(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy
Security and Net Zero to make a statement on the Government’s
plan to build new gas-fired power stations.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero ()
The second consultation of the review of electricity market
arrangements was launched yesterday. It sets out the choices that
we need to make to deliver a fully decarbonised electricity
system by 2035. Since 2010, the Government have reduced emissions
from power by 65% and thus made the UK the first major economy in
the world to halve emissions overall. We have built record
volumes of renewables, from less than 7% of electricity supply in
2010 to nearly 50% today, allowing us to remove coal altogether
by October this year.
Our success in growing renewables is the reason we need flexible
back-up for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not
shine. Our main source of flexible power today is unabated gas.
More than half of our 15 GW of combined-cycle gas turbines could
be retired by 2035. Meanwhile, electricity demand is set to
increase as heat, transport and industry are electrified. We must
ensure that we have sufficient sources of flexibility in place to
guarantee security of supply. We need up to 55 GW of
short-duration flexibility and between 30 and 50 GW of
long-duration flexibility. Our aim is for as much of that
capacity as possible to be low carbon.
While low-carbon technologies scale up, we will extend the life
of our existing gas assets, but a limited amount of new build gas
capacity will also be required in the short term to replace
expiring plants as it is the only mature technology capable of
providing sustained flexible capacity. We remain committed to
delivering a fully decarbonised electricity supply by 2035,
subject to security of supply, and we expect most new gas
capacity to be built net zero-ready. The Government have
committed £20 billion to carbon capture, usage and storage, and
are developing comprehensive support for hydrogen. In the future,
unabated gas plants will run for only a limited number of hours a
year, so emissions will be entirely in line with our legally
binding carbon budgets.
I am a bit tired of this Government shunning any scrutiny of
their climate record and instead relying on a past record,
because while the UK may indeed be the first major economy to cut
its territorial emissions by half since 1990, we are not on track
to achieve our 2030 targets, and if we factor in consumption
emissions, the UK has cut emissions by only 23%. So let’s have a
little less complacency from the Minister. He will know that the
Government’s announcement on new gas-fired power stations does in
fact, contrary to what he claimed, risk undermining our climate
targets and leaving the country reliant on imports of expensive
gas. Members should have been given the opportunity to question
the Minister on its implications for the decarbonisation of the
UK’s energy system by 2035, with 95% of UK electricity being low
carbon by 2030.
First, why was the statement not made in Parliament? Why was it
made instead at Chatham House, where Members were not able to
question the Minister on the impact of this decision? Secondly,
will the Minister explain how this proposal differs from the
functioning of the existing capacity market, or will he admit
that it is just the Government’s latest attempt to stoke a
culture war on climate? Thirdly, the Climate Change Committee is
clear that no new unabated gas plants should be built after 2030,
so what is the Government’s timeline for developing these new
gas-fired power stations?
I asked the Minister about this yesterday in the Environmental
Audit Committee; I did not get a response. I also asked him what
is being done to ensure that these gas plants are zero carbon by
2035; that was not set out either in the Secretary of State’s
speech yesterday or by the Minister today. The Minister did tell
the Environmental Audit Committee that the plants would be
required to be both carbon capture and storage-ready and
hydrogen-ready. That does not amount to a meaningful plan, so
will he please give us more than his thus far unevidenced words
of assurance, and will he explain what the Government’s plan is
to support the development of batteries and long-term storage
technologies and to drive innovation so that we can get off
volatile gas for good?
It is rather odd to be asked about the ability to scrutinise
this, when yesterday was the launch of a consultation that will
go on for some time and, as the hon. Lady knows, I was in front
of the Select Committee yesterday. It is rather strange that she
should highlight that point.
The hon. Lady is confused, as she often is, because she is so
political. She would appear to set politics always ahead of
climate. She struggles to recognise that that United Nations
framework convention on climate change rules are about
territorial emissions—countries own the emissions in the
territory where they take place. Her numbers on embedded
emissions are wrong, but she does not care about that; she just
carries on with a political diatribe against the Government, who
have done more than any other in any major economy on this Earth
to decarbonise their economy. And we have done it not as the hon.
