Malcolm
Wicks: We did it
yesterday.
Charles
Hendry: He did not expand on it yesterday when invited to;
in spite of having an extended speech opportunity, he did not take
advantage of that opportunity. I hope that, before long, we can have
some clarity on how the Government believe these targets can be
reached. The
technologies that the Minister has outlined are exciting and important.
There is a danger, though, with the ground source heat pumps that, if
relied on too extensively, over time they remove the residual level of
background heat in the soil and therefore become less and less
productive. When people are investing in these technologies and
spending their money to introduce them, they should be aware of what
the consequences could be over time. Just as there is a residual
background noise with the air source heat pumps, which the Minister
referred to earlier, that does not rule these pumps out. But I think
the public do have a thirst for knowledge here and it would be helpful
if the Government could do more to clarify for people exactly what
different technologies will bring and where the drawbacks may be,
because people looking to invest want to understand the longer-term
implications and consequences of those investment decisions.
The Minister
also talked a little about the planning implications and why the air
source heat pumps have been excluded from the changes introduced. It
would be useful to know whether, as the technology becomes
quieter—at the moment it does sound like an air conditioning
unit—and even less intrusive, the pumps can simply be included
in the new planning guidance, or whether new planning guidance overall
will need to be issued to enable that to happen.
Does
the Minister have a limit in mind for what counts as microgeneration?
It is often classified as being below 15 kW but for areas like micro
hydro, that really does not apply. Many of the micro hydro plant
facilities would be 250 kW and a bit more than that. Does the Minister
therefore have a plan to revise the level at which microgeneration can
be considered up to a level that would take account of the way the
technology is moving
forward? That
also brings us to the point about feed-in tariffs. Many of these
technologies would be eligible for feed-in tariffs and we hope that
they can be introduced to encourage the Government, who are consulting
on that technology over the summer. We hope that when the Energy Bill
is being considered further in the other place, the Government will
return with a proposal for feed-in tariffs that may offer a way
forward; but in terms of where the limits lie for
microgeneration—which is very apposite to this statutory
instrument—the way that they would tie in with feed-in tariffs
would be important as well.
We do see the
order as a constructive step forward. We think that people should be
generally encouraged to use as many different forms of microgeneration
as can be brought on in what is an extremely exciting time in this
sector, and the small change being made today is a step in the right
direction. 4.48
pm Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): It is a delight to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew, and I shall keep my
remarks very short. I just wish to thank the Minister for responding
but I deserve no credit—again this is another of the Ron Bailey
memorial Bills which flutter around this place in great abundance. It
is just doing the thing that many of us want, which is to give as much
variety of the different forms of new technologies as
possible.
I would just
like to commend the Minister for responding. I did not expect to get a
response; I thought I would get a brickbat and another of Ron
Bailey’s many aspirations being thrust back, but the very
opposite happened. This is what we are here in this place to do. I
think the Minister has moved miraculously quickly to get this in place
and I am sure that many people will benefit because of it. That is what
this place does well; it is this place at its best and I only wish that
we could perform equally well in other
areas. 4.49
pm Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): When our noble Friends in the other
place considered this regulation, they did so in 12 minutes. We do
things differently at this end of the building, obviously, but I
congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud on his parentage, or adoptive
parentage, of this regulation. I notice that my noble Friend Lord
Redesdale also claimed parentage in another place when he
said:
“its genesis was
from the House of Lords and a Bill that I
drafted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17
June 2008; Vol. 702, c.
383.] So I
congratulate him, to the extent that he is a parent as well, and anyone
else whom I should be congratulating.
I too welcome
this statutory instrument. I had one query about the net carbon impact
of ground source and other heat pumps, which partly relates to what the
hon. Member for Wealden said. I understand that these devices have
something called a coefficient of performance attached to them and this
is about the relationship between the amount of carbon they save and
the amount of carbon they use, because they have a pump on them and the
pump is electrically based and that creates carbon. So as long as we
have fossil-fuel based electricity generation, there is a negative and
a positive at work here. Clearly, as long as the positive outweighs the
negative, it is great that these pumps are added to the list of
renewables for microgeneration and we are all happy about that, but
presumably these devices do vary in their effectiveness.
