Baroness Blake of Leeds:

Moved by Baroness Blake of Leeds

52: Clause 66, page 58, line 4, leave out “relevant market participants (see subsection (8))” and insert “the Consolidated Fund or gas shippers” Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment means the Secretary of State may put a levy on gas shippers, but may not put it on gas or electricity suppliers, thus taking responsibility away from levies to households.

I shall speak also to Amendments 54 and 62, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lennie. Clauses 66 and 67 set out a series of powers to raise a levy or levies to fund the hydrogen business model. Detailed design of these will be subject to further consultation, which I hope and assume will take place thoroughly and may indeed reach similar conclusions to those put forward in this group of amendments.

We know that this could be done through payment to a hydrogen levy administrator, paid by counterparties of hydrogen production primarily, as well as those of carbon dioxide transport and storage in cases where shortfalls in licensees’ allowed revenue are caused by low-carbon hydrogen producers. Subsection (2) also allows for payments to the administrator for the purpose of meeting other costs. These payments, as written, can be taken from “relevant market participants”, which are defined in subsection (8) as gas suppliers, electricity suppliers and gas shippers.

This is where our Amendments 52 and 54, and others in this group, seek to make changes. These amendments mean that the Secretary of State can put a levy on gas shippers, but cannot put one on gas or electricity suppliers, thus preventing responsibility for the levies falling on households. As per Clause 66, relevant market participants can be required to pay levies via revenue support regulations. This amendment quite simply means that levies are to be put on shippers rather than suppliers, making it more difficult for these costs to be passed directly to households and therefore limiting the impact on bills. I am aware that the emphasis in these amendments is on pricing and protecting the consumer. Surely, in the current climate we need to make sure we take every opportunity to make affordability one of our primary considerations. I support the need to protect the environment, as highlighted in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which is a very important consideration.

Where shippers have above what is in reserve provision, Amendment 62 guarantees that the difference should be restored directly to customers from shippers, in contrast to how the LCCC works with retailers and customers at present. Under circumstances where sums are apportioned under Clause 76, held by the counterparty, the amendment ensures that any leftover money goes directly back to energy supply customers—the people who supplied them in the first place—rather than being held back.

I look forward very much to the discussion on the amendments laid by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I believe this is an area where the Minister could signify a willingness to move, given that our priority, as I have said, must be to work in any way possible to reduce the impact on the bills of people who are under such enormous stress and strain at the moment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55, 56 and 57 to Clause 66, which are in my name. As has been eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, we absolutely need to put at the forefront of our attention the need to minimise adding costs to consumers at this time. Please excuse my coarse language, but it feels to me that the Government are in danger of moving from “cutting the green crap” to forcing us to take on crap green. That is essentially what we are doing here.

It is an adding of potentially unlimited expense for a commodity which will play a role—I am not completely against the use of hydrogen for certain applications—but the idea that it will be used at scale for homes is completely ludicrous. It is therefore absolutely right that we limit the levy to the people who will benefit from its use. That will not be consumers and certainly not electricity bills. What we want is cheaper electricity. I am confident that electricity will soften as we get off fossil fuels and rely more on more predictable and stable forms of electricity generation, such as nuclear, offshore wind and a whole panoply of ways of making electricity that we can control more easily than relying on imported gas. Those costs will soften, and we want to keep them cheap because that will enable us to electrify whole other segments of the economy.

So I absolutely support limiting this levy to gas, whether that is by saying it should be gas shippers or removing the reference to electricity, as my Amendment 55 does—I am completely agnostic on that, but the issue is fundamental. I will quote from a briefing that some of us may have received from E.ON, a big provider of energy which quite cleverly split itself into a clean electricity part and a not-so-clean one. The clean part says clearly that “recovering the costs of these new technologies through electricity bills is regressive and difficult to justify considering the soaring cost of living and the potential benefits of these technologies to individual consumers are uncertain. It is damaging that the Bill allows the Government to recover the costs of hydrogen revenue through electricity suppliers and, therefore, electricity consumers.” I fully support that and I have to say that my amendment was tabled before I read the briefing.

