That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.
The House may recall that, on 12 February, the Government made a Statement confirming that we intend to introduce short-term support for large-scale biomass generators to ensure the UK’s continued security of supply. Following a robust public consultation process, we published our consultation response, which set out that legislative changes are needed to enable the Government to provide support to existing biomass generators through a new low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference. I should emphasise that while this instrument enables the provision of new support, the final decision on whether to do so will be made following the conclusions drawn from our thorough internal assessment and commercial negotiations.
The draft SI will enable a new low-carbon dispatchable CfD to be signed with existing biomass generators. That is not possible currently. It amends the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014 such that a person is eligible for a CfD in respect of a biomass station where it is intended that the existing biomass station will continue to generate electricity. As is the case today, the Low Carbon Contracts Company —the LCCC—will be the counterpart to any new CfD.
The second amendment in the SI relates to sustainability. The Government support only the use of sustainable biomass, and we continue to review sustainability requirements so that we can remain aligned to the latest evidence. This instrument will amend the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014 to allow the Secretary of State to direct the LCCC to implement amendments relating to sustainability obligations within the new CfD. This will mean that the Government can make changes to sustainability requirements within the new contract to ensure that they keep pace with the latest evidence. I should note that these regulations were originally laid before the House on 11 March but were relaid on 2 April to correct minor drafting errors.
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to clearly identify their subject as the Drax wood-burning power station, and do not provide for a means for Drax to be held to account for its environmental impacts and costs; and further regrets that the Government have not justified the price premium offered to Drax or published key documents underpinning the Regulations”.
My Lords, as I think the Minister has already alluded to, this amendment to the Motion closely mirrors the comments made both by our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and by the Public Accounts Committee. It regrets that these draft regulations
“fail to clearly identify their subject as the Drax wood-burning power station”.
I was listening closely to the Minister and, interestingly, I do not think I heard him say “Drax” until he got to speaking about the amendment. He spoke about the difficulty, as he saw it, of providing alternatives for Drax; as I think we all know, we are not going to suddenly magic up an alternative Drax out of nowhere that will suddenly start generating electricity for us. I refer noble Lords, and the many people who I know are listening, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reference to how this is about Drax—that is what it has to be.
9:30 pm
I just want to explain a couple of things because many campaigners—people I have worked with over the best part of a decade—were really disappointed that I did not table a fatal Motion because they are so angry and upset about the environmental and financial disaster that this SI represents. By tabling an amendment to the Motion, I hoped—since we know the House is more inclined to vote on those—that I might see support from other parties in this House, but I have not seen that support, so we are where we are. I am waiting to see how the debate goes and what happens, and whether I decide to call a vote to put that on the record.
I note that there has been huge interest in this, perhaps especially, although not just, around an article in the Guardian on the weekend by Dale Vince, a former supporter of the Labour Government—possibly still a supporter; I am not sure—in which he expressed grave concerns.
To come to some of the other substantive points here, my amendment says that the draft regulations
“do not provide for a means for Drax to be held to account for its environmental impacts and costs”.
What does Drax do? It cuts down old-growth North American forests, which are converted into pellets in poor areas of America where there are awful public health consequences, then they are shipped across the Atlantic on diesel-powered ships to be burned at Drax. To say this is nothing like “green” is simply a statement of the obvious.
There is also the issue of costs; I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in his place, and I think he will get to that later. What we are talking about here is subsidies of £1.8 billion for burning 108 million trees. That is on top of the £6.5 billion Drax has already received for destroying 300 million trees.
The Government and the Minister will say this is an improvement on previous arrangements. Well, yes, but this is still not where we should be. We have a climate emergency—I have to refer to this. We have just come out of a June heatwave, and the figures tell us there will be 600 deaths just from that, with more almost certainly to come over the summer. Our farmers are facing an awful year, around the world the climate and nature crises are absolutely acute, and Drax is contributing to both of those.
