Rt Hon Peter Lille}? MP fulc'i'l'llH'!? ?It in: him. it: l-lstc'im x-Inl Ht 11.1w i ll (Mitth ta lt'rl'ltlt at it?: 1 {lr'tr?t Edward Davey MP Secretaqv' of State Department ofEnergy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW I A ZHH 02 November 2012 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about reducing fuel bills through energy ef?ciency. I would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely: .. I, *2 Innlamzlz I um .11 . Dear Mr Liltey. Re: Please help end the scandal of cold homes Energy bills are causing immense financial hardship. with one in four households struggling to hear their homes. I have signed the Energy Bill Revolution petition calling for an end to the scandal of cold homes. I urge you please to show your support by adding your name to a Parliamentary Motion Supporting the campaign. EDM 4? Cold. badly insulated homes damage his health of our most vulnerable citizens: including Older people, children and people With disabilities. This costs the NHS almost a billion pounds each year But there is a fair and permanent so!ution one which Will also generate man;r thousands ofjobs. We can have warm homes. cut carbon emissions and reduce our tuet bills lease join me in asking the Government to use the money it will get from carbon taxes to make our homes super~energy ef?cient. Yours sincerely, Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Multilrcr :zvl' I'ur uric: Hurltciulrri House or. lutidun A ll;th Rt Hon Ed Davey MP Secretary of State Department for line-rig}r and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA EHH 12 November 20D. Dear Ed Mr oonstituen ame to see me at a recent eon q, . He would like to know why Thorium is not used in preference to nuclear energy in the generation of electricity since he believes that Thorium is a much safer option. He would also be grate?il if you could let him know your views on the decision ofthe German government to build a large number of coal-?red power stations and why. in that is Drags power station being subsidised to use wood instead of coal. I would be grateful for your comments on the above. Yours sincerely it-I: run ?112: an.? it.? [an limJIl: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Heather :nl her m.l l'ler'r'ufcr? HUth rel ei 5a ma ?l't Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department ofEnergy and Climate Change 3 \Wtitehall Place London SW1A EHH 05 December ZOIE Dear Ed I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from the above constituent at" mine about renewable energy. I would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tea]! Hi? l-nml: .uL u- ult Dear Mr Lilley. Like everyone I am sorry for people that have been affected by the cannot imagine what they must be going through. When the Water Board was in existence I remember as a young man that they made a point of dredging all the rivers so that they did not silt up. using the silt to put on the banks. Since privatisation this practice appears to have stopped. I would suggest that because of this rivers are becoming shallower and therefore unable to cope with larger flows of water .Thus creating ?ooding I am sure that it would not take long to compare the current depth of rivers with what they were 50 years agoJ do appreciate that Global Warming may have a part to play. but old ideas should not be disregarded as old fashioned.Fan11ers and Local Authorities also used to clear all the ditches to help with drainage. this has also stopped.WHY? I wrote to the Environment Minister in the last Labour government on the very subject and received a reply saying that dredging would ruin the river bed. Ridiculous. On another we have hundreds if not thousands of unused in this country. As you are aware we have one in WheathampsteadJust think if all that power going to waste. Why can we not get Water Wheels put with dynamos to produce electricity 24/7.We all know that Windmills are not that ef?cient. they are expensive to produce and maintain, I believe that when the wind is too strong they cannot work and are idle with no windJn fact I think that they are made abroadJiiot very good for our economy. Another thought how about making builders put solar panels on all new houses. N0 PANELS N0 PLANNING APPROVAL-SIMPLE When Blair and Brown were In Of?ce i wrote on the subject of Renewable Energy and the reply was IF WE WERE ATHIRD WORLD iT WOULD WORTH DOING. As they made us one could We not start now? The Conservatives say they are for the people so perhaps the Prime Minister might like to take the above on board. instead of building H52 and saving 20 minutes to Birmingham and all the upheaval Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP liirlm'm-Iir icur Home of 5W Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA ZHH 13 December 2012 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ot?an email I have received from the above. constituent ofmine about his support for clean power. 1 would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely lei? 113? lit?- ?ll" ILL-Lll?tcl-J" Dear The+Right+Honourable+Mr Peter Lilley MP Like most people in the UK I want to see us switch to clean power by 2936. The experts agree that it's the cheapest way to meet our climate change goals. The best way to make this happen is by adding a clean energy target as a 'green jobs amendment' to the Energy Bill. This would deliver green power and produce jobs anc growth oy sending a clear message to clean energy investors that Britain is open for business. without such a target I'm worried that the policies in the Bill will unleash a new dash for gas that would bust our climate targets and lease bill-payers vulnerable to Further hikes as gas prices continue to rise. Please back a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. You can contact me by email {preferably to save rescurces) or at the following address: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP I?xlt-a- luff l'lr'll inn-n: Hitch lLiuseznlt?juintons Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWI A EHH 2 December 2012 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ofa postcard have received from the above constituent ofmine about her support for Friends ol'the Earth's campaign. Clean British Energy. would be grateful il?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely ill ([SIgned In Peter Lilley's absence to amend delay) Tu. Hi I 15-14?? Hit: "11? Asa? lillml; uni Lu Mi?- Li (L l? She-:1: 1 MTV. mu give {'35 country, 3 .c Cinch Erergy 7mDimple agreeing al?muld mumr,? [0 energy wi?u?J sus?i, water and name; iurrvel? IS Wrist Lin:- 3:1! 1.9?5 OOH. 3031: continua;- wi'h ?zpersru'i imparts-2' gas; r.I.Lr pan-yer and dL'JI'i?nm'Jiiz" by ius'. Six commune: i?i-j-zing fur-Tit; whuc- I ri danger Ida-Ii; :itnl?: hon" ES It's time Zi'pifl" Lip the "malice! to Grif?n.? A -ie_ D'i-j [Cull-i1?- :Tamumz-g ginupr. 3'1: individuals to generate own energy. Emmi; energy wnsie switm It? :ri Brriish Percy; :5 tau: 3-55: hope for ai?mriuhI? ?uei hil a wi? .'Jl people Wiinl. ii. 3 i'iupp??r'i?ig in. ?rst}! 3er hung-En ?are too. (sill [m3 to i1:- Eiezti'ic Hana: Ref-:sm plume deI:-:5- Ciecn FJ-ri'. Ish Enter-g; L'iy prii'uit're'i-J Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP \lt'tt?lttr n! for lithium .m.l l-lnua?e of lit-RA John Hayes MP Minister of State Department of Energy and Climate Change - 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A EHH 2 February EDI 3 Dear John Further to irevious correspondence, enclose a cop}: ofan email I have received I would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the. points that have been raised. Yours sincerely" l. KIT-{Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay) Mn linnil: ~r Would 'mu be kind enough in [l?li? email correspondence 'lnd Hr l-layes please? ?:33le column referred le- impending energy CI?l'Sib? this morning. 'l'ltank you. 1 ?mi interacted to read cnniment? today renewable crierg}. purlicuiari} incl farms. and i thought you might ?u?ri?tl?li tn rend lite email I win In the National ILinn people on Fcbmarjc You 1-. ill we there are wry real reuwna? For the (internment reennmler their ini'attizalinn with u. ind [karma in particular. but generally. i'tt a time economic crisis. and an imminent energy Cl?l?i'i. it is 3:11ch} LilinSC? In an}: the least for unccnimnnc and largel} inc??cctiuc wind farms to continue 11] be eneuuruged h} the (inn Bl'?li?it'l?tl. tl'ierelt) forcing up electricit} prices needle-HI}. I will provide you with copier; ul?smnc nl'tlte technical on this subject it'3uu 5n 1wish. I am writing to express my reservations about the way wind farms are proliferating, at high cost, even though eminent power engineers in Europe and elsewhere have expressed the view that investing in wind is a big mistake. I can provide you with details of the investigations that have been carried out if you so wish. My own views are summarised below and I very much hope that you will reply to the points I make below. Keith Anderson. the head of Scottish Power wants the Government to set new subsidies for wind farms and gas plants. He is right to say that new gas plants are urgently needed but there are good reasons for further investment in wind farms to be drastically curtailed. I have written to the DECC on numerous occasions but they simply refuse to engage with the points I am making. They simply reiterate their belief that Britain needs a balanced mix of energy sources, including wind farms. How they can i gore the following is a complete mystery to me. And our economy is being damaged by huge waste?il expenditure on on-shore and off-shore wind turbines. Fi?een years ago the Kyoto Protocol was signed by 37 Western Nations, including the UK. because they believed that global warming was on course tocause catastrophic climate change. A reduction in C02 emissions of 4.7% on the 1990 level was duly agreed. Those nations now say that between 2008 and 2012 they reduced their C02 emissions by 16%, not But GLOBAL emissions have, in fact. gone up by over 50%. We also know that on average there has boon no signi?cant change in temperature For the last fifteen years and that this "standstill" is expected to continue for at least another ?ve years. And there is another point. Many rich countries met their Kyoto C02 