Lady would have us do it—by being reduced to living in yurts—but
while growing the economy by 82%. It is people like the hon. Lady
who make people on my side of the Chamber at times think that we
are perhaps engaged in some form of madness; we are not, but she
doesn’t half make it sound like we are.
Can these new gas plants be consistent with the Government’s
commitment to decarbonise the power sector by 2035? Our published
net zero scenarios for the power sector—I invite the hon. Lady to
read them—show that building new gas capacity is consistent with
decarbonising electricity by 2035. From those scenarios we expect
that, even with new gas capacity, rather than the 38% of
electricity generation which in 2022 came from gas, that figure
will be down to 1% by 2035—or, if we follow the scenario set out
by the Climate Change Committee, perhaps 2%. We are going to have
that as a back-up. It is sensible insurance; it is about keeping
the lights on while we carry on the remarkable transformation
this Government have achieved in moving from the appalling legacy
of the Labour party of less than 7% of electricity coming from
renewables to nearly 50% today.
Sir (North East Somerset)
(Con)
The announcement on gas-fired power stations is extremely
welcome, but at the moment a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the
UK costs 44 cents, against 17 cents in the US and 8 cents in both
China and India. We have become fundamentally uncompetitive
because of this green obsession. We want cheap electricity and we
should have gas and we should have coal, and we should postpone
net zero indefinitely because we are only 1% of global emissions.
We are making no difference, and the US economy is growing
consistently faster than ours because of cheap energy. This is a
good first step against the net zero obsession. We need to go
further.
I would chide my right hon. Friend with the science and evidence
that are emerging all the time. There is a climate challenge and
emergency, which is why we are looking to reduce our emissions.
He is quite right to challenge that by saying, “We are less than
1% of global emissions, so how does this make sense?” That is why
we hosted COP26 and got the rest of the world to commit to
following us. We are bringing in the carbon border adjustment
mechanism from 2027 precisely to ensure that we create an
economically rational system that supports jobs in this country,
while meeting the climate challenge that needs to be met.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
I am little puzzled about what all this is about. The Committee
on Climate Change and all credible energy experts have said that
we will need a small residual of unabated gas in the system for
the medium term, and that is consistent with a fully decarbonised
power system. No one disputes that, and it is barely worth an
announcement. We should extend the lives of existing plants to
meet that need. If new-build plants are needed in the short term
to replace some of those retiring gas-fired power stations, there
is no disagreement, provided they are capable of converting to
hydrogen or carbon capture, as the Government say they must
be.
However, that is not what the Secretary of State said yesterday
at the Chatham House meeting. The Government’s own analysis
published yesterday shows that 24 GW of existing gas capacity
could be maintained via life extension and refurbishment, and 9
GW of new capacity is already in the baseline under existing
capacity market arrangements. That is an uncontroversial position
and analysis, and hardly something worth making a huge fuss
about. But again, that was not what the Secretary of State talked
about at yesterday’s Chatham House conference.
Given that analysis, could the Minister enlighten us with the
number of new gas plants that the Government are hoping to build,
given there is no mention of that in the 1,500 pages of documents
that were published yesterday? That is an important point,
because it appears to show the Government’s intention to go
beyond what is already in the analysis and build a large number
of new gas-fired power stations for the future.
There is a great deal in the review of electricity market
arrangements published yesterday that is worth discussing, not
least the Government’s glaring failure to bring forward
low-carbon flexible technologies such as long-duration storage,
which everyone knows we will need. It is a shame that the
Minister has not properly addressed that. Will he give us clarity
on whether this is a meaningless announcement within existing
policy arrangements? Or, as has been said, is it an attempt to
conjure a culture war out of climate and energy policy, with
announcements with no substance or value that show that the
Government have no serious plan for energy in our country?
