Contribution
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I begin by recognising that this draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026 makes a specific and, on the face of it, sensible change in the way the renewables obligation is updated over time. By moving from RPI to CPI calculations for inflation, it should slow the growth of RO costs and in turn ease some of the pressures on energy bills paid by households and businesses. As the Minister said, during a new energy crisis when far too many families and households are living in fuel poverty and we are seeing rapid rises in our energy costs, we remain acutely conscious that many are watching every pound being spent on their energy bills. This SI, if everything goes to plan, as the Minister said, would save £1.9 billion over the next 11 years.
We therefore welcome the measures, as they are designed to reduce the cost of energy. However, bringing down bills cannot be separated from maintaining the pace of the clean energy transition and maintaining market confidence and those who finance it. As the Minister said, the RO has been instrumental in building our capacity, particularly for mid-scale onshore wind and solar. Many have made investment decisions years ago based on an understood indexing regime. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact on projects that have had financing assumptions predicated on RPI? How many generators are judged to face material changes to their expected revenues as a result? What modelling has been done to check whether these measures could have a disproportionate impact on those at the smaller end of the generating scale?
There is also, for us, the question of overall approach. From the Government’s point of view, this is a small, important, but technical, pragmatic and consumer-focused change. But, for many in the industry, this is yet another incremental tweak to the legacy schemes. I note that, of the 257 responses to the consultation, most did not support either option put forward, citing a preferred option not to change the system at all, based on concerns around investor confidence, minimal consumer benefit and a need—from their point of view—for financial stability and predictability. Do the Government accept that this kind of piecemeal pattern risks the possibility of further eroding investor confidence? That would not be because any one of the individual changes is huge on its own but because it creates a sense that the rules for existing long-term investments are constantly up for potential revision.
As the Minister said, the impact is £1.9 billion. The measures will curtail the existing revenue for RO generators—reductions of around 1% for the financial year 2026-27, which will rise to 5% by the financial year 2030-31. As we know, these are large-scale, long-term investment decisions, so even relatively minor changes can have, over a prolonged period, quite large and sustained impacts on what were expected revenue returns and investment decisions. The Explanatory Memorandum says that, overall, the department does not expect that there will be a disruptive effect on small generators. What does that mean in practice? How confident is the Minister in that statement? Also, how will this be monitored going forward? I note that there is no statutory review clause here, so how will any unintended impacts or consequences of the SI, once it is passed, be monitored? Furthermore, if there are unintended consequences, would there be a willingness by the Government to look again at these changes, particularly if they happen to impact the smaller schemes?
More generally, is it the Government’s intention, over time, to mitigate remaining RO schemes into contracts for difference-type frameworks? Instead of having this piecemeal approach, is there a more fundamental plan, as part of this framework, to reduce bills? I welcome those measures, but is it not time that there was an overall plan for this, rather than looking at individual orders one by one? Is there not a better way of doing this, agreeing it with the investors and the market, so we can both reduce the cost for bill payers and maintain the investor confidence on which we depend to secure future investment? We generally welcome what is here, although we have a few questions about it. We do not oppose this SI in any way, but we want a bit of clarity on those points.