reduction targets by moving their C02- intensive industries e.g. steel and aluminium manufacturing to nations which didn't sign the Protocol. The Doha talks in December resulted in promises being made by the EU, and Australia among others that they would accept a new "compliance period" ofanother eight years i.e. up to 2020. But those countries only produce 14% of total C02 emissions so whatever reductions they actually, not apparently, achieve will be swamped by the colossal increase in C02 emissions from the developing nations. China and [ndia in particular. On top of the above considerations there is. most impertantly. the fact that wind turbines do NOT reduce 02 emissions to any signi?cant extent because of the low thermal ef?ciency of the back?up gas turbines. The frequent need for the gas-?red back-up turbines to ramp their power outputs up and down, and on and off, unavoidably reduces their ef?ciency and is one of the reasons why wind turbines do not signi?cantly reduce C02 emissions. There is. in fact, evidence which shows that ifall Britain's wind ferns were switched off the back-up gas turbines could maintain power supplies to the grid without using any more gas than they did when they were operating in back-up mode. I can provide you with copies of technical papers written by eminent power engineers which describe the extensive studies they have carried out on this subject. There is also. of equal imortance. the paper published by Professor Singer. of the University of Virginia, 27r?04r'2011, which demonstrated From ?rst principles that anthropogenic ("man-made") CO2 emissions are only responsible for about 0.28% ofthe global greenhouse effect." Again, I will send you a copy of Professor Singer's paper if you so wish in which he concluded that the C02 reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol would yield elastically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change." He also said that "there is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol." Even if all the signatories achieved their C02 reduction targets! i And we now know that they didn't achieve them. in conclusion Prelksser Singer said that [3 ND DISPUTE AT All, ABOUT THE FACT THAT. EVEN lF OBSERVED. T'l ll-I KYOTO PRUTOCCIL WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON OMS A DEGREE BY THE YEAR 2050." To put it all in simple terms. I. Mun-made COB doesn't cause signi?cant global warming. 2. Wind turhines make little difference to Britain's {?02 emissions 3. h?lan-niade (?02 emissions are rising and the only thing the Westent nations can do is slow the rate of" increase to a very smell extent. l-lttge investments are being planned fer more and more wind particularly eff-shore terms which at least doubles the capital eests. Muelt is made 01' the jobs whieh ttre being created but the} are net "real" jobs. .?i-Iueh effort and expertise is heint:T expended tn build thtiusunds ttl'tltese giant machines which basically achieve nothing. It is money den-n the drain at a time el?great dif?cult}: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP mi l?rrlhut'lent l- thrusttii[_ninniuns 5? "t Edward Dave} MP Secretary of State Department ofEnergy' and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW 1 A EHH 35 March 2013 Dear Ed urt 1er to previous correspondence. I enclose a copy ofa letter I have received from the above constituent of mine about river dredging and renewable energy. I would be grateful it'you could let me have a reply to the additional points that have been raised. ?r'ours sincerer 1an land: l. :1 12.1-7: Dear Mr Liiley Many thanks for your letters of 21? January and 11" February enclosing responses from the two Ministers. I apologise for the delay in replying but I have been rereading their letters in an attempt to make complete sense of them. I am somewhat amazed that thore are two Depts. dealing with the problem of ?ooding although they are coming from two different directions. What a complete waste of time money and effort. if the Civil Service were a commercial organisation they would have one Dept dealing with this probiemJ watched part of Country File last evening and they dealt with the above. Farmers want to do something but are frustrated be all the red tape from the Environment Agency. I would also point out they neither Minister answered my question about the depth of our rivers compared with 50 years ago. In respect of Renewable Energy i fail to see how using an existing mill race can increase the risk of ?ooding whoever wrote such rubbish obviously lives in a townAlso they are more concerned about fish than energy. Many peeple are suffering because of the cost on energy. Wind Mills are very expensive and inefficient but still you persist. No doubt they do add to our energy. i travelled through Germany last year and all I could see were Solar Panels everywhere. i only saw ONE windmill on land. i am not interested in being told how many 6W5 of power were installed in 1950 i am talking about NOW. The reply from Edward Davey proves my point above about TWO Agencies, when he states that they have to get PERMISSION from the Environment Agency. Just stop pussyfooting around and wasting Taxpayers money and start being ef?cient and pro-active. I sometimes watch the towns of? Yes Minister? and they are as true today as they were when they were first shown. SIR HUMPHREY still lives. The Conservatives came to power saying you would cut waste. From the replies 1 have received you appear to have failed in at least two Depts. I do appreciate that you are only passing on information to me and I thank you most sincerely for your indulgence in these matters. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member or Parliament trir and [?L'Jt'peitden House at [simian A Ur?L-lt Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A EHl-l 08 April 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy pt?an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about his support for amendments to the Energy Bill for the creation ofa sustainable biomass sector. I would be gTateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. /7Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay) ill-l. Ill"l -l 4" Fmtil: tettllu; Lu: t?eterl lilt?LLIJJle 3544?? Subject: Please ensure the Ener?' Bill delivers for our climate and wildlife Rt Hon Peter Lille-y MP Dear Mr llille}: I am writing to urge you to add your natnc to tu-o amendments to the Energy Bill in support of the creation ol?a sustainable biomass sector. These amendments provide a critical safety net that will help ensure that public subsidies For burning unsustainable wood in power stations are limited and targeted at only the most ef?cient technologies. Current (Em-eminent plans for subsidies for the sector will result in hunting the equivalent of up to sis times more wood than the entire hart?est nationwide. This threatens to increase greenhouse gas emissions - The RSPB. Friends of the Earth and (lreenpeaee recently published a report entitled ?Dirtier than (0511'? showing that electricity generated using wood could increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 49% compared to using coal over 4? years. they could also have a devastating impact on woodland n-ildlit'e in countries that will provide the sand. The Energy Bill provides a unique opportunity to address this. The amendments will only allow long-term support to be awarded to large power plants that want to burn biomass iithey' are titted with combined heat and power or carbon capture and storage technology; This will ensure that subsidies are only given to ef?cient power plants that genuinely sat-e greenhouse gas emissions. whilst helping to keep the overall size of the sector within sustainable limits. Please support the creation ot'a sustainable biomass sector by adding your ntutte to amendment numbers 32 and 33 Yours sincerely Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP rule: ?r lin? Inr mu." Hume u! {lg-Lil Rt Hon Edward Davey Secretary ol?State Department ol?Energy and Climate Change 3 ll?Vhltehall Place London - SW 1 A EAW 23 April 2013 Dear Ed ene use a cup}: of a letter I have received item the above constituent ul?mine about energy costs. I would. be grateful ifjmu could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely llt?i. ill? Hi" -31" .LF-?ll' The Rt. Honourable Peter Lilley MP House of Commons London SW1 0AA Dear Mr. Liltey, Further to my letter of the 8'11 of April, I again refer to the "The Cost of Power and water?i Notwithstanding the fact that i think the power companies should have the cost of power capped by government because there is no real competition, we oonstantty are told that the cost of wholesale power is ever increasing and that is why we are being charged more. Please refer to the attachment: ?Nuclear Revival Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump? (Feb 14: 2013) This information was downloaded from the in?uential Bloomberg website. (Copy attached.) quote from various sections of this report: ?Now a combination of cheaper European power prices and carbon "German wholesale power prices have more than halved since 2008 The point being that elechtcity in the UK, supposedty in a position as a member of the EU to take advantage of this sort of situation, only sees price increases What is the point of being a member of the EU Why are the retail prices in the UK continuing to increase Someone is not telling the and your government is behind the curve again. With all the costs of the 'Quangos', ?Boards of Enquiry? ?Ombudsman? and Watchdogs? who is allowing this to happen Mr. Lilleyl to be frank. it is just not good enough. Nuclear Revival Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump: Energyr - Page I of 4 atom-eat. :17! i-a - .r 4:23.52- 1 1 RENEW rd 1 I 5-: g. {3.1 . Le amps ?an rid mus: 2.835;; wt: 511.? A wn?H 5.333 -- on: man :e'ru airman-y Huh-5mm! Any-rerun hem-3.6mm: :44: I ME WROH VETS- 312-29. TV VIDEO 112': - ?n mnemnm gmuvmr-merom gunmaoirm Nuclear Revival Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump: Energy Er.- En: 3% Fa ?4 ELF- -. 2. 