The hon. Gentleman asked whether new power plants will be
hydrogen or carbon capture, utilisation and storage ready; we
will legislate to make that a requirement. He asked how much
there will be; around 5 GW, but that is dependent on so many
interrelated things, such as the growth of low-carbon and
flexible storage, which, as he referred to we are a world leader
in developing and supporting both in innovation and through the
capacity market. He suggested that none of that was clear
yesterday, but it was made crystal clear.
We are a world leader, having announced £20 billion for CCUS. The
hon. Gentleman will remember, because he has been around a long
time, that in 2003 the then Labour Government said that carbon
capture, utilisation and storage was urgent and that there was no
route to 2050 without it, but then they proceeded to do nothing
about it. This Government are getting on with it. We are putting
our money where our mouth is and developing technologies such as
carbon capture and hydrogen, in a way that the Labour Government
failed to do—as they did with renewables, to boot. All they do is
talk about climate, but the truth is that the greatest climate
risk to this country is if the right hon. Member for Doncaster
North () destroys the market and
starts some state-run quango, which will wreck the renewables
growth that we have seen.
(Broadland) (Con)
I welcome the announcement. The independent Committee On Climate
Change recognises that we will need unabated gas in the
electricity market right up until 2035 and beyond, and more
widely that even in 2050, 25% of our energy needs will come from
hydrocarbons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is
exactly the right way to maintain lower energy production costs,
while still meeting our net zero targets?
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The point is to have a wide range
of back-up capacity, but not to use it very much with fossil
fuels, and, as I think has long been the case, to ensure that any
new gas generation should be carbon capture-ready. We look
forward to it being hydrogen-ready, too. We are in a very similar
position to Germany and other countries that are looking at
exactly that. For instance, I think both Germany and Ireland, as
part of their growth in renewables, recognise the need for gas,
albeit used less and less, to ensure that the lights stay on and
there is appropriate insurance in place.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Angus) (SNP)
What a cluster—it is unbelievable that we are in this situation.
In the Secretary of State’s letter to Members today, she said
that the Government are taking steps to make sure the lights stay
on. That is the legacy of 14 years of the Conservatives in charge
of energy. Uncomfortably, I find myself in agreement with the
right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir ). This is a significant
departure, and one we should be alarmed about. Where is the
Government’s precious nuclear baseload now? Where is the exemplar
of CCUS working at the necessary scale, from which the Government
are taking inspiration? Would it not have been an elegant
solution to have unabated gas winding down at the same time as
battery storage and long-duration pump storage was winding up? We
cannot have that, because the Government have dragged their feet
on both things. What does the Minister say to people who are
having infrastructure for transmission put throughout their
communities and are being told to suck it up because that is what
we need to get gas out the system, when the same Government are
now building gas-fired power stations?
The hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to lead on this subject for
his party, should have listened to what I said earlier. In 2022,
38% of generation came from gas. By the mid-2030s, it will be 1%
or 2%. Why are we having it? To balance the renewables we are
growing, particularly in Scotland, and support Scottish jobs. Of
course if we put generation in Scotland when the demand is in the
south, we have to provide connecting infrastructure. Previous
generations had to wire up the UK to become the rich and
prosperous country we are today. We need to do it again now. We
are working with local communities, listening to their voices and
making sure they are not misled by people who come up with such
nonsense as the hon. Gentleman just did.
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his refreshingly clear
articulation of our strong record in this area, both in the House
today and in the media yesterday. Obviously, security of supply
must come first. How will the plans incentivise investment in
back-up gas-fired power stations, while minimising costs to
consumers, which is also very important?
