---

Energy Bill

My Lords, I declare my land-owning interest, which is listed in the Register of Members’ Interests. At last, we have the Government’s feed-in tariff amendment, which was promised by the new Minister, anxious to take the earliest opportunity to display his green credentials while committing this country to reducing its carbon-emission levels by 80 per cent by 2050, shortly after he took office in the middle of last month. His decision must have produced great strain in the department. I thought that I detected signs of that when he spoke on the subject on Report—he more or less acknowledged that today in different words—as the consultation on the Government’s renewable energy strategy document had closed less than three weeks earlier. That paper contained a whole annexe devoted to the feed-in tariff and what form any such scheme might take. It posed multiple questions—evidence of the department’s yet-to-be-settled views on the subject—and said: "““In order to reach a balanced decision on whether we should introduce feed-in tariffs for small scale renewable generation, it is important to consider how such a system would work in practice. We welcome your views””." Again, at the end, it said: "““We have outlined here one example of how a feed-tariff might operate for small-scale electricity generation; and set out a number of issues on which we seek views. The information provided through responses to this consultation and ongoing discussions with industry and other stakeholders will inform our decisions on how best to support electricity generation at this scale, including whether a move to a feed-in tariff system would be advantageous””." Yet, barely a fortnight after receiving the answers that they had so eagerly sought, the Government had impetuously committed themselves to the scheme and to an extremely tight legislative timetable for introducing it. It is not beside the point to raise this issue: first, because it will now be difficult for the Government to persuade those who co-operated with their inquiry and provided the replies that the Government sought that the Government paid any attention at all to what they said and that the whole consultation was not a waste of time; and, secondly, because this must go far to explain the sketchy nature of the scheme in the Bill and the amount of discretion that it leaves to the Secretary of State. The department is still groping its way. I have some questions for the Minister. First, I asked on Report about cost. I did not expect an answer then, but I hope for one now. What might any scheme cost? Do the Government expect any such scheme to grow into the same order of magnitude as the cost of the renewables obligation scheme, which is currently running at some £1.1 billion a year and calculated to rise on present policies to £32 billion a year if we are to reach our 2020 target? Is it the Government’s idea that consumers will pay it all, just as they do for the renewables obligation, and will that include the costs of the bureaucracy to run the scheme and of providing the extra low-voltage grid wherever required? Have the Government worked out their views on those issues? What will that add to consumers’ bills? Secondly, can the Government say anything on how any scheme might interact with the planning system? Is it their idea that microgeneration plants should be exempt from planning permission? Is the scheme to be open to occupants of terraced houses in urban areas, or only those living in detached houses? I hope that the Government can explain, on the later amendments, why they have set the maximum specified capacity for a plant as high as 3 megawatts. For a wind turbine, that can mean it is 400 feet high: that is thoroughly unsuitable for domestic electricity generation and far above the limit of what would normally be considered ““microgeneration””. Finally, I question whether wind should be included as an allowable energy source. An interesting and highly detailed study has just been published by the Builders Research Establishment Trust on microturbines in urban environments, including a study of Manchester as typical of a large inland conurbation. It found that, even under the most favourable assumptions, it was unlikely that microturbines would pay back their carbon emissions over the expected lifetime of the systems. It also found that no microturbine was likely to produce more than 150 kilowatts of electricity per year, compared to the 4,000 to 6,000 consumed by the average two-to-three bedroom house—in other words, not very much. I have presented the Library with a copy of this report in case noble Lords would like to consult it. It is already plain that large-scale wind turbines will struggle to repay the carbon emissions produced by their manufacture, installation, maintenance, required backup and eventual decommissioning. If microturbines cannot repay their carbon emissions either, I cannot see a place for wind in this scheme, or in any policy whose avowed purpose is to mitigate climate change.