9.: A Cir-em Hernia-pianimm phoned nearthe Gannm horderhed bus-enema of?m few m'izes left for Emape?s Maw-pour iridium: altar Ina Fukmh?na damn-stepped ant-aim from mom In Romania. Russia-rand nanometers Me pmeeredtn bidimme?? mum contraer wists-re Newaoonm?na?on of mammarpdqu?rbmum fa?ingdemmdforelewimy and B's mired :ndnubt, amused measures?. Europe looth elm hdeeq'sald Fri-fair.- Sc?meidev, an Independent commas-Iron Peristuclenrutao Mahatma-1mg, r?csky.? Abandoring the Temrn prom mild deal another ?owt: the fobmlenng nuclear Irdmuy in Europe. andtn comm-dare such as M's Chem. and Electric Corp, a?ermezm?l awe-armature Fummn'ra Jam Brim Ma'E-dki 341';- ?2 I: Eben t< - Mar-1 cm 3" ?aw: 5111' e- Thecamoq?reiedmmanytowtrn llamm?elhfyano matron-ed buildng piers Hal-Bots aheacfundormyin Furlend have med delays anew-swam The Czech Renubiieandfheujc. weseen am the tonumpean Simone-3! commenttonewnodea-panhs. New projects in 'Atdisuclm?lhe Terrain moqu no mammals,?me Snohr. aCEZurmrahol-dar and anenerwamhorbd? Benkaregue. manners betmmduy ?akyfanEZmdme-Czech?epe?cm mam! Cenh'iea today in Pragm.rheeteepeeldroo inaweek. The uh'l'rty Joe: 13 3.1 perm einoe?'re ?eeinninnof?us year Twain's More look: wan less certain after Genuine Pie bailed out of the pun In build on Feb. 4.Adayla?er. dome sane mien lhe U.K gramme-d mm the profeuE: pm'i?labie. h?p 1 3 ?02- I 4/nuelem-revivaI-dying-in -. . . European Shel: Are Lulu PPR. Enb MW 0 internal Suite Fh Trad-mm Par Amid Shamr- Salk Prim-rem In Gm Inns-tum? LLB: Rabi! his Um onm Walla-let Warm Lev-y- Back?uur Texan Lumen. LLK. ansSay to turn. eccenture ?ail chu?r 2h Anal-hum HWMM WW Mum's?l?ingG'?ln Hilaqu mm. News You May Like Simulale Glaze Lmefy tnExilEum 1111': Year. Fl concept: Tamers?; ta 'n-ea-t 1 5/02/20 13 f? Nuclear Rewval Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump: Energy - Page 2 of 4 MWWMEWHHEH il'upira?on. TheCzech utility aasungm amen-Imam. iamjo?h'sfaremldar. mam-tee Wanamaqu msme?ia?tgetsmm an mim?hmm Ghluf Flume: Drinar Mania Maxim aFd: 1 hienriuwin the Booms-?ue. News From Around Ina Web mum. laid. Wham-hum an cudanunu miaasump IHEU mm" urban medmmhofnudesar'a amefn-as?mmt g: gum-l gm mama-gm mm MAW mmana?iru'urtha mam smell-19mm Rmismudny 11 un?aand rndia I tun-Melba m1m-mnp Wm Rama-Ion Fastbaivary Amp New a mumm?m MMHM Politic:le Iain. Mag; I 'Mm 1mm, Hummus Mm a rummweeu?mum mum minister Jan CEhM?dl?'nddehdmaTD mecm ands Wm haw mm'a mmca?wmt?m-a SA'nddlutOdober. New haunted? appear-4% MUEtendm pram. Investor hopes af?rming a We imam: lining 14:: ?nanm the new Tame?n wanna have ham-1mm mammal alias-amulth my: arm rmmaapa?ng Elihu-m CFO Nmklaid. ualngamm?m?onal'caah?aw ar?de?, CFO Hominid. alummnemm-ur Mam than?. Pm Price Walkman Grail Slim ??rst: 1 [apart ?Smiaim?e I 4muclear-re?vaI-dying-in-. . . 15/02f2013 Nuclear Revival Dying in Eta-ope as Power Prices Slump: Energy - Page 3 of 4 many ofCEZiB?g'??uamy worse?san madame, Mis?rme by hedu?m' Realms-.man Dru?um: mull" MTane?n poasibta. mam add mm mm Petr Baneklmeamazmzl pru?tes?matesfm??byasmmas 10parmnt, mummy-mama nuclear grammarsan Europe. Rormmals mum RWEAG, GDFEUEZSA madman. MCEZpt?ledwt?ma-i??nn-mn Winzn?. Bum has been unaunulure muwalmaemm.m L?unim mummies-nu mamtmmegamerh Wm a noan referanmm in October. Evan autumn-Juan begins. anditmawtddam madden mum mm. Novaicnld magdm' Tamm?umrIgun?smry: Lm?warm-ain Praguea! mauetwa?bmombergnet net lulu-Inn; Emm?na'll ammEm-Jpa Ecum Fur:- can? clam-smu- MW Stratum-?y 3w waste-awn meats GET THE POLITICAL MEAL NEWSLETTER. LEE mar: Videos You May Like WWs?n?a?i Maura-2t ~H1mwcutm?mme mus: US. Framed W13 are mi: am marinas 5qu Drum mum-as um BM If? not swim All Tm Gum? F?s-mess: Elm ?Hm Mammy? mains m?ugumwnamem me a ?duh. Add New Commem Trp: mum hm: Shmuing 3 0113 on Nudaar Revival Dying in Europe as Power PliesSlump: Energy Mm, Gil-.5513: Hap-dusk Wm. http:/vaw. bloomberg. comjnews/SZD] 3 -02- Iliuuclcar-revivaI-dying?m-u . 1 5102120 13 Rt Hon Peter Lille}? NIP Eleni?her ml l'iitt'ltit- nit-J 3' I. 7-. Lumlt'ln 5W 1 A [m Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A EAW 3mm}: 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email have received from the above constituent of mine about energy costs. I would be gateful it'you could let me lime a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerer I in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay) .lL-i. ?53" ?ll? ?Vi?7 [-Ktx- [ljil tecgli?utcku? Subject: Stop the Energy Swindle Dear Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP. As my HP. I hope you will support the Stop the Energy Swindle campaign to cut the taxes that are adding so much to our energy hills. Tases are already more than a fifth ofa typical bill and they are set to increase prices by nearly another third hy 2020 and double them by 2030. You need to take serious action to cut energy tastes. Not just pretend to he angry at energy companies tthile promising them fat pro?ts if they invest to meet European Union climate targets. There are three critical changes that are needed: I. Cut subsidies for expensive sources ot?energy like wind turbines. OlTshore wind in particular is enormously expensive and driying up energy costs. 2. Scrap the carbon price ?oor for the Ell Emissions Trading System. It increases prices for British families and businesses but does nothing to reduce overall emissions. 3. Drop artificial obstacles to the development ot?neu affordable sources of energy like British shale gas and ef?cient modern coal poo. er plants. Other European countries have cut renewable energy subsidies in order to ease the harden on families struggling to intake ends meet since the recession. We should do the same thing here. Britain pressing ahead alone will do nothing for the climate. but it uill make life a lot harder for families and drive industry out of Britain costing people their jolts. Thank you for reading my email and I hope that you will support action for affordable energy. If you want to find out more. you can yisit eneretsuindleore. Yours sincerely. Rt Hon Peter Lilley NIP ljl'llJIIl'Jll'L I'l- lonelth B?Wll Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Seeretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A ZAW 15 August 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ot?a letter and enclosure have received From the above constituent of mine about the use ofthorium as an alternative nuclear fuel. 1 would be?tehl ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. f" - ?ll/I" - .. {k L, keg Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay Id; '22? ?Li? l'Jif "it-.4 vault 'E?Him pm; Maj HP. 44 Mny3d?l3. - makes: l. Wisatlemt?um?nasmumpkn??dmanmm 2. My. b) m?mm?nnm 3. Mum - aming?le cos! ofits long yeamofsrmage. 4. Leilis IMitconhehalf?o ask?latjmu-hkeup 1 up. Them-Md mksufmlm?mpo??wabunmc?mmdingm Thorium: it?s green, nuclear, safe An alternative nuclear fuel could answer the main energy problems. says Anthony Priddls WILL we have enough from power stations in 20 years tirne? What about our carbon footprint? ls nuclear pom-er a safe ?oo? Those vital questions have me to look a I at thorium. an altemative on- car fuel to uranium. Thorium can help us artswer all these questions. but only if our Government osm- mits itself to the development of it as a fuel. The House of Lords ms 13- ph?n with these issues last week, in a dc to about how nudist: potter could height: UK meet its goals for climate ge- energy security. It was a ddmte. after the publication at end of March of the Government's Review ofUK nu- clear research and developmt. and the new Nuclear Industrial Strat - These two documents give a message that we need to irhcrense sig- m?can our nuclear cap betwees'tsynow and 2050. To aavfxd dangerous global warm' the re- U'iew sin that we no a live- increase from current Insets of 18 per cent reliance on nuclear energy to more than 85 per oent. women: report is set Igainst background ofa dram- ttic increase in oil prices since 2005. 1nd an increasing international :ctvieen the supply and demant?if Ii] since 2010, projections that arth?s temperature will rise more hon width 50 years. and our Iwn Govunment?s committing us i an M-p?-cent reduction in srbou-dimidc emissions by 2050. Sir David King. the chief scient? ic adviser to thet?rzvious Govern? Icnt. argues that Italian balance lpa ntswasintheblack in 100. ?lms now gone ?38 billion to the red, of which ?34 billion is 1: to the increased cost of im- thed oil since the turn of the The UK is also moving toWards creasing mdcocy on oil and 5 im cause of the fall in 3rd: 3; production: now. nearly cent of our national annual de?cit 11.answer for with our An 3km to dis? Dungmess Mideas- Power Sutton. in Kent economic crisis. but so does the cost of fossil-?re! energy. WHEN mostolusthinltofnuclear energy, we midst ungium solid- reactors. pro il in: quicld . of Fukushirua, and rec Mile Island. We on to think of huge quantities nuclear With. Not far behind come our con- ca'ns about Iran. North Korea. ter- rorist threats. and nodes: weapons. It forms a sad and worrying list. U?nlum. however. is not the only possible nuclear fuel. It has longheen known that an altemative, namely thlgitlf?. in?rm four times more . gust quantities in Anatolia. India. the United States. and Nanny. Thorium has huge advantage: om uranium It issaferh't severaldifferentways. Pint. Thorium can be used in molten-salt reactors, the as- ture of which self-regulates an can he 'switched off" instantly. Second. the way in which thorium is burned as a nuclear ?id means Hiat the radioadive isotopa that are created are less eusil],l med for nuclear weapons. because the thorium ?tel cycle produces no plutonium. d. thorium creates much less waste, and what does tannin is signi?un?y less radioactive and dangerous than the waste from uranium reactors. Most of the radio- active products will become inert udthin just 30 years. as compared With hundreds of years from uran- ium reactors. Furthermore. thorium reactors noin enable us to burn much of our existing nuclear waste. which is costingsvastamoom to store and decmission What is currently regarded as ?waste? could he fumed into?sel. and become an asset. Aharoftheelernentthornimis assa?easaharoi?soop. Thorium itself is not radioactive, hut becomes so in the nuclear processes that use it as a fuel One tonne of thorium could pom: a city ofa million people for a uranium lunlertt is 20!) tonnes. It would El more than three million tonnes ofcoal to pro- vide the some moor of INH. which would produce more than eight tonnes of carbon dioxide to pollute the a?nosphere. YOU might be wondering why It lure never heard about Hionuyom he?n'e. and why the world has not lnvosted initinnhigway. 