A solar farm in Badley? Competing pressures for self-sufficiency...

Whilst Creeting St Peter has had its own planning issues over the past few years, the one thing we haven't had is an application for a solar farm. But now, whilst we don't, the parish across the River Gipping, Badley, does.

There is a dilemma here. The proposed site requires the loss of prime agricultural land - we've got a lot of that here on the East Anglian prairie - and at a time when self-sufficiency in food is a live topic of discussion, one does wonder how the loss of farmland helps that. But the war in Ukraine reminds us that dependency on hydrocarbons from authoritarian states who aren't necessarily our friends is problematic too, before you even start on climate change mitigation.

And, whilst the gently rolling fields of Suffolk are superb for wheat, barley and other grains, they also make for easy to maintain solar arrays. If you're a farmer, with the prospects of a downward squeeze on agricultural support payments and the knowledge that selling land for development is likely to be lucrative, especially if your land is near a town or village earmarked for housing development, point you in one direction and one direction only.

The rural economy is changing and whilst people may want farmers to produce food as cheaply as possible and in sufficient quantity, farmers aren't altruists - they need to make a living too, otherwise why do it?

My perspective is a fairly neutral one but I do find myself wondering how, at a time when fuel poverty is becoming a big thing in this country, we can carry on resisting renewables development in our localities. Wind turbines are apparently too big, solar arrays too ugly, and whilst offshore wind is growing nicely, the Government has failed to support tidal energy and encourages rural communities to object to anything that might impact on their local countryside.

There needs to be one of two things, a plan for renewables which goes beyond simple targets to discuss what is needed and where it might go, or investment in renewable facilities in other countries where the revenue generated might help build stronger economies and communities.

Of course, the optimal answer would be smaller, more effective solar arrays and wind turbines, but we may just have to accept that, if we want to maintain our current lifestyles, we're going to have to make some concessions in terms of how our countryside looks going forward

@BaronessRos in the Lords - EU: Energy Governance (EUC Report)

Despite the fact that Ros is no longer the Chair of the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment sub-committee, the work done under her leadership still rumbles on, partly due to scheduling delays, as she notes in the speech that follows.

In her speech earlier today, she noted the paucity of the Government's response to her Committee's report...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity this evening to debate the sub-committee’s report on energy union governance. It is some six months since our report was published, although having just heard that the Digital Skills Committee has waited some 16 months for its debate, perhaps I should not grumble as much as I thought I would. However, I make the general point that Members of this House put a huge amount of effort into Select Committee reports, the staff work extremely hard, and outside witnesses and organisations take a great interest in the work we do, so it is a great pity when the House does not find time to debate these closer to publication. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to present the report this evening.

For any Government, nothing is more important than keeping the lights on, but we are trying to maintain a supply which is not only secure but affordable for consumers, whether they are individuals or businesses, and which is environmentally sustainable. That challenge—that trilemma—has focused minds on the benefits of co-operation as a means of achieving those goals, and the EU energy union is one vehicle for that co-operation.

I have had the privilege of chairing the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for three years, and I can honestly say that it has been the most rewarding and fulfilling experience I have had in my 16 years in this House. But now I have, sadly, been rotated off. It is a painless but not entirely pleasant experience, and I shall miss the work a good deal. The members of the committee have always been immensely supportive, and one of the great joys of the work is that we have never been hampered by discussions or debates of a political nature. Our debates are robust at times but have always focused on the issues, and are all the better for that. I therefore extend my sincere thanks to each current member of the committee and to those who, like me, have been rotated off.

I also place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, the chairman of the European Union Committee. His leadership, encouragement and personal support have been a great help to me. My noble friend Lord Teverson, who I see in his place, has now taken up the position of chairman of the committee and I have no doubt that he will enjoy the experience as much as I have and bring to it his great knowledge of the wide range of subject areas covered by the sub-committee. He served in the European Parliament and previously chaired an EU sub-committee. I wish him well. He, like all of us in this House, will be supported by efficient, knowledgeable and highly-skilled staff, whose commitment to our work, and indeed to the House, is absolute.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of the sub-committee includes agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy and climate change. The subject of the short report for debate this evening is firmly within the realm of energy. It is clear to most of us that energy policy in the 21st century cannot be formed from an isolationist perspective. The European Commission’s energy union strategy recognises this reality and attempts to ensure that Europe has a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply of energy. It aims to deliver energy security, reduce emissions and provide a better deal for consumers, and uses energy efficiency measures, the completion of the internal energy market and research and innovation to deliver this. An agreed EU energy governance framework will be essential to underpin the relationships between the EU institutions on the one hand and member states on the other. Such a framework will seek to meet the energy policy objectives of both the EU and member states but also to respect member states’ national sovereignty.

