Energy Bill

I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) that this debate might, unfortunately, be characterised as a debate between vertebrates and invertebrates. I believe, however, that it is about whether a very good existing policy on carbon capture and storage should be strengthened, or whether, in seeking to strengthen it, we could end up with no carbon capture and storage, and no coal plants, at all. The debate is also about where we want to get to in terms of using low-carbon coal, if we decide we are going to use further coal power for energy production. It is also about whether we have new coal plants—if we do not have any, we will certainly not have any carbon capture technology, because the one follows from the other. As I said in an earlier intervention, the debate is about whether we take seriously what we are going to do about existing coal plants for our future energy economy, bearing in mind that we want that future energy economy to be low carbon, and perhaps to involve some coal for low-carbon energy. If we want certainty about what will happen to investors in new coal plant, as well as investors in existing coal plant, if they continue to use those assets to develop energy—or not, as the case may be—we need to look no further than the Committee on Climate Change. In a recent report, it said explicitly that""there is no role for unabated coal-fired generation beyond the 2020s on the way to an 80 per cent. emissions reduction in 2050"." That is a very clear statement, which is, in fact, rather more radical than an emissions performance standard, in saying that by the 2020s investors in coal—either in existing power stations or new ones—will not be able to use those stations for energy generation unless it is abated. Full stop. That seems to me to provide complete certainty about the future basis for investment. This is essentially the position we are now in, as we look at carbon capture and storage. The question then arises: if we adopt one or more of these amending provisions, where do we stand in terms of the aim? If new clause 15 were adopted, the No. 1 point is that no new coal-fired stations might be developed in the first place—for reasons connected with the economics of developing the power stations and the imposition and overlay of an EPS on an existing series of projects for new coal-fired projects. As new clause 15 specifically points out, the suggested EPSs should apply only to new coal-fired plant. We could thus end up with the worst of all worlds—with no new coal-fired power stations and with no emissions standards for existing coal-fired power stations. That would indeed be a magnificently perverse outcome for those who claim that they are fighting on behalf of the vertebrates against the invertebrates.