111mm good nations. The answer is prhnardy that nuclear power and nuclear have been so closely the 193th that near! all the research money and dose has gone into uranium. The roost signi?cant factor was that the US NEW needed to develop nuclear submarines if it was to be able to "delitrer" nuclear weapons. Without dint capacity. [he US Navy Would have had little 5mm. The research and dovelopment needed to brin our knowledge of thorium up to t?e same level as that of uranium is neither quirk not cheap. China is currently,r investing $350 million into thorium molten- salt reactors. India has committed itselfto thorium rematch. There are opporttmities for us to work lntemationally and collabor- ative-ll: off the: moment, bit: thclosed. if Ellaina ends up with advances that it does not want to share Fully with others. Thercisalsoscopetobuildon the existing work being done with No . and. to a lesser es. with rants. besides establis 'n stronger links with the wor going an in India. We have considerable lac. plr- I in how molten salts behave. that we can bring to the inter- national table. Wharttre need is: - more awareness of the advantages ofthoriurn as a sale. green fuel; - want more money?r spam on rcsear and development; - intermtional too-operation; - a convincin Givernrnenr?led strategy to ennh us to get there. The importance of thorium for fuelling the world is too grant for its . develo ment to continue to be over- The reasons for IEnvisioning uranium in the 193-05 ave now been stood on their head. and have bacon}: good reasons for preferring thorium to uranium. Thorium can- not easily" be used for nuclear . has fewer radioactive waste products. can he used it higher temper-sons and in molten? form. and is safer and greener. Because of the lead-time often to 15 years for research and development. there must be invest- ment based on car. strategic think- ing. We need this now. The Rt Rel-d (?Ethan-1y Priddis is ill; Bi of Here rd. and secretary mchaw Forlinmmtaiy Group on Thorium (1. Lint/6c Tail.? 3 S. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP h-?lemlier of Parliament for Hitchin and Harpenden House of Conunqu London 1% Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate hange 3 Whitehall Place London SW 1A 2A 2 October 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about Chinese investment in the construction of Hinkley Point Plant in Somerset. would be grateful it?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel. ?107394571 Fax: (Ll-1' 7319' 134? [?n1.1Il: feedback?: wu Having recently learnt ut? the agreement ta allow the Chinese eemmunieatims giant Huau'ei access to ear eemmunieatiuns infrastructure. with much enneern. I am appalled ted-a} to learn that the Chinese are to buy inth our nuclear industry. The fact that in heth industries are used tn hate a lea-ti is sad. but climlung into hed with China. a eentmantl with a. dreadful human rights record. an increasingly belligerent tt'erlcl pasture and about whose future intentions he knea- se little. seems mad. \?l'hat happens in the future it we wish raise concerns ahnut 'l'ihetat?ill the Chinese quietly apply pressure to nut? sources nl? pmrer'? In light ut?cnncerns raised in Parliament ahnut securit} isSues- as well as the refusal ttl?l and (lmernmenls to allow lluawei {with it?s alleged tn the Chinese militar} aecess to their markets. our course nt?aetinn is rash to say the least. I and il'nut mast ether:- dcu not trust Chinese assuranees at fair are we getting nut ol'this ministerial keratin-ting. is Brilish industry net-r heing granted greater access tn Chinese markets and c011traets'7 It seems nur eumpetitnrs do not have Ic- themselx'es tn like this extent to gain atl'. antage in the Chinese markets. why- shnuld we make ourselves an international struck Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitchm and ['lilrpL'E?IthJT?. House of Comran London 1A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of? State Department ol?Energ}: and Climate han ge 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A ZAW 23 October 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about energy policy. I would be grateful it?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerer ?in 721?.- m- um "mu 1340 Email: The article focuses on recent German experience of energy costs and carries the sub-title ?Europe's electricity providers face an existential threat?. Of most concern is the fact that on June 16? this year, the price of electricity in Germany for was minus ?100. This made me wonder. having just switched my energy provider away from British Gas for the first time, why policy makers have created such a mess where the cost of energy increases all the time. when it is perfectly possible with the right mix of energy sources for energy to be produced at virtually nil cost. and so passed to the consumer for much less than is the case today. ask myself the question, what would the world look like if the grid price for energy was minus ?120 per every day? And if this is the world we want to live in a world where energy is as cheap as can possibly be how do we get ourselves there? Part of the answer lies in not forcing the energy companies to levy the cost of expensiver subsidised wind farms, but to insist that the costs arise purely from the profit to be gained from these infrastructure installations in the first place. Not only would this cut the number of such unsustainable projects, but it would also mean that the economic case for them would require an essentially different projection. The Germans suffer a residential energy cost of ?285 per against a generation cost! price of ?38 per among the highest differential in the world. I mentioned when we met at the weekend that it seems to me the business model for the UK energy previders, the "big six", is increasingly flawed. worry that the effect of this will be continuous price rises {which for PR purposes will be blamed on the renewable levy i foisted upon an unsuspecting public. This means not only that we need tighter regulation of the gas producer-sellers, but government intervention to help them change their business model from the model to one of energy service providers. This is what the Economist article suggests. So what of the future? We suffer in this country from a chronic lack of long term planning - not just in energy. which was all but forgotten by the Blair government that refused steadfastly to consider a nuclear solution, another reason we are where we are - but also in infrastructure planning on transport. Successive governments need to adopt a workable agenda of their predecessors in working towards a sensible mix of 1 traditional and renewable power generation. Gas power generators need to be on standby for peak power with the remaining industry being provided by a mix of nuclear. clean coal and renewable. With sufficient investment in renewables of the right kind, the UK can be energy independent, but this should not, in my view. come at the expense of the taxpayer. All of the policy initiatives of the Brown government in this field seemed to me to have been driven towards a supplicant workforce and controlled industry. fer ever to be grateful for the handouts from Whitehall. The result is a disaste ve too much of the wron kind of renew If only those in Ed Davy?s department would do more to review. promote and provide government aid to these emergent technologies, a new blend of renewable technology would arise. The investment from Government is needed not in the subsidies to customers to sell back their over~generated energy to the grid but to these small innovation companies to get their technologies tested, passed through compliance and out into the market place. Sadly. thus far. our view oi the Carbon Trust is that it is an organisation without the capacity to consider technologies that do not fit with the government fashion of the day and I believe this is subduing innovation and technological advance. it acts as a barrier to technology. not a promoter. It was a relief to hear this morning?s announcement about Hinkley Point. This offers some hope for future generations. but more is needed and until we can work towards a more comprehensive mix of energy generation capacity. the same problems will continue. Quite how one can produce a sufficient consensus on a long term solution [50 plus years) that will survive successive changes of governments. is beyond me- it is probably hopeless as your recent commentary on the IPCC demonstrates, but I would welcome a different type of debate on these matters than has been possible until very recently. The coalition is winning more and more of the arguments. All we need now is a Conservative government with a working majority. I know i have rambled on somewhat. but i should welcome your thoughts in this field and if you feel minded to pass on this email to Ed Davy, that would be welcomed too. Kind regards. How to lose half a trillion euros Europe's electricity provid ers face an existential lhreai NJUNE with something very peculiar happened in Germany?s electricity market. The wholesale price of electricity tell to minus ?100 per megawatt hour Thai is. generating companies were having to pay the managers of the grid :0 talte their electricity.? was a bright. breezy Sunday Demand waslowdietween 1pm and 3pm. soiar and wind generamrs produced 25.9 gigawatts low} of power. more than half the total. The grid at that time could notcope with more than 6150 without becoming unstable. At the peril-2. total generation was over slow: so prices went negative to encourage outbacks and protect the grid from overloading. The trouble is that plants using nuclear fuel or brown coal are designed to run full blast and cannot easily reduee pro ducrion. whereas theextra energy from so- lar and wind power is free. So the burden of adjustment fell on gas??red and hard- coai power plants. whose output plum- meted to only aboutto?b ot'capecity. These events were a microcosm of the changes affecting all places where renew obit: sources of energy