I considered striking out the whole levy with a clause stand part debate, but I thought that might be more the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, so in Amendment 56 I am simply saying that there should be a sunrise to delay us rushing into adding more costs. The amendment proposes that the regulations should not be brought in until 6 April 2026. Amendment 57 simply states that a financial impact assessment must be made available if and when this levy starts to be added to bills.

My guess is that the use of hydrogen will be limited. It will be very expensive and it is very inefficient, so the costs should not and will not be borne in time. But I am worried that in this Bill we seem to be diverting towards a distraction and risking an illogical transition which will slow us down and add costs unnecessarily. That is damaging to the net-zero cause and to people’s confidence in this transition. We should therefore be very circumspect on this levy provision; we should be narrowing its application and slowing it down. I hope that the Government will consider this, because I am sure they have read the science and understand the physics as well as everybody else. It really ought to be limited.

My Lords, I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, maybe we need to take this forward as a way to do it. The cost to consumers is absolutely central at the moment, and this is not a short-term thing—it is at least medium term. Later we will come to an amendment which says we should repeal the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act, which was all about raising costs to consumers in the short term and has nothing to do with nuclear power otherwise.

In my amendment, I am trying to do something very similar to what has already been debated: if we are going to accept this levy—we know levies are always very contentious when implemented in terms of who has to pay for them and who gets the benefits from them, which leads to a lot of argument—it is quite clear that for hydrogen there is only a very limited sector of organisations, people and population who will actually benefit from it. In its own way, my amendment seeks to prevent other consumers who are not benefiting from hydrogen having to pay for that investment.

It is very much in line with other Members’ amendments and it is absolutely fundamental to the messages that we as a Parliament, and the Government, are putting out at the moment to consumers and company users of energy. Let us make sure that, if we have this levy, it is kept to those who benefit from hydrogen rather than those outside who do not.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Blake, for their amendments relating to the hydrogen levy provision. Before turning to the amendments, let me make the general point that these provisions in the Energy Bill will not, as all noble Lords are aware, immediately introduce this levy; they will only enable government to introduce the levy later through secondary legislation.

I will start with Amendments 52, 54 and 62 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Amendments 52 and 54 seek to limit the energy market participants that could be obliged to pay any future hydrogen levy to gas shippers only. The Government intend that the levy would initially be placed on energy suppliers, and it will operate in a similar way to the existing levy schemes, where revenue support is funded through energy supplier obligations, such as the supplier obligation that funds the current contracts for difference regime. That is because these funding mechanisms are well understood by the private sector and have been extremely successful. The Government consider that establishing a similar levy would provide investors and developers with confidence to invest in low-carbon hydrogen production projects.

The option to levy gas shippers has been included with the intention to allow for a greater range of options for future levy design. The Government anticipate that the costs of any future levy on gas shippers would be passed through the energy supply chain and ultimately on to energy users, in a similar way to existing supplier obligations. It is unlikely therefore that these amendments would have the effect of preventing costs associated with the levy being passed on to households.

I turn to Amendment 62, which seeks to guarantee the return of overpayments of the levy to energy customers. The Government’s intention, and our expectation, would be that, in the event of overpayment by relevant market participants, those sums would be returned to market participants, who in turn should then pass them on to their customers.

Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seeks to ensure than an obligation to pay a hydrogen levy would, where possible, be placed only on those who would directly benefit from the low-carbon hydrogen production funded by the levy. Low-carbon hydrogen could support decarbonisation across the economy, which could benefit gas and electricity customers generally.

