Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Pippa Heylings Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Uma Kumaran]

Q Welcome, Mr Maier. It is good to hear your reassurances about communities being kept at the heart of this. You have told us about renewables, about offshore and about clean energy. As we have heard, it is a short Bill, but I would welcome your thoughts on what the Bill tells us about the objects and the strategic priorities of GB Energy and whether, in your view, it gives you enough detail to carry out your work.

Juergen Maier: It certainly gives me a very clear direction, along with the framework document that we will develop together with the Secretary of State and the Minister. The short answer to your question is that it is pretty clear. The purpose is clear, and that is the most important thing: the purpose, at the end of the day, is that we will accelerate the amount of clean renewable energy that we put on the grid, and that we will create as much prosperity and as many jobs through it as possible.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Q Welcome, Mr Maier. The main thing for me is the public accountability of GB Energy. You are very clear that the Bill gives you strategic direction. How do you feel that it also provides for public accountability for the money being invested or co-invested?

Juergen Maier: We are seeing pretty good evidence of that right now, aren’t we? At the end of the day, this is now a pretty well-established model for being absolutely state-owned and independently run. “Independently run” means excellent governance, and obviously as start-up chair I am going to ensure that that is the case. That does not all need to be in the Bill, because we know what it means. We have the Companies Act 2006 and numerous Acts about how good governance works. We will ensure through our board and our non-executives that there is proper governance, and of course there will be many opportunities for reviews by the Secretary of State and ultimately for the usual sort of public scrutiny.

[The Chair]

Order. That is the end of our first panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Mika Minio-Paluello and Mike Clancy gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Q I have a question about the fact that this is a public company, and it is really important that it is accountable to the public. Do you think that the Bill has sufficient detail about that accountability against its objectives and effectiveness?

Shaun Spiers: We have concerns about the huge powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. Clause 5(2) says:

“The Secretary of State may revise or replace the statement.”

A subsequent Secretary of State could significantly revise the aims of GB Energy. We think that the statement should be consulted on. We would propose an addition or amendment to say that the Secretary of State must consult anybody likely to be affected by the statement, or such bodies as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State— something like that, just to say that there should be more scrutiny so that the Secretary of State cannot simply change the aims of GB Energy in the way it is currently set out.

Ravi Gurumurthy: I run an innovation organisation, and the hallmark of good innovation, or of good companies, is that they pivot and adapt. I know that it is sometimes challenging to set up an institution like GB Energy and not lock down all the parameters, but actually that is critical. There are issues and barriers that we do not even know yet, and I think it is important that this organisation can do whatever it takes to achieve the mission, even if we cannot right now identify exactly every single aspect of its role.

Marc Hedin: I would echo that message that the role of Great British Energy is very broad and is being defined as we speak. That is what we in this room, but also the people working for Great British Energy, are doing at the moment. It could also change in the future as the challenges of energy administration evolve. I therefore think it makes sense for the Bill to provide present and future flexibility in scope.

That being said, there are two points or questions that should potentially be answered. First, what are the governance arrangements to ensure that Great British Energy carries out its duties and focuses on its remit? Part of the answer could be that it should be ensured that Great British Energy provides additionality and works with stakeholders, which is what Shaun Spiers mentioned. Secondly, since Great British Energy’s role is primarily to fill gaps in the market, it would be useful to assess its effectiveness there. Clause 7 only mentions an annual rendition of financial accounts, and there is no mention of effectiveness or impact. Reflecting on the possible roles of Great British Energy, some, such as speeding up project delivery, will lead to value added for the whole system but not necessarily additional revenues for Great British Energy. Financial accounts may only tell part of the story, and there is a need for more comprehensive reporting, in my view.

Shaun Spiers: If I may, just quickly: to require consultation on the strategic priorities if they are going to change radically should not be too onerous.

[Pippa Heylings]

Q My question was exactly on that point. Thank you all for coming here to present your evidence.

Can you explain a little more your concerns? First, given that innovation needs to pivot, but also given that we are being asked to allow for the objects to be so broad to allow for flexibility within them, Shaun, can you explain a little more why you think there should be consultation on such broad objects? Secondly, can you discuss any concerns you may have around environmental requirements for what GB Energy is going to do? That is also absent at the moment from the objects of the Bill.

Shaun Spiers: On the concern about the ability of subsequent Secretaries of State simply to change the strategic direction of the organisation, you can look at recent history to know that there can be radical changes. It does not seem to me to be too demanding; it is just good governance to suggest that that should be consulted on, and that you do not give absolute powers to a Secretary of State to do that. I do not see that as a particular constraint on innovation; I just think of that as good governance.

The Chair is keen that we do not lever in lots of other things on the Bill, but there is a concern. Clearly, 2030 power decarbonisation is an imperative and we need to achieve net zero, but we also have a nature crisis and there are concerns about whether GB Energy will seek to enhance nature or whether nature will take second place. Both the Secretary of State and Chris Stark, the head of mission control, have emphasised that there will be a role for considerations of nature in energy planning. But, again, that is not in the Bill, and it would be nice to see it there or to see some statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box to ensure that it is central to how GB Energy will behave. There are lots of public companies that do not prioritise nature—they prioritise bills or the delivery of their main objective—and we see the consequence of that, for instance, in the water industry.