As the
Minister implied, an air source may be less effective than a ground
source and over time their effectiveness may vary. We want to avoid a
situation where we are rewarding, through a feed-in tariff or some
other mechanism, a form of microgeneration that, while it makes
economic sense for the householder, is actually doing net damage to the
overall carbon footprint—in other words, is using more carbon to
create the power to do the pumping than it would save through using the
heat. Therefore,
given that we have this coefficient of performance, does the Minister
think it necessary to put something of that sort into the
regulation—in other words, a person qualifies for whatever
goodies using microgeneration qualifies them for, provided that the
coefficient of performance of the device, either at purchase or at some
later stage, is above a certain threshold—or is might some other
test be applied to ensure that we are not rewarding devices that are at
best marginal and potentially
damaging? As
with so many of these things, we latch on to them with great enthusiasm
when, if viewed through their entire life cycle, including the
construction costs in carbon terms, they are not always as good as they
seem. So while I am instinctively very sympathetic to the SI, I should
be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government’s
position. How far will they be checking the performance of these
devices and regulating or certificating them—or will a device
qualify regardless of whether, eventually, it will do more harm than
good? 4.53
pm
Malcolm
Wicks: It has been a useful and well informed debate.
Again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Shroud—
Mr.
Drew: Shroud? I am not dead yet. It can be
arranged.
Malcolm
Wicks: Obviously it is because the parentage of this Bill
is “shrouded” in mystery, but we know it was Stroud what
done it. A Bill adopted by me clearly has many parents, for reasons we
understand, but I do congratulate my hon.
Friend. The
hon. Member for Wealden asked a number of questions. No, we are not
planning to bring other low-carbon technologies into a definition of
renewables. We have a renewables target and that is for renewables. I
am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was highlighting
a change of Conservative policy, saying that perhaps the renewables
target should be a low-carbon target. I do not know whether there is
going to be an announcement on that, but many of us would be interested
to look at this further development of Conservative policy, if that is
what it is. I hope I did not confuse the Committee by implying any such
thing
myself. Our
target is for renewables, although maybe I was mindful of the fact
that, as we bring on other low-carbon technologies, as we bring on
zero-carbon housing and so on, ultimately energy demand will reduce. Of
course, it will be easier to hit any target, although the percentage
remains the same, if we can reduce or at least restrain energy
demand. We
do not have any plans to revisit the definition of
“micro”—these things are bound to be somewhat
arbitrary. We are standing by the 50 kW. I remember that, in the
Chamber, we discussed the difficulty that might occur from micro hydro,
for example, but the renewables obligation is there for what we might
call macrogeneration projects so we do not mean to revisit that
subject. This
kind of technology may be especially important in rural areas. I was
talking at a conference this morning. If I remember the statistics
correctly, more than 1 million dwellings in this country are not on the
gas grid. We need to think imaginatively about the use of
microgeneration in some of those areas at a time when oil is becoming
extraordinarily expensive.
I will not
rehearse the arguments about feed-in tariffs, but merely repeat that,
as confirmed in last week’s consultation document on renewable
energy strategy, we are looking for microgeneration at feed-in tariffs.
We are also looking at another possible mechanism: a reform to
renewables obligation certificates. We are certainly keenly interested
in how we can further incentivise microgeneration.
In terms of
quality, the microgeneration certification scheme will give information
on performance and maintenance issues. I hope that that will bring some
quality to the industry. Also, more information on renewables will be
provided through the Energy Saving Trust “Act on
CO2” campaign, so there are a number of developments
here that I think are useful.
The hon.
Member for Northavon, always eager for a coefficient to discuss, has
highlighted one here. The EU renewables directive states that heat
pumps must
meet “the
minimum requirements of eco-labelling laid down pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 1980/2000, where applicable, in particular
the minimum coefficient of performance established in
Decision 2007/742/EC, and reviewed in accordance
with that
Regulation.”
Steve
Webb: Will the Minister give
way?
Malcolm
Wicks: I really do not want to, but I will if the hon.
Gentleman
insists.
Steve
Webb: I am very grateful. That is a response to the
precise point I raised, but what is the minimum coefficient in that
regulation?
Malcolm
Wicks: It is of course the minimum judged absolutely
appropriate in this arena. I might be able to help. Some might ask
whether this kind of technology should apply as microgeneration. We
feel it should.
ASHPs use free heat in the air, so they generate more useful energy than
could otherwise be derived solely from the electricity input. It is
claimed that the coefficient of performance is one unit energy input,
2.5 units or more energy output, but that is under optimum conditions,
as I know the hon. Gentleman will recognise, and verifiable data are
still awaited from the heat pump industry. I look forward to receiving
them as urgently as possible.
However, the
Secretary of State considers that ASHPs, where appropriately fitted,
have the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The relevant
efficiency of ASHPs is the subject of current study by the Energy
Saving Trust, and its findings are expected to be published in 2009. I
will try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets the first
copy—on this occasion, I am happy to receive the
second. I
touched on the micro certification scheme, but we believe that it
should encourage the use of higher efficiency heat pumps with higher
COPs in the future. I know what COPs are, and I am sure other hon.
Members do, as
well. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change and Sustainable
Energy Act 2006 (Sources of Energy and Technologies) Order
2008. Committee
rose at one minute to Five
o’clock.
| 