Before I go on to speak about the report itself I will make one or two comments about the background to it. The committee’s report was published in December and was the result of a short inquiry following a stakeholder seminar and a ministerial evidence session, as well as written submissions. The inquiry was timely; the European Commission published the first state of the energy union report last November and is expected to bring forward legislative proposals on energy governance later this year. Our report offers some thoughts and recommendations ahead of those legislative proposals. I extend my thanks to the specialist adviser to the inquiry, Antony Froggatt, whose comments and guidance on complex and rather technical matters were invaluable.

Our report called on the European Commission to ensure that the proposals for a future energy governance framework include legal clarity, a respect for member state sovereignty, a strong focus on security of supply, a commitment to the consumer, real ambition for decarbonisation, and increased regional co-operation. Indeed, we argue that the EU-wide binding 2030 renewables target will not be delivered unless it is backed up by a monitoring and enforcement mechanism which acts as a guarantor for the agreement and ensures that member states share the effort equitably.

The European Commission response was received on 3 March and was largely supportive. The UK Government’s response to the report was received on 29 February and was accompanied by a covering letter from Andrea Leadsom. It would be fair to say that the response has focused on current UK Government policy and the domestic measures which are already in place. In many cases the response simply avoids commenting on specific EU-level conclusions and recommendations. Overall, it lacks detail and comprehensive engagement with the arguments put forward by the report. I fear that this is due to current circumstances and that the Government are nervous about saying much at all because of the way things stand now. Nevertheless, I will make four points and I will be grateful if the Minister could reply to them at the end of the debate.

In paragraph C of the response, the Government avoid commenting on the report’s headline recommendation that the Commission should be able to propose new measures to guarantee existing EU-level commitments. The response contains a broad statement that agrees with the streamlining of reporting requirements. However, we argue that given the political importance of the EU-wide binding renewables target of 27% by 2030, it is noteworthy that there is no elucidation of the Government’s position. While we know that the Government are sceptical of the sort of enforcement measures proposed by the Commission, we would have hoped for some real engagement with the recommendation, even if only to disagree with it and to suggest what an alternative might look like.

In paragraph B the Government are silent on the committee’s recommendation that they should be transparent, timely and comprehensive in reporting their own progress against each of the dimensions of the energy union. Can the Minister say what the Government’s policy on this is?

In paragraph D the Government comment on bringing forward new renewable support schemes to bring forward additional offshore wind generation. However, they seem to have confused ongoing industry support with the more important need to maintain investor confidence through long-term and consistent policies. This point about investor confidence was a major theme in the committee’s 2013 report No Country is an Energy Island, and its conclusions are as valid now as they were then.

Finally, the Government’s comments on capacity markets are at odds with the view of the sub-committee in a number of areas. The sub-committee recommended that there should be a common framework at EU level to assess the need for and the means of achieving adequacy standards which secure availability of supply without escalating prices to consumers. The Government appear to disagree, arguing that this is a political decision that cannot take place until the internal energy market is completed. In fact, in the sub-committee’s view this is a technical task and would contribute to the completion of the internal market. The Commission agrees with the sub-committee that a common framework within the EU should be developed. Therefore are the Government really opposed to common adequacy standards? On measuring generation adequacy, the Government seem to agree with a common methodology at EU level but also seem to want national assessments. There seems to be an inconsistency here. Finally, on energy storage and demand-side measures the report argues that they should be given equal access to domestic capacity markets. The Government point out that these are already eligible to participate in the capacity market but do not comment on the inequality which we have highlighted.

I have one final point about the UK Government’s overall approach to regional co-operation. The previous report authored by the sub-committee on regional marine co-operation, The North Sea Under Pressure, concluded that no existing body or mechanism has a sufficiently broad remit to facilitate the political co-operation required to make the necessary step change in management of the North Sea basin, and we argued for the re-establishment of a North Sea Ministers’ conference. This recommendation was rejected by government on the grounds that such co-operation was taking place elsewhere. I fear that our calls have fallen on deaf ears. Last week the Vice-President for Energy Union and the Commissioner for Climate Action, with Ministers from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, signed a political declaration and action plan on North Sea co-operation. The declaration will facilitate the building of missing electricity links and allow more trading of energy and further integration of energy markets. Reinforcing regional co-operation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve security of supply.

