Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Matthew Pennycook

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[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.