I thank my hon. Friend. He and my right hon. Friend the Member
for North East Somerset (Sir ) are absolutely right to
focus on the economics. We have to get the economics right. We
have used an auction-type mechanism in the capacity market to
ensure flexible capacity. We are incentivising more and more of
that to be low carbon, with batteries coming in at scale, as well
as pumps and potentially hydrostorage. We also need hydrogen and
carbon capture. We are ensuring a balanced system with discipline
built into it to drive costs down. When CBAMs and so on come on
stream, I firmly expect that in the 2030s we will have lower-cost
energy than our neighbours and we will, as my right hon. Friend
the Member for North East Somerset referred to, be more
economically competitive.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero
Committee.
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—tapadh leibh.
It is concerning that this was announced in Chatham House and not
here in the House, and that the Secretary of State is not here
today. Off-piste speeches have cost in the past. My Committee
heard this morning that an Energy Minister made a speech a decade
ago that, with the effect it had on investment, cost 1,000 jobs.
The Minister says that this is a consultation, but have the
Government picked a winner? What room have they given for storage
to be in the mix? Are they confusing energy security—we have
learned from the Ukraine war important how that is—with continual
electricity supply? Given what the Minister says about the
percentage of gas used by 2030 and after, what percentage of
capacity will this provide, and what percentage does he envisage
will be used day to day? What thought has been given to
consideration of other technologies in his gigawatt demand?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I suggested, on
different scenarios, about 1% or 2% of total generation coming
from gas in future, compared with 38% in 2022, on an annualised
basis. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman should know better than
anybody here with his deep knowledge of the subject, it is based
on intermittency. It depends on how much the sun shines and how
much the wind blows, but we will ensure we have a robust system.
That is exactly what we are doing. I would love it if people
could celebrate this country’s global leadership and the fact
that we are driving this forward, especially those such as
members of the Green party, who are supposed to care about
climate change. We are doing this in a way that maintains
security of supply and, by bringing in more and more renewables,
with the lowest-cost and most flexible system to back it up,
doing so in a more and more economical fashion.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
I welcome the announcement today. It is pure common sense. When
the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we need
security of supply. Although we need to deal with climate change
in the medium to long term, we must also deal with security of
supply in the short term, so I welcome the announcement. Does the
Minister agree that for medium and longer-term security of
supply, we must upscale what we are doing in the hydrogen sector,
with more hydrogen production and usage, and be a world leader in
hydrogen? For the moment, we are slipping behind a bit.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of hydrogen.
Where I disagree with him is that, having seen the projects in
hydrogen allocation round 1—eight projects, I think—I do not
think there is any indication that we are slipping behind. The
truth is that the whole world needs to do this, because
everyone’s analysis, from the International Energy Agency to the
Climate Change Committee to my own Department, suggests that
hydrogen and carbon capture are necessary to bring about the
decarbonised system we seek. He is absolutely right on the
importance of hydrogen. He can expect more developments, because
this country is leading on that, as it is on CCUS.
(Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and his knowledge
of the subject, and the fact that he, like most of us in this
Chamber, recognises the need to cut carbon. I am sure he is not
one of those who, like the right hon. Member for North East
Somerset, would follow the flat earthers. But clearly, a great
deal of trust and reliance is being put on carbon capture and
storage, and on hydrogen. Both are still quite new technologies.
We have talked about this stuff for 25 years. The Minister
seemingly forgets that this Government have been in power for the
past 14 years and we are still not off the blocks on hydrogen and
carbon capture and storage. Is it not the case that the
Government are taking this position because it is a nod and a
wink to the gas and oil industries whose support they will
probably need before the election this year, and that this is
part of the whole agenda of placating the right wing of his own
party?
I was with the hon. Gentleman nearly all the way. He is right:
the whole world is looking at carbon capture and hydrogen,
because that is what the science says. Everybody who analyses it
says that we need it bur that it is not yet at a great level of
maturity. Just as in so many other areas, this country is leading
the way. We have cut emissions more than anyone else. He knows
the dire legacy left by his party in 2010, with less than 7% of
electricity from renewables, which was just appalling, and the
real danger if we go back to that. That is why we have gas power
as a back-up, so that we have a completely sound system. We will
seek to deliver a decarbonised system by 2035. The biggest risk
to that would be if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North
were to come in and start to mess with a system that has lifted
us from the back to the front of climate leadership. That is the
real danger, and that is what we need to avoid.
