 2017”,

and there have been other similar statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I could agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said until that last comment. That is the point: he says it is the cheapest form of renewable electricity, and we are saying that as costs come down industries need to stand on their own two feet. Opposition Members accuse us of attacking them, stopping them and killing them—they use those sorts of emotive words—but that is simply not the case. The hon. Gentleman must realise that developers are looking for a subsidy-free, market-stabilising CfD. Does he accept that he may be wrong—that the subsidy may not be the be all and end all, and that the success of the onshore wind industry could continue with local support and without the subsidy? Does he think that if we want the industry, we have to keep adding to the consumer bill?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think that if we want it we have to continue to add to the consumer bill. I very much agree that a contracts for difference regime is a much more stable mechanism for driving down costs. I do not use the words “killing” or “attacking”, but I do think that the Government have undermined support in a way that the industry was not expecting. It had stability in this regard.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Does this not ultimately boil down to risk management? Any business looking to invest will weigh up its risks; if we are looking at continuing a subsidy through to 2017, that will clearly play a role in how a business thinks about its risk portfolio before it actually makes the investment that it needs to make. Nobody here is saying that it is black or white—subsidies for ever or straight to a CfD. What we are saying is let us help these businesses, many of which are nascent but very important, to manage their risks. That is surely the role of Government: to have a proactive strategy to help businesses manage their risks and go forward.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend makes the case very powerfully. It is what I have heard on the Select Committee time and again, across a variety of renewable technologies. No one argues with the Minister’s point that as costs come down, subsidies should, in a stable and certain flight path, also reduce with them. What we take issue with is the early closure, as announced in June with very little consultation.

This could have been done in a much more effective way, in negotiation and consultation with the industry, where we move to different contracts for different regimes more stably. If the Minister is willing and happy to give the onshore wind industry the certainty that it is looking for around contracts for difference, I am sure we would be happy to hear that. What we have at the moment is a policy vacuum, when we had, before, not indefinite public subsidy but a certain flight path off it through the ending of the renewables obligation in 2017.

I return to my point about the EU renewables directive. When we look at the figures, we see that the situation is stark. We need 180 TW of new low-carbon generation by 2030. Every megawatt of generation that we do not get from onshore wind, in the sense of falling below our EU renewables target, will have to come from a more expensive form of renewable technology, be it offshore wind or nuclear.

Given how far behind we are on heat or transport—and I hope the Minister will agree with the Secretary of State that we do not have the right policies in place; we are behind on those targets and that part of renewables—the idea that this will bring down bills, which I understand is a large part of the rationale, at least according to Ministers, not the windy caucus, is unlikely. Even that 30p in the central scenario in the impact assessment is unlikely to happen, because we will be forced to turn to more expensive forms of renewables to meet our targets.

The worrying signal that this policy has sent, not just for investor confidence, is that the Government have abandoned their previous commitment to a technology-neutral approach at a time when the overriding priority must be decarbonisation at the lowest possible cost, regardless of what technology best aids that. So I support the Bill as it stands and I oppose the amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do not rise to head up the debate, because my hon. Friend and fellow Front-Bench spokesman the Member for Norwich South has already done that admirably this afternoon. We are debating a number of amendments together in a process whereby something is potentially coming back into the Bill where it was not previously. Therefore, a principal series of amendments and consequential amendments to those amendments are being debated essentially at the same time, although I am sure we will have an opportunity to disentangle those two aspects of our debate; I am talking about the formal process of putting Government amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the Committee and considering whether we should divide on them, subsequently to which amendments to the amendments may then be considered formally. I understand that that is how we are going to do it.

Although Opposition Members are relatively confident that the strength of the argument made so far means that those original amendments will not pass, it is nevertheless possible that they might. We need to be clear in this debate about what the consequential amendments consist of. I will restrict my remarks solely to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which is in my name.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has done this Committee a service by setting out the range of issues relating to the grace periods, which are a consequence of the proposal to put back into legislation a clause bringing the renewables obligation to an early halt. I appreciate that we have in the Committee what one might call the “windy caucus”—the “ultras” is another way of describing them—who would have no grace periods and feel the process should have stopped immediately, the day after the general election. However, we have grace periods, and if one is to have them, it is important we get them right.

Grace periods should be reasonably equitable. Clearly, it is not equitable if instead of being a slamming shut of the door in its own right, a grace period slams another series of doors shut in the process of being exercised. There are a number of instances where that has apparently occurred.

One of the most egregious instances of a door being shut by a grace period when that grace period should be holding the door open is where applications have gone down exactly the path set out in the Conservative manifesto for wind farms—that is, local people have the final say on wind farm applications. They have specifically gone into the process of seeking approval. Without strings attached, without attempting to go for non-determination and without attempting to go straight to appeal groups, they have wholeheartedly gone into the process of properly consulting and seeking agreement at local level and have gone through all the procedures relating to local planning committees. Indeed, they have done exactly what would be envisaged for the process in the future, were the second part of that Conservative manifesto commitment to have been put into place.

Those particular schemes have not only gone through that process but received planning consent through it—that is, they have applied for consent and a planning committee has considered it and consented to the application, with all the issues concerning the consent having been resolved.

As hon. Members will know, in all planning arrangements—this is not only a question of wind farm applications—a number of sub-conditions may be discussed; for example, section 106 arrangements or, in some instances, a variation of a previous planning condition that needs to be discussed. Essentially, the degree or the qualification has been passed, but the degree ceremony has not been held and the certificate has not been given out, yet to all intents and purposes that application has been determined and the scheme is therefore in the pipeline. It is in the pipeline because it has been agreed by local determination.