The powers that we have in the Bill provide options for where a hydrogen levy might be placed in the energy value chain, enabling future regulations to make provisions requiring one or more descriptions of gas suppliers, electricity suppliers and/or gas shippers to pay the levy. The Government have not yet reached a decision regarding which types of market participants will be obliged to pay the levy. That decision will be taken in due course and will no doubt be discussed in our Lordships’ House during the course of the secondary legislation that would be required to implement it. The decision will take into account a wide range of considerations, including but not limited to considerations related to fairness, which I know are the focus of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords. Given the Government’s approach to policy development on this levy, I hope that noble Lords recognise the amendment is unnecessary.

I turn to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Amendment 55 seeks to ensure that an obligation to pay a hydrogen levy administrator could not be placed on electricity suppliers. I would contend that it is crucial that the provisions in the Bill allow for a range of options for where the levy might be placed to help enable the Government to future-proof the levy over the longer term and accommodate changes to the wider energy market.

As I alluded to earlier, we expect low-carbon hydrogen to play an important role in decarbonising the electricity sector. This provides support to the case for including electricity suppliers as a possible point of obligation for the levy. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and, if she will allow me, I will take this away and possibly revisit it at Report, but I hope she will not press her amendment.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I have no doubt that hydrogen will have a role to play, but it is more likely to go into fertiliser production or long-distance fuels for shipping and aviation. The provisions being taken here do not allow for it to be applied to the sectors that consume fossil fuels—gas obviously covers fertilised gas. This needs to be thought through in relation to where hydrogen will most likely be needed. It will play a tiny role in decarbonising electricity, if at all, because there are so many other ways of doing it more cheaply and more efficiently.

I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I have also seen the models of where it is most likely that hydrogen would be used, and I have considerable sympathy for many of the points that she made. As to the where it will be used, it will clearly be in industrial processes and heavy-goods transportation. These would be more likely uses than home heating or decarbonisation, but it would possibly play a role. Nevertheless, as I said, I have taken note of what has been said in the Committee and understand the points that have been made. If the noble Baroness allows me, I will take them away to look at, and possibly revisit them at Report.

Amendment 56 seeks to impose restrictions on when the hydrogen levy can be introduced to fund the hydrogen business model. This will help to unlock potentially billions of pounds worth of investment in hydrogen that we need across the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring that long-term funding is provided through the hydrogen business model, and the provisions in the Bill do not require the Government to introduce the levy by a particular date. We do not expect the levy to be introduced any time before 2025, and so we do not expect it to have any impact on consumer bills before then, at the earliest. Decisions regarding when to introduce the levy will take into account wider government policies and priorities, including considerations related to energy bill affordability, which is always at the forefront of our considerations.

The first set of regulations under Clause 66, establishing the levy, will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so we would fully expect Parliament to exercise its role, and particularly your Lordships’ House to scrutinise how the Government intend to exercise those powers.

Amendment 56 would, in my view, introduce restrictions that are unnecessary, given the Government’s approach to decisions related to when to introduce the levy and the parliamentary scrutiny requirements that would be associated with any relevant secondary legislation.

Amendment 57 seeks to protect consumers by introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a specific consumer impact report before making regulations under Clause 66, establishing a hydrogen levy. As I mentioned, the parliamentary procedure for the first set of regulations that establish the levy will help ensure that the levy receives sufficient scrutiny from Parliament. Crucially, I can tell the Committee that it is already the Government’s intention to publish an impact assessment alongside the draft regulations made under Clause 66. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is unnecessary and feel able to not press their amendments.

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and welcome, as we all do, the commitment to revisit one of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. We look forward with interest to that. However, on some of the other aspects, there will be conversations between now and Report, and I am fairly confident that we will come back to discuss what is, in our view, a really important area. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Amendments 53 to 57 not moved.

Clause 66 agreed.

Clauses 67 to 69 agreed.

Clause 70: Allocation notifications

Amendment 58 not moved.

Clause 70 agreed.

Clause 71 agreed.

Clause 72: Duty to offer to contract following allocation