Clause 36
Energy Bill
9:30 am
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
I shall speak to new clause 14. We have already heard that it is one of a plethora of options on how to address tariffs in the context of the renewables obligation. Before proceeding any further, in my view, it would be inappropriate to throw the renewables obligation system up in the air; the world would presumably have to stand still for a considerable period while a universal alternative feed-in tariff was introduced.
Indeed, investment decisions that have already been made, and investment plans that have yet to be made, as I know from discussions with a number of people who are thinking of investing in renewable energy, are all related to the continuation of the renewables obligation. Those decisions were considerably enhanced not by the passing of changes in the renewables obligation banding but by the anticipation that such a change will take place, and they would be put on hold or even jeopardised as a result of changing horses in midstream.
Whatever the universal abstract merits of a feed-in tariff might be, substituting it now would not be a good way forward in developing renewable energy installations in the UK. Indeed, one of the key lobbying elements of many of those who are looking to invest in renewable energy has not been about having a universal feed-in tariff but about ensuring a longer-term certainty for the status of the renewable obligation—and the status of the headroom behind it.
In that context, we must be careful not to look at the difference between the issuing of renewable obligation certificates and the amount of renewable energy that we have as though that difference represented a failure in the renewable obligations themselves. It is necessary to have headroom in the system. That is part of the mechanism that drives renewable obligation forward, because if there is headroom ROCs have a value; if there is no headroom, they have little value and the system does not work as well as it should do.
It is important not only to have certainty about the time span for the existence of ROs and the banding that they represent, but to have headroom in the system, so that ROCs have some value and there is, therefore, some ability to plan on the value of the certificates that come forward over a period of time.
Bearing those points in mind, we would need to be careful when considering whether to substitute the present ROC system with an entirely new system. As has also been remarked in Committee, there is before us a substantial development of investment in renewable energy. Part of our deliberation has to be about how to ensure that that happens and how best the different forms of renewable energy can be developed within the time scale that we seek.
It is also important that we are careful not to make comparisons between different countries’ levels of renewable energy without paying some attention to the circumstances in which those countries have operated in the past. It is not just about a feed-in tariff and—certainly, in respect of microgeneration in this country—it is not just about ROCs. For example, it appears that there has been relatively little take-up of grants through the low-carbon building programme, particularly for solar photovoltaics, for a variety of reasons.
I speak from experience, and I should declare an interest with respect to new clause 14: if it is carried with acclaim—or even carried—at a future date, I might benefit on the grounds that my house needs re-roofing and I will be re-roofing it this Easter, with a 3 kW solar PV ray embedded in the roof of the house. If there is an extremely generous feed-in tariff for microgeneration in the near future, I will be able to retire on the proceeds. However, in establishing the process by which that roof could be installed, one of the things that I came across was the planning regime, as do many people in such circumstances.
As those grants are presently constructed, certain requirements that relate to planning must be fulfilled before somebody can start to develop a timetable for the installation—getting the builder and the solar roofer together and so on. The hurdles are so considerable and the planning regime across the country for what people can and cannot do concerning microgeneration is so uncertain between authorities that, in this instance, I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to proceed without even applying for a grant, and that is what I have done.
I hope that help is at hand, by way of the imminent final lap of a change in the general permitted development order. That change was heralded by the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, which my hon. Friend the Minister had a substantial role in assisting during its passage through the House some while ago. The GPDO will be organised to provide a clear and understandable regime across the country with regard to what is permitted to be put on to roofs and in gardens and houses, and what is not.