(South Derbyshire)
(Con)
Will my right hon. Friend stop by South Derbyshire, specifically
the Willington site, which already has planning permission for a
new gas power station, and cut the ribbon when it opens? We want
spades in the ground, so I welcome the announcement. I invite him
to come and have a look at that site, which is ready to go.
I agree with my hon. Friend and I applaud those who are investing
in our system. We have made ourselves one of the most investable
countries in the world for clean energy. Gas has an important
part to play in that balance, and with the development of carbon
capture and hydrogen there is every opportunity for such assets
to have an even longer life in a green fashion. I would love to
come and see my hon. Friend.
(Bath) (LD)
Oil and gas are the energy sources of the past, and we need an
intermittent energy source. Gas power plants are not
intermittent. They sit there, and then because there is too much
renewable energy it is shut off, and gas—the carbon
energy—continues to flow. That is the reality of today: we are
wasting renewable energy. The Government do not recognise that
reality, and do not respond to it.
My question is this, however. How many times have Ministers met
representatives of the oil and gas industry, and how does that
compare with the number of meetings with representatives of the
renewables industry?
As so often—the hon. Lady does it spectacularly well—she is
completely and utterly wrong. Renewables are turned off, as she
would say, because of constraints within the system, and gas is
turned on because the system could not cope otherwise. That is
why we have the transmission acceleration action plan and the
connections action plan. [Interruption.] Every time we try to
build out the infrastructure, the hon. Member for Angus () opposes it. He says that he
and the Scottish National party want to be a friend of the
renewables industry and Scottish jobs, but then he opposes the
infrastructure that is required for it.
What about my question?
I meet representatives of the oil and gas industry a lot, because
the truth is that even given our world leadership—and we have cut
emissions by more than any other major economy on the planet—75%
of our primary energy today is still from oil and gas. We will
still be dependent on oil and gas in 2050, when we are at net
zero. That is why it is so crazy that the Opposition parties,
including that of the hon. Lady, believe in opposing licences
when we are actually dependent on the product. All that ending
licences would do is lead to the loss of British jobs and the
import of higher-emission products from abroad. I really do hope
that Opposition Members will think a bit more deeply and we can
hear some common sense. I hear it in the Corridors from Back
Benchers, but from the Front Benchers and the hon. Lady I hear
nothing but nonsense.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome this policy decision, which is a recognition of
reality. Can the Minister confirm that the new plants will be
able to convert to low-carbon alternatives in the future?
I thank my hon. Friend. We will be legislating precisely to
create exactly that obligation for carbon capture and/or hydrogen
readiness.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope that this decision is indicative of a realisation that
seems to be slowly dawning on the Government about the impact of
the madness of their net zero policy, which has damaged the UK
economy. We have higher electricity prices than most of the other
G7 countries, we have lost vast numbers of jobs in
energy-intensive industries, and now it has been recognised that
because of the intermittency of wind and solar there is a risk of
blackouts.
I welcome this common-sense decision, but given that we are going
to use gas to power these stations, why does the Minister not
take the next logical step and legislate to allow us to tap into
our vast UK gas resources? As the United States has shown, that
would bring down prices, give us energy security, and make our
economy more competitive.
The right hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong: we have record
levels of employment, and we overtook France recently to become
the eighth largest manufacturer in the world. I would not expect
him to join the dismal party opposite in talking this country
down. In truth, we are leading the world in tackling climate
change, and we have created more jobs than at any time in British
history. Going forward into the 2030s, by harnessing more and
more British low-carbon, renewable energy we will lower bills for
families and increase our competitiveness. As I have said, in a
world that is increasingly recognising the need for action and
seeking to introduce measures such as the carbon border
adjustment mechanism—effectively, carbon taxes at the border—the
UK is in pole position to grow from its already strong economic
position into an even stronger one as a result of the net zero
policies of this Government.
