Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I ask the Government to think again about these proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, they have industry-wide support. I will listen carefully to my noble friend’s response.

[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.

--- 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 Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I engage in the detail of the amendments, let me respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am sure I have never said that we should not listen to scientists; of course we should, but we should accept that there are sometimes different scientific opinions. I notice that the noble Baroness is very keen to listen to scientists on some occasions, but the Greens are totally opposed to listening to the vast majority of scientists who say that nuclear should provide an essential way of decarbonising the country’s economy.

By way of example, perhaps she would like to look at the mess her Green friends have got themselves into in Germany by their irrational objections to nuclear policy: they have ended up, now that they are in government, supporting the eradication of villages to open more lignite mines, the dirtiest form of coal production, because they got rid of all their nuclear capacity. Obviously they could not have predicted the gas shortages that would come along, but this is the problem you get yourself into with idealistic policies without any practical effect in the real world. Thankfully, I do not think there is any chance of the noble Baroness or her party being in government in the UK to make similar errors and mistakes.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I have to correct the noble Lord and point out that there are Green Ministers in government in the UK.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I accept the noble Baroness’s point—yes, that was an error on my behalf. Of course, Patrick Harvie is my opposite number in Scotland and I discuss these matters with him quite often, although we have never had a nuclear discussion yet.

Turning to the amendments, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale, Lord Teverson and Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for their contributions on Amendment 58. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his engagement and pay tribute to the excellent work of my officials in drafting the amendments. In response to the very appropriate request by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for clarification on fossil fuel waste, both the renewable transport fuel obligation and the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel mandate are underpinned by strict sustainability and eligibility criteria. This includes requiring qualifying fuels to provide minimum greenhouse gas savings when compared with the fossil fuels they displace.

Fuels produced from nuclear energy are considered to be zero carbon; however, it will be important that we do not incentivise the diversion of electricity generated by nuclear power stations from current uses. The RTFO already includes criteria to ensure that renewable energy—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Perhaps the Minister might wish to correct himself. He just referred to nuclear energy as zero carbon. It is of course, as under the Government’s own classification, low carbon.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think I said fuels produced from nuclear energy, but never mind.

The RTFO already includes criteria to ensure that renewable energy used for fuel production is additional to that which would otherwise be supplied, and the same principles would be developed for nuclear power.

With regards to the waste hierarchy, this policy makes effective use of what otherwise would be difficult to manage waste. RCFs are non-recyclable fossil wastes. Utilising these types of wastes to synthesise fuel is a better end-of-life fate than landfill or incineration. It will be important to mitigate risks and ensure adherence to the UK waste hierarchy, so we are in the process of concluding a consultation on detailed policy proposals to ensure that RCFs contribute to and meet our wider objective of effectively reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of fuels. Sustainability criteria are being carefully formulated in consultation with a wide range of scientists, technical experts, other government departments, fuel suppliers and wider stakeholders to ensure that the risks are carefully managed and mitigated. I hope that provides appropriate reassurance to the noble Baroness.