The UK was, sadly, absent. The announcement, like much these days, was reported on Twitter and there were lots of comments asking, “Where’s the union jack?”. I fear I know the answer to that but, even if the UK felt that in the current circumstances it was not able to be highly visible, I would like to think that we are engaged in this process. After all, if that well-known maritime nation Luxembourg thought that it was worth while attending and co-operating, it would seem very odd for the UK not to be there. The benefits of co-operating and the savings that come from it are enormous, so it really makes sense to do so.

Energy is crucial for all of us and the objective of secure, affordable and low-carbon energy can be aided by co-operation across borders. The EU has a really important role to play in bringing member states together, whether in a legislative framework or in a spirit of voluntary co-operation. The UK Government need to do more to demonstrate that they are serious about leading in this endeavour, whatever the outcome of 23 June.

Ros in the Lords: North Sea Under Pressure

Some eight mionths ago, the Select Committee that Ros chairs, the EU Energy and Environment Sub-committee, published its report on the North Sea. The report was, at the time, well received. However, the Government was, it seemed, not so keen. Last night, the report was debated in the Lords, and here is Ros's speech introducing it...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD):

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate this report this evening. It is fair to say that while regional marine co-operation in the North Sea is not the snappiest of subjects, the inquiry that led to this report was truly a worthwhile endeavour.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of what was then Sub-Committee D, which I chair, includes agriculture, fisheries, the environment, energy and climate change. Unlike the House of Commons Select Committees, one of the strengths of Select Committees in your Lordships’ House is the cross-cutting nature of our inquiries and reports. The report before your Lordships this evening is one such example, because the governance of the North Sea covers topics as diverse as reform of the fisheries policy, cross-border energy installations and the effect of persistent organic pollutants on seabirds.

I am grateful to the members of Sub-Committee D at that time who took part in the inquiry, many of whom were rotated off because of the new procedural rules. I am also pleased to see current members of the energy and environment sub-committee here this evening. As is often the case with inquiries, they lead you into places that you never quite expected at the outset, so we learned rather more about the Dogger Bank and radial and meshed energy grids than we thought possible. I extend my thanks to our specialist advisers, Dr Irene McMaster and Mr Rodney Anderson, the clerk, Patrick Milner, and our policy analyst, Alistair Dillon. Before going any further, I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Harwich Haven Authority, which is a trust board.

Before I go on to speak about the report itself, I would like to mention my concerns about the timing of the debate this evening. The reports produced by Select Committees of your Lordships’ House are widely read as they offer authoritative, well-researched and thoughtful contributions to whatever topics they look at. A great deal of effort is expended and they are usually very well received, far beyond this Chamber. It is therefore a great personal disappointment that we are here this evening debating a report that was published more than eight months ago and for which we took the evidence a year ago. Timely debate can be critical for the overall impact of an inquiry’s conclusions and recommendations. This is far too long to wait to debate a report here in your Lordships’ House, and I regret to say that this is not an isolated case. I would underline the need for the Government and the usual channels to take note of various resolutions of the House which call for regular debates of Select Committee reports in prime time.

The Government’s official response to our report came two months late and, when it came, it was sadly dismissive in tone. A letter from George Eustice MP, Minister for the Marine Environment, explained that the response was delayed by a “circumstance” outside the Government’s control. I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on what that particular circumstance was.

The North Sea is one of the most industrialised seas in the world and is under enormous pressure. My committee found that attempts to manage the competing pressures in a strategic manner are embryonic and unpredictable. We are expecting more and more from this single natural resource, both economically and environmentally. These objectives should not be mutually exclusive, but delivering them in harmony requires effort to co-operate—between countries, between sectors, within sectors and on the rules that govern the sea. Whereas it is now common practice to manage a river by taking into account the whole system from source to mouth and including its surrounding area, rather than through each local authority managing its own part separately, we still manage the North Sea by administrative or national boundaries. We found this segmented approach to be unsustainable.

In our evidence, we found that the need to co-operate was universally acknowledged but that the main stumbling block is lack of political leadership. This is where we believe government has to step up to the plate. If it fails to give such leadership and to co-ordinate and co-operate effectively, we risk failing to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the North Sea and risk its long-term sustainability. My committee concluded that no existing body or mechanism has a sufficiently broad remit to facilitate the political co-operation required to make the necessary step change in managing the North Sea basin. We argued for the re-establishment of the North Sea Ministerial Conference. Our main recommendation to the Government was that they should convene this ministerial conference in an effort to deliver the urgently required political and strategic vision that will sustain the North Sea for generations to come. It was bitterly disappointing that the Government’s response to the report dismissed the recommendation, arguing that the previous North Sea Ministerial Conference came to an end because,

“all the significant discussions and legal developments were taking place in other fora”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain which other fora exist for this work, because in all our evidence, with the single exception of that for energy, we were unable to identify any.