The Minister referenced the KPMG report into Drax—we might almost describe it now as “the famous KPMG report into Drax”—and said, “Drax owns it”. But are the Government not the customer here? If the Government want to ensure the kind of sustainability that the Minister referred to, surely as a customer they could require that the KPMG report be published. It seems that a customer could very easily do that.
There are so many noble Lords here and I am aware of the hour, so I will just mention a couple of other things. I want to quote the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it is important that this sentence is on the record. Talking about the KPMG report, it says:
“We consider that this should”
be released
20 of 63 shown
I would like to outline the Government’s carefully considered position on large-scale biomass generation, which provides around 5% of the UK’s annual electricity generation. Current support for these generators, under CfDs and the renewables obligation, ends in 2027. I assure the House that the Government maintain an unwavering commitment to our energy security, and we will do everything we can to secure a reliable energy system, for now and the future, even if it means making hard decisions.
My department considered a range of factors before deciding whether to provide further support for these generators. First, we took analysis from the National Energy System Operator and have concluded that without further support for large-scale biomass the country could face security of supply risks between 2027 and 2031. Relying on alternative options to come online in this timeframe, such as building new gas plants, would carry significant risks.
Secondly, we undertook comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections indicate that, on the right terms and if playing a much more limited role than today, biomass generation can be the lowest-cost option for bill payers during this period.
Lastly, we will introduce strengthened sustainability requirements from the outset of any new agreement. Importantly, this SI will also allow the sustainability measures to be enhanced throughout the duration of the contract, in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice. These factors represent a substantial shift from past arrangements on sustainability and value for money.
We have also listened to stakeholders and recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. When such decisions arise in future, the Government will not be left in similar circumstances. Therefore, we will undertake the essential work on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives to ensure that we have proper options in four years’ time.
I acknowledge that the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, focuses on concerns about Drax. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed that we had agreed heads of terms for a new CfD with Drax. This instrument would enable that CfD, should a final decision be taken to provide it, but it will equally enable similar agreements with any other biomass generators. It does not guarantee that a CfD will be offered to, or agreed with, any biomass generator, nor specify the contract terms, including time limits, for any individual company. These draft regulations are about ensuring we have the option available to respond to security-of-supply needs and deliver low-carbon electricity to the grid at the lowest cost to the consumer.
Let me be clear that the proposed agreement with Drax would limit generation to times when the system and in turn consumers most require it. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar energy instead. This means that Drax will be supported to operate less than half as often as it currently does. As a result, the deal would halve the amount paid in subsidies compared with existing arrangements—equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household in annual bills. When compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market, it will save consumers £170 million in subsidies each year.
The agreement also introduces tough new measures on sustainability, and we will appoint an independent adviser to support the development of policy and practice in biomass sustainability and to ensure that these keep pace with the emerging science and international landscape. However, this debate is about the legislation and not about Drax.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report on this instrument. As I mentioned, this instrument is not specific to Drax; instead, it will enable support to be provided to Drax, or to any other biomass generators, should a decision be taken to provide it. As I have already noted, if the Government decide to provide support to Drax, that will offer substantially better value for money for consumers.
On the Select Committee’s comments on sustainability, I can clarify that the KPMG reports are internal fact-finding documents commissioned by Drax on existing sustainability requirements. The reports do not belong to the Government or to Ofgem; they belong to Drax. It is for Drax to decide whether to release them. Furthermore, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is considering the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on biomass, including its recommendations on Drax’s sustainability assurances. Work is under way to strengthen the monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements, and the department issued a full response to the Public Accounts Committee report on 16 June.
In summary, these draft regulations represent an important step in ensuring our energy security and protecting bill payers now and into the future. They make the necessary amendments to enable support to be provided to biomass generators when existing schemes end in 2027. This will enable us to maintain the UK’s security of supply, deliver value for money for consumers and enhance sustainability requirements. I beg to move that these regulations be supported by noble Lords.