Renewables Obligation Order 2006

We also support the order. However, any order that has as one of its subheadings ““Mutualisation”” is not going to make light reading. I have very little difficulty with the basic premises in the order. However, as the Minister said, the problem lies with what has been left out rather than what has been included. One issue of great concern is small-scale operation—microgeneration—especially through small wind turbines under 50 kilowatts. I have personal experience of that, having recently tried—and failed—through the planning process to install a 6.2 kilowatt wind turbine, and having found out that the payback relies heavily on meeting ROCs. On that basis, I very much look forward to the debates that we will have on the subject of metering when we deal with the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill—a Bill based on a Private Member’s Bill introduced in this House last year. I have a question for the Minister about whether there will be flexibility in the type of metering. At the moment, small-scale operations have to look at each kilowatt produced, but the larger-scale operations can deal with half-megawatt hours. Can a simpler system be introduced? As the Minister discussed matters outside the Bill, I shall ask him whether there were discussions about whether nuclear should fall underneath the renewables obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has stated that he believes that nuclear is a renewable. I have a different view on that. Did any discussions take place during the drafting of this order about whether nuclear should be, or in future will be, under the renewables obligation? My final point—co-firing—has already been raised. I was recently talking to workers from Drax power station. It is producing large amounts of biomass to ameliorate some of the carbon dioxide produced by Drax. However, the regime change is making it difficult for its suppliers and for it to encourage other farmers to change to biofuels.