We also concluded that English local authorities must be more engaged in North Sea co-operation and recommended that the Government work with English local authorities to identify and, most importantly, address barriers to their participation. This is currently minimal for English local authorities compared to those in Scotland and from other North Sea countries. Once again, the Government dismissed our recommendation. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether he believes it is important for local authorities to engage with the North Sea Commission and why the Government will not work with the LGA and local authorities to facilitate this.

My committee found that although a lot of data are collected around the North Sea, by academic researchers and industries alike, very few of them are shared. We were concerned about a duplication of effort and that the best and most cost-effective use is simply not being made of those data. Having most of the data in one place would allow researchers and planners alike to develop a much clearer understanding of the sea and to plan for its future. It is telling that we were unable to source a single map depicting all the seabed uses of the North Sea. Commitment to a single database would allow resources to be allocated accordingly. It could become a one-stop shop, covering the costs not only of data collation but of quality assurance, which we heard can be expensive.

We called for greater progress on electricity interconnection. The North Sea has enormous potential to provide cross-border energy supply. This could be hugely important to every business and consumer if it can reduce costs by delivering energy more efficiently. Encouragingly, the European Commission has expressed its active support for greater energy co-operation around the North Sea and has committed to the development of an action plan. We heard that currently offshore wind farms are connected to national grids individually and that national grids are then linked independently through interconnectors. We recommend a pilot project creating a more “meshed” approach, which would integrate both offshore wind farms and interconnectors. We heard that there are technical obstacles to this measure, but they are mostly of a regulatory nature, relating to trading options, cost allocations and so on. We understand that the Government are already working to overcome these through their involvement in the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative. Could the Minister update us on that work?

The report was well received in other North Sea states, including Germany and the Netherlands, and a number of stakeholders have submitted their own responses, making helpful suggestions on how to take the issues forward. These include the East of England Energy Group and the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology’s joint Marine Special Interest Group. They told us told us that our recommendations, if implemented, could,

“start a process of unmatched international co-operation in the management of the North Sea”.

The North Sea Commission’s Assen Declaration with the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe followed up our key recommendation by calling for the Dutch presidency of the European Council, starting in the new year, to develop a North Sea agenda. Similarly, the European Commission’s response was positive and receptive to our message that increased regional co-operation is the key to harnessing the full potential of the North Sea.

To use the opening words of the report:

“Often out of sight and out of mind, the North Sea is the lifeblood of more than 60 million people who live on or near its shores”.

The North Sea is a shared resource and plays an important part in the lives of many of us, whether we are mindful of it or not. Regional co-operation enormously enhances the possibilities open to North Sea countries and industries and can bring significant benefits for the environment. We should not lose sight of this approach. I beg to move.

I have to admit that I wasn't impressed by Lord Gardiner of Kimble's response, but at least Tony Greaves displayed his grasp of the subject in a speech redolent with disappointment in the poor performance of a government he does rate very highly.

For the rest of the debate, Hansard can be found here...

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - Boosting Bioeconomy in Europe

The first resolution for consideration comes courtesy of Suomen Keskusta, the Finnish Centre Party. It may not surprise you to know that they're quite keen on forest products...

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that

• climate change is one of humankind’s greatest challenges;
• the European Council has committed Europe to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050;
• Europe is highly dependent on the energy from third countries and the dependence has only increased during the last two decades; the EU’s annual import bill for fossil fuels is around 400 billion euro;
• bioeconomy and renewable energy sources offer an enormous potential to tackle climate change, promote growth and jobs in Europe, decrease the energy dependence from third countries, and make a major contribution to energy security at international, national, and local levels;
• renewable energy technologies are available and becoming more and more competitive;
• forest-based bioeconomy has remarkable potential especially in the more forest rich regions of Europe;
• citizens’ well-being, industrial competitiveness and the overall functioning of society are dependent on secure, safe, sustainable and affordable energy;
• from food to fuel, or medicine to clothing, nearly anything that’s not metal or glass can be produced in or by plants; Biomass can be processed like crude oil into energy, chemicals and raw materials;
• the EU adopted its bioeconomy strategy in 2012 and it is linked to Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for research 2014–2020;

Calls on

• the EU to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 in line and in parallel with the other key players on the basis of an ambitious and binding international agreement;
• the EU to set ambitious 2030 targets for renewable energy sources;
• Member States to reduce their dependence on imported fossil fuels;
• the EU and Member States to make more substantial efforts to move faster from fossil-based economy to bioeconomy especially by upgrading their bioeconomy competence base and investing more on education, training and research;
• the EU to drive for new technologies that focus on sustainable, renewable and recyclable raw materials in order to create new jobs, growth and added value;
• the EU and Member States to secure the competitiveness of the existing bioeconomy industries by providing them with a favourable setting in which to operate and grow;
• the European Commission to encourage the use of renewable, bio-based, recyclable, and environment-friendly raw and other materials in various sectors, such as construction;
• the Member States to replace the use of coal with biomass and other renewables;
• European companies to generate new bioeconomy business by means of risk financing, bold experiments and the crossing of sectoral boundaries.