are becoming more important-Europe as a whole and Ger- many in particular. To environmentalists these changes are a story of triumph. Re? nett'able. low-carbon energy accounts for an ever-greater share of production. it is helping push wholesale electricity pricos down.and could one day lead to big reduc- tions in greenhouse-gas emissions. For es- tablished utilities. though. this is a disaster. Their gas plants are betng shouldered said: by. renewable-energy sources. They are iosmg tnontty on ElECli?lCilY generation. They worry that the growth of solar and wind power is destabilising the grid. and may lead to blackouts or And they point out that you cannol run a. nor- mal busrness. in which customers pay for services according to how much they conr some. it" prices go negative. In shon. they argue. the growth of rcnewable energy is undermining established utilities and to placing them with sometlmg less reliable and much more expenswe. Power down The decline of Europe?s utilities has cer- :a'miy beenstenling. ?it their peak in roots. the top 20 energy utilities We're worth roughly E1 trillion Now they are worth less than haifthat (sec- charuot?. next patter. Since September zoos. utilities have been lhe worst-performing Sector in the Morgan Stanley l?dEK of global share pnces. In 10:18 the top ten European utili? ties all had credit ratings of A or better. Now only ?ve do. The rot has gone t'uru'iest in Germany. The Economist 13'. :2013 unfit: where electricity from renewable sources has grown fastest. The country's biggest unlity. son. has seen itsshare price fall by from the peak and its in- corne from conventional power genera- tion (fossil fuels and nuclearl fall by more than a third since 2011']. At the second-larg- esi utility. Itws. remrrent net income has also falien by a third since 2010 As the company?s chief ?nancial of?cer laments. "Convontional power generation. quite frankly. as a business unit. is ?ghting for its econo mic survival." The companies would have been in trouble any way. whatever hope: 2 nod to re? newables. During the zouos. European utilities ot-erint'ested In generating caper:- ly from loss Ll [u els. boosting 1 by 1159:3111 Eu- rope as a whole and by more in some countries Iup 921:. in Spam. for examplei. The market for electricity did not grow by nearly that amount. even ir. good times: then the ?nancial crisis hit demand. Ac- cording to the Internetio rial Energy Age n' cy. total energy demand in [Europe will de- cline by miles-tween Join and 2o15. Two in?uences. from outside Europe added to the problems. The ?rst was the Fulcush2ma nuclear disaster in JapanJ?ltts panicked the government Angela Mer- ltel into ore-Hing the immediate closure of of Germany's nuclear-power plants and a phase out of the other nine by 2011. The abruptness of The change added to the utilitles' woew. though many of the plants were scheduled for closure anyway. The other in?uence was the shale-gas bonanza in America. This displaced to Eu- rope cool that had previously been burned in America, pushing European coal prices 25 down relative to gas prices. in the same H- It! 26 Brie?ng European utilities II time. carbon prices crashed because there were too many permits to emit carbon in Europe's emisaions?trading system and the recession cut demand for them. This has reduced the pen ain'es for burning coal. kept pro?t margins at coal-?red power plants healthy and slashed them for gas- ?red plants. Gerard Mesrrallet. chief execu- tive of one Suez. the world's largest elec- tricin producer. says 306?! of gas-?red ca- pacity has been mothballed in Europe since the pea it. including brand-nets.- plants. The increase in coal-burning pushed German carbon emissions up in eaten}. the opposite of what was sup- posed to happen. So the as and nuclear bits of the utili- ries' business were heading for trouble even before the renewables bonanza. making the growth of solar and Wind all the more disruptive. Renewable: capacity (which is much higher than output} is al- most half of electricity-generating capaci- ty in Germany and roughly one-third in Spain and italy. Ibtal ca parity. including re- newables. is way above peel: demand in all three countries. So renewables have added mightily to oversupply. Excess supply plus depressed demand equals lower prices. Electricity prices have fallen from truer ?80 per at peak hours in Germany in zoos iojust ?38 per now (see chart 1). l'I'hese are whole- sale prices; residential prices are ?285 per result. some of the highest in the world. partly bacause they include subsidies for renewables that are one-endothan times. per unit of energy. the power price itself}. As wholesale prices fall. so does the pro?t- ability of power plants. Bloomberg New Energy Finance laurel. a data-provider. reckons that Joanie of owns conven- tional power stations are losing money But that is only the hall of it. Renew- ables have not just put pressure on mart gins. They have transformed the estab- lished business model for utilities. Michael Liebreich. enter-?5 chief executive. come pares them to telephone companies in the 19903. or newspapers lacing social media now: ?it is an existential ducal." he says. Peak punishment Back incite 19305. providing electricity was a relatively simple adorn You guaranteed a constant supply of power by building plants that ran on coal. nuclear energy (if you wanted it) or hydropower lif you had it}. You ran these full blast around the clock?for technical reasons. coal and nuc- lear plants cannot easily be shut down anyway And that provided "baseload power" (the amount always needed}. Then. to supply extra electricity at peak times ?ihelunchtime or early evening] you had plants that could more easily be pow~ erad up and down. such as gas??red ones. if you imagine a chart of power provisionn during the day. it looks lilte a layer cakezthe I Dim and dimmer European utilities share price. 5 terms Jan zoos-too I - I 2005 Di 03' DB inmmUIm-msotl I I 031011 1213 bottom layers are ?at (nuclear. coal and so forth l; the layer at the top (gas) is wavy Deregulation swept away this tidy. o'r- deied system. letting power plants pro. duce according to the marginal cost ofelec- uicity. The advent of renewable energy then speeded up the changes. Renewables have "grid priority". meaning the grid must take their electricity ?rst. This is a le- gal requirement. to encourage renewable energy inEttrope. But it is also logical: since the marginal cost of wind and solar power is zero. grids would take their power ?rst anyway So renewable energy slots in at the bottom of the layer cal-re. But unlike the baseload providers already in place {nuc- lear and coal}. solar and wind power are intermittent. surging with the weather. So the bottom layers ofthe cake are wavy. too. Now when demand ?uctuates, it may not be enough just to lower the output of gasr?red generators. Some plants may have to be switched off altogether and same coal-?red ones turned down. This happened on June if: Lb. it is costly because scaling back coal-?red plants is hard. It makes elecniciry prices more volatile And it is having a devastating edect on pro?ts. Under the old system. electricity prices spiked during peak hours (the middle of the day and early evening}. falling at night as demand ebbed. Companies made all their money during pea]: pounds. But the middle of the day iswhen solar generation is strongest. Thanks to grid priority. solar I Grouper for some a German y'tt wholesale oil-cold ty Will2011 1.2 13 m: ?lo-3W5 The Economist ?ctotter 12th 2013 grabs a big chunlr ofthat peak demand and has competed away the price spike In Ger many in zoos. according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems. peak? hour prices were ?14 per above ba~ seload prices. In the ?rst sir: months of am}. the premium was 633. So not only have average electricity prices fallen by half since zoos. but the peak premium has also fallen by almost four-?fths. No won~ der utilities are in such a ess. it will get worse. The combination of European demand and Chinese invest- ment has slashed the cost of solar panels by abour two-thirds since root. (see chart 3 on next page}. in Gennany. the coat of gen cratinga megawatt hour dielectricin with solar panels has fallen to ?150. above wholesale prices but below the ?tted price that renewables receive and below resi- dential prices. This means solar generalr' on may rise even if Germany's new govern men! cuts subsidies to renewable; ?their challenge to the old utilities will increase. Moreover. in the pa st few years utilities have been hedging, selZing two-thirds of their power one to three years ahead lie. they are reserving loin prLces lot energy delivered today}. This has insulated them from the full impact of recent price falls. Those contracts expire tr. rota-15. ?ts the chief executive of no}: 53:: recently: "For 1:13 and 2014.110 recovery itsl in sight." Wood. wind section Utilities are not powerless tn the face of these problems. and {1193' are not all alien- ed equally. The big six British utilities. for example. have been sheltered by their long-term agreement With the regulator. though lhEir pro?t margins remain thin. Some utilities have got turn the renew- ables business themselt?e 5. Brett. which used to be Britain?s large st coal?red power station. is being converted to run on wood pellets. Other utilities are big investors in offshore wind power. But by and large utilities have been slow to invest. Epecially in solar. Utilities own only 795 of renewables capacity in Germany: for example. The problem is that solar energy is so diEtz-rent from what they are used to. The oldvt?ashroned utility been big expensive power plant with. say. of capacity. The plant sits in the mid- dle of radiating web of woes down which the ?rm distributes power. Solar power is different. Photovoltaic panels are cheap. tiny la mediumrsired array may have a capacity of just rorawi and ar- ranged in error. not as ahub with Spokes. Utilities may eventually get more seri- ous about ten ewabie energy. but arthe mo- ment change is slow. Instead. utilities are responding to their tunes by shifting out of power generation and into activities. such as trading and o?'en'ng cus- tomers advice on energy use. In the past EB Brie?ng ?urapean utilities