Renewables Obligation Order 2006

I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. As orders go, at first sight this one seems to have more to get one’s teeth into than many. Several of the matters covered by the draft order, including promoting technologies such as combined heat and power, were contained in the Conservative Party’s pre-election pamphlet, Action for the Environment, and are welcomed. Less welcome is that the order includes no deferral, pending the outcome of the Government’s energy review, of the date of 1 April on which the reduction in the co-firing cap from 25 to 10 per cent will be effective—a reduction that may, ironically, lead of course to a drop in the use of biofuels. The order does not deal with a whole raft of possible incentives for innovative ways to reduce and avoid carbon emissions in energy generation. The Government’s answer to this may well be that it is to be left until the outcome of their energy review. However, if that is the case, why is this order being progressed before that outcome, and why has the effective date for the reduction in the co-firing cap not been deferred? It does seem inconsistent. It also appears to be inconsistent with the reduction from 98 to 90 per cent in the minimum animal and plant waste in energy from mixed wastes, to which the Minister referred—or perhaps he can explain why these things are not inconsistent. One of the main issues that we have with the whole area of legislation on renewable energy is how detailed, technical and complicated it is. As we surely all want to encourage electricity generation from the micro-generators, right down to individual farmers growing biomass crops, we would do well to remember that they cannot afford batteries of advisers and lawyers to help them through the awesome detail. Finally, I want to raise questions related to two points in the relevant report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. The first, which is not strictly on the order itself, is a reference in paragraph 7 to the fact that Ofgem had made two payments from the surplus revenue fund to the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund totalling £210 million, £60 million of which was used for the support of renewable energy projects. Can the Minister enlighten us as to what the other £150 million went on? Secondly, paragraph 8(b) of the committee’s report refers to modifications to the waste eligibility provisions, to allow ROCs to be issued for the electricity generated from the biodegradable element of waste by certain CHP generating stations. Paragraph 14.5 of the regulatory impact assessment acknowledges that respondents to the DTI’s consultation were evenly split on this. Furthermore, the committee states that the complexity of the calculations required to implement the change raises questions about its practicability. Given that, and that there was not a clear majority in favour of the change, can the Minister explain the reasons for the decisions that underlie the changes proposed in the order?