(Harrow East) (Con)
Across London and the south-east, many much-needed developments
that are required for the increasing population have literally
been frozen because of a lack of supply from the grid. Nuclear
power can provide the baseload; renewables are unreliable, and
obviously gas is required at peak times in particular. Does my
right hon. Friend agree that this is all about topping up the
grid at peak times, when people want to use electricity, because
gas is the fastest way to bring a power station on to the grid
and is also the fastest to shut down?
My hon. Friend will be aware of all the work we are doing to
speed up transmission. We are halving the timeline from 12 to 14
years to seven, and the connections action plan has already moved
forward connection dates for projects amounting to 40 GW. We are
putting in a lot of work across the piece. This gas capability is
there as a back-up, but the usage and the emissions resulting
from it will fall precipitately over the next 10 years, and we
can all celebrate that.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
After their years of delaying meaningful investment in clean,
cheaper, reliable renewable energy technologies such as tidal and
long-duration pumped hydro storage, it is no surprise that the
Government are now having to scramble to create new dirty
gas-powered plants. How much does the Department estimate the new
plants will cost, where is it suggesting they should be built,
and what does the Minister mean by carbon-capture-ready? Does he
mean carbon-capture-operational?
Hear, hear. Do tell!
As I have said, further legislation will come forward in the
not-too-distant future, and the hon. Lady will be able to
scrutinise it—but it is extraordinary that she should say of a
country whose renewable energy generation has risen from less
than 7% to approaching 50% that we have gone slow on renewables.
We have decarbonised our power system faster than any other major
economy on the planet.
The reality denial that we hear from the Scottish National party
is quite extraordinary. The hon. Lady highlighted tidal energy.
Well, guess which country in the world uses the most tidal
energy. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr
Carmichael), who is one of the greatest champions of tidal, could
tell the hon. Lady, if she is really so ignorant. He is a fellow
Scottish MP, and he could tell her that the UK has more tidal
deployment than any other nation. We are proud of that, we are
proud of the transformation, and it is about time the SNP and the
Labour party stopped misleading the people and the House.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister said earlier that we faced a climate challenge,
after struggling for words to describe what we are facing. Why
can the Government not join the global consensus and admit that
what we are facing is a climate emergency? As the
Secretary-General of the United Nations has said, the year of
climate warming is over and we are in an era of climate
burning.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not primarily concerned with
words—I am primarily concerned with action—but in fact I did use
the “emergency” word. I do not know whether I broke some golden
rule which says that Ministers should not use it, but I do treat
this as an emergency. I see the world warming up, I see the
negative impacts of climate change, and that is why I spend every
single day feeling proud to be part of the Department that is
decarbonising its country faster than any other in the world. The
hon. Gentleman should get away from rhetoric and start to focus
on action.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his answers. While there is
certainly an urge to prioritise our net zero promises, I am
grateful to the Government for taking back-up precautions into
consideration. As the Minister has often recognised in responding
to questions from me, Northern Ireland plays an important role in
our contribution to meeting the net zero targets. Will he
therefore ensure that Northern Ireland is prioritised as a
leading location for any new gas-powered stations that are to be
built?
The hon. Gentleman sometimes gives the impression that he would
like me to be running the energy system in Northern Ireland, but
it is devolved—and we have Ministers there again, which is a
cause for celebration. I will work closely with Ministers in
Northern Ireland, as I do with Ministers in other devolved
Administrations, because if we are to meet our net zero targets,
Northern Ireland must deliver its own targets. Scotland has to
deliver its targets, as does Wales.
We must work together, in a spirit of collaboration. We can do
that, and if the hon. Gentleman can persuade his right hon.
Friend the Member for East Antrim (), who is sitting beside him,
that it can be done in a way that strengthens our economy as
well, we really will have something to celebrate.