bit-w months Vattem?all. Sweden's biggest utility. has written off as. of its assets and three Gennan ?rms. nor-u. awe and snow. have announced capacity cuts of anew has gone furthest in out- leng what the future might look like. It says its earnings from electricity genera- tion will fall by 30's. in 2012?10. o?set by higher earnings from energy servtces and renewables. ?We have to rethink what is our role. and our place in the energy sec- tor," says its boss. Frank Mastiaux. Clean break For the companies. or ranching change and plunging share prices are obviously wor- rying. But should anyone else care? As Amory Lovins ot' the Rocky Mountain In- stitute. art Amen can thinlota nit. points out. Germany has built a low-carbon energy business to the point where new solar power needs few subsi dies; where whole? sale energy prices are falling and threats to the ised.What's the problem? There are several answers. First. utilities have suffered vast losses in assetvaluation. Their market capitalisation has fallen over ?500 billion in ?ve years. That L5 more than European bani: shares lost in the same period. These losses matter in their own pension funds and other in vestors. they represent lost capital and lower future earnings. For employees. they translate into lower wages and lost ijS. The losses?many of which predate the boom in renewable energy?have come on top of the huge sums Europeans have also spent on climate-change policies. Subsi- dies for renewable energy are running at ?16 billion a year in Germany land rising): the cumulative cost is around ?60 billion. Ne xt. utilin as have lost their investment role. Once they were Steady. reliable and inflation-resistant. the us Treasuries of the equity markets. Pension funds need such assets to ha] a use their long-term liabilities. But utilities no longer play this role. as evinced nut just collapsing share prices but by dividend policies. Until 1008 the yields of awe and 5.0.x tracked German tenvyear bonds. Since then. they have soared to around tots. while government- bund yields have stayed ?at. Renewables are not theonly risky investment. Most imponant. the decline in utilities? fortunes raises disturbing quesu?ons about the future of Europe's lectncity ayatem. To simplify: European countries are slowly piecing together a system in which there Will be more low carbon and intermittent energy sotuces: more energy suppliers; more modern power stations (replacing coal and nudear plants}: more and better storage: and more energy traded across borders. MI this will be held together by "smart grids". which tell consumers how much power they are using. shut off appli- ances when not needed and manage do I Costa det solar Germany's: subs:de review-antes ion 16 12 t3 . 21307 08 ll? ID Some}: Flu-tum mand more ef?ciently. in such a world. the old~fashtoned util- ities play two vital roles. They will be the electricity generators of last msort. ensur? ing the lights stay on when wind and solar generators tun not of puff. And they will he providers of investment to heip build the grand new grid. It is not clear that util- ities are in good enough shape to do either of these things. So far. ll is true. they have managed to provide backup capacity and the grid has not failed. even in solar- and windmacl Germany. In fact. the Gennan grid is more reliable than most (countries run reliabil- ity indict-s: Germany has one of the high- est scores in Europe}. Greens therefore dis- miss worries that renEWa'oles 1will undermine grid reliability. pointing out that. as wind and solar plants spread over the continent. there will be enough wind or sun somewhere to run some of them. at least during the day. Maybe. But as the price swings in Ger- manyshow. ii is getting harderto maintain grid stability. Utilities are not rewarded for offsetting the variable nature of wind and solar power. in stead. they are shifting out of electricity generation. And this is hap- pening at a time when renewable energy supplies. on average. 12% of Lierrnany?s electricity demand. No one really knows what will he ppen when reneWables reach 35% of the market. as government policy requires In 2020. let alone-1f they reach the national target of 80% in man. almost everyone acknowledges that as the share The Economist October 12th 2013 of renewable energy rises. regulation of the grid will have to change. The role of utilities as investors is also sums required toup- grade the grid are huge. as much as E1 tril- lion in Enrope by euro. Companies worth Esoo billion cannot ?nance anything like thatamount.lnstead.theyare cutting capi- tal Spending. That of RWE {for example] has fallen from ?64 billion to ?5 billion smce son. and most expect it to Fall to ?15 billion by 1015. Of that. ?15 bil- lion will go on main ranting existing plants. leaving just ?21 billion for development spending?half of present levels. In their current state. utilities cannot ?nance Eu- rope's hoped-for clean-energy system. And that has implications for the in mm. Tomalte up forlacl: of investment by utilities. governments will have to per? suade others to Step in. such as pension funds orsovereign-wealth Funds?utthese entities have always invested :n energy in- directly. by holding stakes in utilities. not directly. And for a reason: they dleilte the political rislcs of owning projects in which governments play a role. either through planning or in some coun- tries there are also laws against owning as- sers both upstream (generators! and down tdistributionl. Over the past 30 years European gov- ernments have been trying to deregulate energy markers. privatistng Statooumed companies and splitting electricity genera- tion from transmission and distribution. The aims were to increase competition. boosr eli'tciency and cut. prices. Those goals are now harder to achieve. Renewable energy has grabbed a growing share of the market. pushed wholesale prices down and succeeded in us goal of driving down the price of new technol- ogies. But the subsidy cost also has been large. the envrronmental gains non-exis tent so far and the damage done to today's utilities much greater than expected. Eu- rope tn general and Germany in particular see themselves as pioneers of low-carb on energy If they are genuinely to be so. they will need to design a much better electric- ity system th at rewardslow carbon energy without reducing reliability and imposing undue and unecessarycosts. I .5: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member nl' l'nrlitann?nt :or Hitt'hzn anti use Hon Eduard Davey MP Secretary of State Department ot?Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA ZAW I I October 30 3 Dear Ed I enclose a coo}? of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about the construction oinnkle}: Point nuclear power station. would be grateful it?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tri: lint: Hill 7.11? Dear Mr Liiley, One could not make it up. A foreign government?owned power company financed by another foreign government, Communist which has the intention of propagating World Communism and using capitalism as its weapon, are given the contract by our government to build at least one new nuclear power station. The electricity from which will cost us at least double our existing charge. Or possibly not, the way electricity and gas prices are rising without any control by the Government. npower?s 11% being the latest that the Government is powerless to stop. Wringing of hands and market inrces .. Why is it ok for foreign governments or foreign companies to own our power generation, railways, buses, and much else which Thatcher sold off, cheaply, yet an anathema for Britain to own them? To mis-quote Ali 6: "'Is it coz we i2 broke?" Or is it because thanks to an appalling education system in Britain for the past 30 years, we do not have the in-house expertise to build nuclear power stations? Pensioners will soon, if not now, choose between heating or lighting. A group for whom Mr Hunt shed many crocodile tears last week. Oh howl laughed. I appreciate that unless the Hinckley unit is built there will not be enough capacity in the UK to run H52. Which is probably the real reason for the contract. We Will pay dearly for these follies in the long run. The latter will benefit no town or city along its route. Only those at each end. So we will pay for the wealthy to be wafted at high speed between office and home, which they can afford to heat and light, when many Britons cannot. it would not make a good plot for the Mann Booker Prize. Too fantastic. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member Hi Parliament Ior Hitrltin and [.trpenden House of Commum London i A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A ZAW 18 October 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ofan email I have received from the above constituent of mine about government advice to consumers to switch energy suppliers. I would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely lei: Ill? 4?37? ih-HI' Email: t'L-L'dluclm l-m'm dctdi [a bclvu'i Wmald the planar: lake on hunrd it is wry bud udx inn: tn cnmuragc Energy Customers; to suppliers when Clearly (ill the big (5 are in the pr'uccarz uf?hiking prices un-c eu'ler the other. The Prime .K-Iinistcr lndu? 171(1) shuuld kmm' hauler. In any cave. customers knmx- nm ultich is uh)- lherc': [In ions reluctance to take [his :1le ice. (famcrun Ml. 31? DO I ?Mi tangible abuts! mic-:5 bcl?m'c Lik- ulccliun ur i?acc atrium 105:; of support Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitcltin and Horpenden House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Rt Hon Ed Davey MZP Secretary of State Department for Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A ZHH 7 November 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from?about the need to enhance powers to enable it to stop increases in the cost 0 energy prices by the Big 6 Energy Companies. 1 would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points he has raised. Yours sincerely ?e Tel: llEU 721?} 4577 Fax: (12? 