[Josh MacAlister]

Q This is a follow-up for Ravi Gurumurthy, on the theme of autonomy and flexibility for GBE. For this to be a success, there needs to be some appetite for risk taken by GBE. Historically, Government agencies have not been known for being particularly free to do that. The Bill intends to provide a degree of flexibility for GBE to operate and respond with autonomy and pace. Given the work that Nesta has done in this space, Ravi, can you say a little more about what gives you the confidence that the Bill sets that up in the right way?

Ravi Gurumurthy: It is a very challenging question. As you know, good intentions in this area often do not translate. You can mandate and say you want to operate with risk appetite, but it does not really translate into behaviour. What do I think are some of the components? The capitalisation of GB Energy is really important, because that gives it some degree of resource to take risks. I am quite interested in whether, as well as investing in novel technologies with a high-risk appetite, GB Energy can either take cashless equity stakes or invest in more established technologies, because if you have a more balanced portfolio, it might give you the ability to take risks in some aspects.

That gets you into a conversation about the fiscal rules. The one thing I would say about this area is that if you compare offshore wind and other established energy technologies with roads or hospitals, the big difference in my mind is that for offshore wind we will build those wind farms whether the state invests or not, and we will pay as consumers, whereas roads and hospitals will not get built if the state does not. The point is that we are going to pay for it, and we will pay more through private sector borrowing than we will through the state.

The second big difference is that unlike a road or a hospital, there was a guaranteed revenue stream through a contract for difference, so there is a really good rationale for why we should not have fiscal rules that bias us towards 100% private sector borrowing, rather than the state either taking a cashless equity stake via this development process or actually investing. If you do that, it will give GB Energy the ability to then take risks on the much more novel aspects of the portfolio and have failures. If GB Energy does not have failures, it will not be doing its job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Q I wanted to ask about the definition in the Bill on clean energy. Do either of you have any thoughts on whether that definition is clear enough?

Dan McGrail: From my perspective, the definition is probably good enough. It is quite tricky to go too narrow and say renewable energy only, because there are certain areas, such as long duration storage, where the sector would like GB Energy to participate in, or at least to have the freedom to participate in, which, if it is too narrowly constrained or defined, may prove problematic later down the line.

One thing I think would be advantageous in the definition, or in the objects, is to clearly set out the guard rails, such as ensuring the carbon budgets are referenced. If we reference the carbon budgets, future Secretaries of State would need to make sure that any investments that were made were in line with the delivery of the carbon budgets. That is comparable to what was done with the set-up of the Green Investment Bank, where there were specific references to what the Secretary of State would need to go back to primary legislation to change, and what would be foreseeable within secondary legislation—not directing the Green Investment Bank to invest in fossil fuels, for example, would have required a complete change of mandate. I think some similar thinking, therefore, would be helpful here.

Adam Berman: I do not completely agree. I do not think there is a big problem of definition, but I would say that we need to ensure it is consistent with the CCC’s existing language and with the technologies that it thinks are consistent with the sixth carbon budget. Clean energy may encapsulate all of them, but I think we would have to make sure that it includes established mature renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen, just to leave those options on the table. I do not disagree with Dan that there needs to be a focus, but GB Energy needs to at least be given the option to engage in the technologies where it thinks there may be additionality in terms of bringing in GBE’s involvement.

[Pippa Heylings]

Q To go back to the few organisations that you mentioned in connection with consultation, you got to devolved Administrations but I did not hear about local government. The Local Government Association has been pushing very hard and is keen for the place-makers—those who understand what demand will be, what the spatial strategies are and what land is available—to be part of the planning very early on. Do you agree that they should be included in the shortened consultation list?

Adam Berman: Clearly I agree that they are of incredible importance when it comes to planning the energy system and that the dialogue with them about the local communities that they know better than anyone else is pivotal. The challenge is that for GB Energy, as far as I understand it, a major part of it is local power plans, which will already have involved close consultation with local authorities and communities in lots of different ways.

From an industry perspective, I would be hesitant about placing that as a condition on GB Energy’s investment. That is not to diminish its importance; it is just to ensure that we are allowing GB Energy to be successful and that we are not holding it back. There is a very good argument that that should be included in the legislation, and that the national energy system operator and the Climate Change Committee should be included in the legislation, but once we have gone through all those bodies, it starts to become prohibitive for the investment process, which we want to be free and fair for GB Energy. We are therefore slightly hesitant about saying that we necessarily have to look to any particular body for consultation.

[Pippa Heylings]

Q May I follow up on that? We are looking at the governance side. We know that on the spatial side, we have the local energy action plan. Rather than taking an individual look, I am looking at how we ensure that where that spatial strategy happens, rather than talking about individual local community consultations, those who know about the place-making are brought into the energy planning early. I fear that leaving them out will once again endanger all the progress that has been made in local energy area planning. We just need a reference to it somehow.

Adam Berman: That is a really good point. I think that there could be something in the legislation to ensure that GB Energy’s investments are consistent not only with the local area energy planning, but with the strategic spatial energy planning that the energy system operator is doing.

Dan McGrail: There is a really important point here about how, to be successful in the market, GB Energy will need to engage with those processes anyway. There will be accountability around the company, but one nervousness I have is about trying to put too much into the Bill specifically on GB Energy. I agree that the point should be about complying with the things that we need to deal with, whether those are in law, in programmes such as the strategic spatial energy plan or in the work of the national system operator. Those are all interconnected and contiguous pieces of a system in which GB Energy needs to be able to operate effectively. The onus, if we put anything in legislation, is to be compliant with all that.

[The Chair]

We are getting away from the Bill a bit.