Creeting St Peter: a little more on that solar farm proposal

I've not heard anything more about the solar farm proposal but, over dinner with a friend who has a renewable energy business, I took the opportunity to ask how many homes could be supplied with energy from an 10 MWp solar farm. His answer? About 3,650 households, or a county council division in these parts.

Now, of course, there are caveats, I presume - average levels of sunshine and of downtime, probably. I'm also guessing that the payment to the farmer for the rent of his land is equivalent, or more than, the expected profit that could be made from farming it, and certainly reduces the risk.

That leaves the question, does the perceived cost to the community overcome a broader need for secure supplies of energy? With the apparent crisis in energy supply looming ever larger, to what extent should local concerns trump a possible greater good?

These are difficult questions, especially for small communities, where any such debate can become potentially rather personal. We can only wait and see how it will turn out...

Creeting St Peter: exactly how ugly is a solar farm anyway?

No sooner do I retire from the Parish Council fray than a front page headline appears in the Bury Free Press referring to a proposed solar farm on the south east edge of the parish. Apparently, an open house meeting had been held in the village to allow residents to find out more, but residents living near the proposed site were interviewed by the newspaper, voicing their concerns. And, according to the representative of those behind the project;

On Thursday July 25, MS Power Projects met with members of the local community and delegates from both Creeting St Peter and Creeting St Mary Parish Councils at a public exhibition. All the members of the local community and delegates of the respective councils were invited to attend the public exhibition, which was held at the Church Hall in Creeting St Peter.

This was, I admit, news to me, so I did a little research. There was some information on the Creeting St Mary parish website, with a helpful and quite interesting FAQ, but nothing on the Creeting St Peter site. The company behind the proposal, MS Power, on the other hand, has remarkably little information on its website, but appears to be credible enough.

The proposal itself provides an interesting dilemma. There is no doubt that our dependence on fossil fuels is a threat to our energy security as a nation, and sustainable renewable energy offers a means towards ensuring that we can generate our own power in the future. And when there are suggestions that capacity may be overtaken by demand within just two years, a project that could be up and running relatively quickly would appear to be a good thing.

There is, of course, an immediate impact on those people who live within close proximity of the proposed site, and I am sympathetic, to some extent. The views in this part of Suffolk, whilst not spectacular, are quite pleasant, whereas a solar farm, with two metre security fencing around it, might not be so attractive.

So, some obvious pros and cons to be considered. Fortunately, they'll be considered by someone else...

And that's why the United Kingdom needs serious investment in the energy sector...

Yes, I know, Lords European Union Select Committee, Sub-Committee D... doesn't exactly trip off of the tongue, does it? But perhaps we ought to pay more attention to it...

Sub-Committee D is responsible for the scrutiny of European Union proposals on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy (it also deals with animal health and welfare), so includes such joys as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy - big things in terms of EU spending and highly controversial in some Liberal Democrat heartlands like the South West of England.

Today, it published the results of its enquiry into the EU power sector, and some of the numbers are eye-watering in their general vastness. They suggest that, in order to keep the lights on across Europe, €1 trillion, or £846 billion needs to be invested before the end of this decade (I make that about £120 billion per year).

Interestingly, the money is apparently there from institutional investors to deliver these sums, but they are holding back in the absence of a clear policy, which is why the ability of first Chris Huhne, and now Ed Davey, to push for the necessary policy changes, has been so vital.

It also means working with our European neighbours. The future will be a Europe-wide supergrid for electricity, allowing the most effective balance of fossil fuels and renewables to supply consumers at a sustainable price. You could link it to huge solar farms in North Africa, tidal barrages in the North Sea, wind farms in the Atlantic, even geological energy in Iceland, reducing our dependence on the OPEC states, and improving our environment.

Europe has to provide leadership though, says the report. The failure to set a minimum support price for emissions permits impacts on efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and cuts the incentive to invest in cleaner technologies.

So, when you complain about your fuel bills, just remember, it's going to cost an awful lot to keep the lights on, so best we start planning now. After all, "Revolution" should have been warning enough of what might happen if we failed to do so...