72 I9 3840 Email: feetlhacki?petcrlilleyxouk Rt Hon Peter Lille}; MP. PC iI-litclten a House ot'Comntons. London SW I A 0AA Dear Mr Straightaway to thank you for your letter dated 30 October and indeed for the speed and aptness ofyour repl} to my earlier letter dated 21' October. Clearly you have effective avenues of communication with the chairman of the Energy 3.: Climate Change Select Committee and are tlsing these on behalf ofenergy consumers. The key element - the test is essential? chasine shadows - in the present enormous fracas is an ineffective offgent. li?i?hat mean by ineffective lS offgem?s present powerlessness unlike offset} to block proposed retail price increases {esp ifsbove in?ation). With its present effete powers ott?gem is frankly a laughing stock but at the same time a friend and even in effect a collusive associate extension an affrontt as the unchallenged prices ofthe big sis witness} to the reasonable interests ofconsurners. "Who else is there to stand up for the interests ol'consumcrs?? am right in my what is now desperately required is a simple one clause bill to he put immediater through both Houses giving ot?t?gem this power. No fuss. no do it. This it ill (I) be catching with enormous political eudos and benefit to the beleaguered Prime Minister who is now suffering enormous collateral political damage and is most unliker to meet with Labour opposition l, unless they do a ridiculous double sotmnersault) in either Chamber ofl?arliament You are a fast worker and could prepare a dra? of the bill after a couple ofhours research by your staff into the present remit of ongem and transmit your draft to Mr Davey for his immediate attention and action including liaison with the chief whip to secure early Commons and Lords time. Indeed no reason why you shouldn't speak to the chief whip yoursell'about this and gain his early support and establish the necessary, consensus to get the thing off the ground. Rapid i'ootworlc IS the he} to success here for time is ofthe essence. Clever. cheap and populist Mr Millihand has got to. be decisively wrong tinned in this matter iflhe Tories are to avoid further haemorrhaging of voter suppon and which . on top ofthe stupid, crass. ?rst order political misjudgement (top rate often} of the 2012 budget. can now easily all combine to lead to electoral defeat - the voters have unsltaiteahle memories and what the}; most hate is delay and procrastination by their leaders. I'm afraid Mr Cameron good man he is often gives voters the clear impression ofbeing like a rabbit trans?xed into inaction by searchlights {except curiously nough in foreign affairs - eg Lima ft. He needs to wake up fast as far as home affairs are concerned. I can see no other was? - leave alone effectiye was - of_stop_oing. Mr Milliband than the abm proposal Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP .?slemher :rf' fur l-litcl'ur. and House L4 5W IA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretan' ofState Department of Energr and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London 'l A EAW 15 November 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy Int~ an email I have received front the above constituent of mine about investment in renewable 1 would be grateful i'l?ycu could let me. have a reply to the points that have been raised. ?r'oacs-sinferely 11 f" I (Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay} Tel: lint ??ll all? 3545.] lzmati: esearc by the Renewable Energy Association and Innovas shows that the UK 3 ?12.5 billion renewables industry supports 110.000 jobs across supply chain. and could support 400,000 by 2020. These Jobs are dependent on investor con?dence in the UK renewable energy sector created by a consistent long term policy regime. The Prime Minister's announcement of a review of ?green ievies? is already damaging investor con?dence in the renewable energy sector and putting jobs in your constituency at risk. Globally. ?gures from Bloomberg show that investment in renewable energy now outstrips that in fossil fuels and will constitute 70% of energy investment to 2030. China is investing $284 billion in renewable energy over five years. For the UK to rule itself out of this market by undermining the policy framework would be hugely damaging to the south west's economy The renewable energy sector is committed to driving down costs as it develops. DECC figures show that ?37, around of the average household bill goes on investing in renewable energy. That investment enabled the UK to generate 15.5% of its electricity from renewables in the second quarter of 2013. making us less reliant on gas supplies from uncertain parts of the world In comparison a new report from the Overseas Development Institute shows subsidies for fossil fuels in the UK are ?26 billion a year - about ?100 per household - and we spend 22.3 billion on cleaning up nuclear waste about per household. I urge you to write to the Prime Minister. _asking him to make clear the current review will not atfe we energy. Yours sincerely. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament. for and l-lert-ntien House of Commons London SW1A (1AA Rt Hon Edward Davey .MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A HAW 29 November 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent oftnine about energy ef?ciency measures and the Energy Companies Obligation. I would be grateful it?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: ?107319457,? liars: [ll? 721?) 38-1? Entall: wu Dear .?l-lr Lilley. In the Autumn statement the Coalition Government must continue to support energy ef?ciency measures and the Energy Companies Obligation (ECU). ECO is good for Britain and will help as part of the solution to - - address fuel poverty and keep the most vulnerable homes warm - reduce fuel hills - have more energ' ef?cient homes - reduce energy demand and so help energy security - maintain and create jobs Without the grants in place to unlock energy ef?ciency measures. the Coalition 1o'ill simply fail to deliver on its promise for a low carbon and environment friendly economy, and the hills of those that can least afford to increase will continue to rise. ECO is not just a green obligation. it's a social ohligation. this year For The Coalition Government must Icee to the commitments set out earlie You sincerely. . -. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP t. lu: .Jt .rvtl r'lgn'p-L-rrd-gn I PI . I?ll -- -: mm: nl ninth-nus -. I. I . 'u [unduly H?t?t Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary ul?State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A SAW :3 December 30] 3 Dear lid Further tn revinus correspondence. I enclose a copy Ufa letter I have received from bout Ofgem. 1 would be grateful lt?you could let me have a reply to the additional points that have been raised. Yours sincerer X. 1 figigned in Peter Lilley's absence to avoid delay) l'L'l: qllL-l Ill:I ql'? His?[l I tilt atlx vl all, Rt Hon Peter Lille}. MP House oanmmons. London SWIA December 2013 Dear Mr Lille}: ThaeL you for your letter dated 9 December enclosing a cop}: letter dated 30 November from our excellent Secretary of'Slale for Energy Gimme Change. Mr Ed Davey However l'm afraid that his le?L?rer athuugh a comprehensive statement said absolutel}, Homing about my concern 1e giving oft?gem powers to stop proposals ?rm the 'big IT for retail price increases esp when these are above the prevailing in?ation roses. (Jr??rai has the pmver. not. offgem'? would like Mr Dave} in his further reply now to focus exclusively upon this speci?c point. Best Seasonal Wishes - and- lo Mr Basie} Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP .Nlember of Parliament for Hirehin and Harpentlen House of Commons London 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA HAW 08 January 2014 Dear Ed enclose a copy ol?a letter I have received from the above constituent of mine about his energy supplier, Eon. increasing his direct debit. I would be grateful it?grou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: Ill? 7219 4577? Fax: "ml-140 Email: fgtiti; 5/ E'grL-Liirmht I NC {?51 I Dw? elm-numt- gamma wag. 3 Lb p112;? m3} if Nib-{pr fa muff? I) ~b~p~e mum pp.) L314. ?it Em Jib thi?i AL LL h. Ce'hx Vivid: Lana; (fr Mwyy ?QT/mm Q5 W?Ic'frhiielj MAM-thq ERR J1 ML: ML) ring-ML .mea aLw-?wt; ga7mmt r. m. ?le: 42ch car-W C57 . ;m.?ud fink ?in. Lamb-1 Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP of Parliament tor and House of Comment; A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A EAW 07 January 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine who is concerned that he will not benefit from the reduction in the green levy as he is on a ?xed rate contract with his energy supplier. EDF. I would be grate?il ifjv'ou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: Hill 731%: 4s" as?; leedl?uicku.? . Like most customers these days i am on a fixed rate and my supplier is EDF. The governement made a great show about reduoing everyones bill or; aopmximately ?50 due to reouotions in the green levy However. EDF have told me that as i am on a fixed rate then the reduction will not apply to me This begs some questions lithe green levy is in fact a levy and EDF not have to pay as much to the government but still charging me then they will be increasing their profits at my expense or will the government still insist on the original green lew amount in my case If i am getting no reduction then this would suggest that the governments great show about energy prices was gust yet another or exercise and continues rhe trend of poliotioians promising something and then failing to deliver Can you please comment? Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitchm and Harpemlen House of Commons London SWIA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A EAW 08 January 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ot?a letter 1 have received from the above constituent of mine about comparative fixed rate energy tariffs. I would be grateful il?you could let me have a repl}i to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely liel: 721'?! 