National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
Debate between Michael Shanks and Toby Perkins(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend’s approach. He is right to say that these allegations are incredibly serious, and that it is crucially important not only for there to be a full investigation but for it to be seen to be independent so that people can have confidence in it. He is also right to draw attention to the difference between the concerns that are raised by those whistleblowers and any suggestion that our grid is about to lead to blackouts. Does he agree that while it is absolutely true that one of the terrible legacies that this Government inherited from the last Government was a grid that had been woefully under-invested in for a very long time, and that there is a substantial need for investment in it in order to achieve our energy ambitions, that should not be allowed to be conflated with the suggestion that the lights are about to go out? Can he give confidence to my constituents this summer that NESO has given him all the assurances that he needs that there will be no blackouts?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has framed his remarks. He is right to say that these are incredibly serious allegations, and we take them with the seriousness with which they should be taken and will take on board any lessons learned. As for his point about the importance of grid investment, we inherited a grid that was not only in dire need of investment, but had not been designed to meet the full needs of generation that had been built for many years and not connected. We are currently constraining renewable energy that has been built over the past few years because it had not been connected to the grid. We are doing that work to ensure that the grid can continue to do what it needs to do.
As for my hon. Friend’s final point, let me state very clearly that electricity supplies were maintained throughout the June heatwave. No customer demand was subject to disconnection. Statutory frequency limits were maintained throughout the event, and the largest credible loss that could have occurred was also covered. Let me explain exactly what we mean by the margin in this instance. The margin represents the cushion of spare generation above the peak demand that is maintained by NESO, and at no point did we come close to breaching that. It did not indicate any kind of emergency situation. Demand was met, and those are the facts.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Debate between Michael Shanks and Toby Perkins(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.
We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.
On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.
Biomass Generation
Debate between Michael Shanks and Toby Perkins(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply.
The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point.
As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system.
Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We have a new line from the official Opposition. We are told that they are a firm under new management, but this sounds to me like the same circus, just with different clowns.
The Minister is right to say that the new deal that the Government are putting in place is a far better deal for taxpayers, because the previous deal was an absolute disgrace for taxpayers, but can he tell us a little more about the projections that he has seen? Do they confirm that this deal is the best for taxpayers, even in comparison with gas? How can he be certain of that? We heard a different suggestion from the shadow Minister.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think we should consider two aspects of the analysis of the importance of Drax to the system. First, in comparison with the counterfactual of building new gas-fired power stations, our analysis is that the deal we have agreed, which involves the use of gas on the system for 27% of the time, costs £170 million less. Secondly, on energy security, the assessment is that even if we wanted to go down that route, there would be risks about whether we could build that capacity in the time that we have.
This is all about the decisions taken by the last Government, who did not look far enough ahead and did not have that capacity on the system. Even if we did want to proceed with new gas stations, there would be questions about whether we could build them in time. This deal is about protecting bill payers, halving the subsidy from £1 billion and ensuring that there is dispatchable power when we need it as we build the clean power system.
As we move towards the 2030s, what comes next is long-term planning for a clean power mix, but also about the long-duration and short-duration storage mixes that will help us to make decisions that are different from the one we were forced to make this time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Michael Shanks and Toby Perkins(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about how local community groups can benefit from not just hosting the community energy, but from being able to sell locally. We have had a number of conversations on this topic already. I most recently met the community energy contact group, which does a lot of work to look at what regulations there might be, and we are happy to look at any proposals that come forward. We want to see a revolution in community energy right across the country so that more communities can benefit.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, we had an energy market that worked for nobody. It was bad for consumers, and we also saw many energy companies go out of business as the Government lost any grip on the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that with the greater stability we have under this new Labour Government, there are opportunities for community energy coming forward as part of the recovery of our whole energy infrastructure?
Michael Shanks
It will not surprise the House that I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who, as always, makes an incredibly important point. He is right that stability is key, but so too is this Government’s commitment to invest in community energy. We have committed to upwards of 8 GW of energy from community sources over the course of this Parliament up to 2030. That commitment ensures not just that we have an energy mix where communities benefit, but that they benefit from the economic and social advantages of owning the energy they produce.