---

Energy Bill

I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have contributed to this short debate. As has been indicated, we are all in agreement with the amendment’s broad objective of seeking to increase the use of biomass. However, the amendment is not necessary, and it may even be detrimental to our objective of increasing the amount of biomass burned by coal-fired power stations. The amendment proposes that any new-build, coal-fired power-generation plant should have the capability for a minimum of 10 per cent of its output to come from the co-firing of biomass. The use of biomass as a renewable energy source can be beneficial to the environment, of course, and can make a real contribution to the UK Government’s renewable energy and carbon emission targets and obligations. Therefore, we share the noble Lord’s ambitions to see a greater use of biomass, which is why we already have a number of support mechanisms in place to incentivise its use, including the support offered by the renewables obligation, which we discussed on earlier amendments to the Bill. The amendment would not enhance the existing incentivisation framework, partially for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Let me make the obvious point. All existing coal-fired plants in the UK are already capable of carrying out co-firing, and most are in fact doing so on either a trial or a commercial basis. There is no technical barrier to generating 10 per cent of power from co-firing of biomass in existing or any conceivable future coal plants, so the amendment is not necessary. The capability to carry out co-firing does not necessarily mean that it will be undertaken. If we put a target in legislation, albeit a minimum one, it could send a signal to the marketplace that the Government’s preferred level of co-firing is 10 per cent. However, higher levels of co-firing may be achieved both economically and sustainably. Having what looked like a target in the legislation could hinder higher levels of co-firing that could be achieved by the economic incentives already available. The renewables obligation, the climate change levy exemption certificates and the EU ETS already provide, and will continue to provide, an effective incentivisation regime for co-firing with biomass. Those incentives are already having effect. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will appreciate that there are no technical obstacles to the co-firing of biomass in existing or any future coal-fired plants, that the economic incentives are already available to promote the use of this technology, that the Government are four-square with the noble Lord in wishing to see the use of biomass and that the amendment would not add anything to what we already have. It might be mistaken by its 10 per cent figure for some kind of limiting target, when that is not the long-term view that the Government are taking about developing the use of biomass. I hope that he will take delight in the assurance that I seek to give from this Dispatch Box about our commitment to his objectives. This is a disagreement about means.