4577 Fax: 334? Email: zecdhacL'u Its-trumpeterllHegelLul- Parliamentary Of?ce. Rt. Hon Peter Lilley MP. House of ommons. London, 0AA ENERGY TARIF COMPARITIVE FIXED RATES Dear Mr. Lilley, I am a customer of Scottish Power and recently received an email regarding the end of my current ?xed rate deal on 31? January 2014 and the new offer until February, 2015. I am enclosing a copy of the comparative tari? table which they sent which on the surface was good, but unfortunately rather confusing as it did not compare like with like. I rang Scottish Power and asked a member of their Customer Service Team to explain. I was told the new government guide lines had changed and the new rates had to include a daily charge, which was not shown before. I asked for a further explanation so 1 could compare the deals exactly and they were unable to clarify further. I then used comparative web sites to compare deals on offer for the new ?xed period which is fairly straightforward. However the issue of comparing with my previous deal is unhelpful. I thought you might be interested to see this example and whilsr an improvement. not a clear statement of what the tari?'s were historically and in the future, by comparing like with like- Surely that could have been added to provide customers with a better understanding. Yours sincerely= Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Memher ul' fur Hireiim and Harpendcn Home of Cummum [.mmiim RI Hun Edward Dave} MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 \k'hiiehdil Place London SW I A El January SUI-I Dear Ind I wrote It) mu on [3 October. 2013 enelnsinu 11 e0 ol?an email I received from the . .. above constituent nFmine ubaul adx ice gn consumers In awn-ch energy quppliers. I have not :1 repiy as yet and would be grateful if you could let me have a response In the poinls 1le have been raised. Yours sincerely Tei: USU 71H 4?77"? Tum: tilt] 7219 334i} Em.le n" Rt Hon Edward Davey NIP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW 1A EAW 18 October 2013 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about government advice to consumers to switch energy suppliers. 1 would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Thank you for contacting Peter Lille-y. Mr Lilley understands your concerns on this matter and will be in touch as soon as he receives a I'eol',? to Vow enquiry, Regards Comments: Wottl 1e {internment please to 'e on .oar' at it is very bad advice to encourage Energy Customers to suppliers when clearly all the big 6 are in the process of hikingr prices one alter the other. The Prime Minismr todayt 17'1'10) should know better. In any ewe, customers know this which is why there is an obvious reluctance to take this advice. Mr Cameron MUST DO SOMETHING tangible about energy prices before the election or face set'ious loss ofsupport Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitehin and Harpenden House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretm' of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Wtehall Place London SW1A ZAW 05 February 2014 Dear Ed I have received a number of emails ?'om constituents of mine in support of Cold Homes Week calling for the use of money the government gets from carbon taxes to make homes more highly energy ef?cient. I would be grate?? if you could let me have a response on this issue. Yours sincerely Tel: 020 7219 45?7 Fax: 02.0 72.19 3340 Email: feedback?peterlilley.co.uk Dear Peter Lilley Lasi winter over 31:686 people died 0? the cold- Milliows or others have to make the desperate choice between heating and eating due to high energy bills. I support Cold Homes Week and the Energy Bill Revolution cam Government to use the money it gets from carbon taxes etticient. This is the only oer paign calling on the to make our homes highly energy manent solution to high energy bills and fuel poverty. Please support the campaigr by emailing and find out more about the campaign at There is enough carbon tax to bring 9 out oi 18 homes out of tuel poverty and in time to help Super-insulate every UK home. Please let me know if you will join me in supporting this vital campaign to end the cold homes crisis once and for all. You can contact me by email referably - to save resources) or at the following address: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Niel-libel? of Parliament for Hitchin and House of Commons London SW 1 A 051% Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA ZAVV February 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about fuel poverty. 1 would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: ?ll! 73?! 45.7.7 Fax: U210 721.9 5-340 Email: leedbaclo?fr Dear Peter [ill-e} Last winter nt'er 30.000 people died ul?tlte enltl. Milliuns ol'ntltera have to make the desperate choice between heating and eating clue to high energ} hillst 1 support {?e-ltl Humea Week and the Energy Bill Retelutiun campaign calling en the Government to use the money it gets; 't?rum earhrm taxes In make our home: highl} energ} efficient. "this if? the uni} perntL-ment sulutiun to high energy bills. and fuel poverty. Please support the campaign by emailing.I genererl?illrewnlutiunura and ?nd out more ahuut the campaign at were. There is enough carbon In bring nut of 10 hunter; uul of fuel poverty anel in time In help super?insulate ever}; I httme. Please let me knuu- ili'wu u. ill join me in suppnning this rital campaign tn end the mild humes erisia once and tin-r all. l'hanlt you in advance Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitchin and Harm-riden House of Commons London 1A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Dave}; MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and limale Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A 2A 2 I February 20 4 Dear Ed enc ose a copy 0 an emai have received from {he abox- constituent of mine about climate change. I would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: {'20 7.319 4577 Fax: [?20 731?? lH-lil Email: leedhackt?; Dear I think these attl?ul are uur natinn?s stake-up call ahnut climate change. Please write to the Prime Minister and pass an my request In him to make sure that we prepare to prutect nrdittar} peuple in the UK from more and nurse ?oods in future. like the ones n'e't just seen. But please also. ask him in titake sure we tackle the rent cause, climate change. In}: reducing our greenhnuse gas emissions. In particular. please ask him tn push his t'elltm EU leaders l'nr anthitiuus targets a hen they meet at their Summit in h-?lareh. we need a 541% reduelinn target for greenhouse gas emissiuns h} Etl?u. and a binding renewable energy target alongside it. The liLi?s targets are very important. part]; because the EU is a big slice of the \t-?ttrlel?s greenhouse gas emissions. and alsn a meaningful Ell offer makes action t'r-ant China and the [if-i mnre likely. Scientists have been telling us far years that climate change means mnre. estrente Heather. and this is the ttettest winter far 35!} tears. The L'ls'. must act. I care abnut climate change because I care about communities around the world ?he are already leelittg the impact of it. because nt?the ent'irnnment. and because at" the damage 01' t?lnading here at hnme. Regards. This entail was sent t-?ia Nudge by Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP h-Iembcr of Parliament for Hitehin and Harpenden House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A 2AW 27 February 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from utlining her concerns about the installation of ?de?rated? an regime. I would be grate?ll ifyou could let me have a reply to the points she has raised. Yours sincerely Tel: 020 72? 4577 Fax: 020 7219 384? Email: feedbacer peterlillepzconrh mam-pr:terlilleyxuuk Mr Peter Lilley MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA 1? February 2014 Meeting request: distortion of the Feed-in?Tariff through de-rating wind turbines Dear Mr Lilley, I am writing to you to highlight concerns about the installation of ?de-rated? turbines under the current Feed~in-Tariff regime. Not only is this leading to unfair and distorted competition, but it is also undermining the rationale for Given your role as Member of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss how we can address these concerns. To encourage uptake of small-scale onshore wind generation. installations wit than SMW are able to operate under the Fi ?w it is a popu ar band that helps farmers, mmunl ies an usinesses insulate their energy bills from the rising costs of fossil fuel and raise additional income for their activities. -stimates that around half of turbines currently being installed in this band are ?de- ratecl" wind turbines. These are turbines of 800 or 900 kw installed with an operating production capacity capped at This is done to take advantage of the tariff per in the FIT band, which is almost double compared to the FET band intended for turbines of their capacity. The growing number of such installations is concerning, given the purpose of the HT and in light of the overall budget. The different tariff bands have been set with reference to the specific costs of different sizes of turbines. By allowing turbines to be installed under a FiTvband designed for smaller turbines, communities gets half the electricity for twice the tariff. These oversized turbines also have a much larger visual impact than turbines designed for this band. Lastly, de-rated turbines reach their capped peak capacity much quicker than genuine medium?sized turbines, thus distorting fair competition on the market. believe that the HT could benefit from defining medium wind turbines on the basis of swept area of the blades of the turbine rather than based on production output. This is used internationally to define small wind turbines and would ensure de-rating was no longer possible. I would be delighted to meet with you how we coold take this issue forward as well as giving you a broader overview of our operations in the United Kingdom. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitchm and Harpenden House of Commons London SWIA 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWIA ZAW ID March 20M Dear Ed I enclose a co of an email 1 have received from without the letter DECC wrote to which was quote in the recent programme, saying ?Cuadrilla is the only operator in the UK so far to use high volume hydraulic fracturing and how this statement is com atible with the Royal Society statement on this issue. I have highlighted the passage in email. I would be grateful if you could let me have a response. With many thanks Yours sincerely Tel: 020 7'219' 457'? Fax: [ill] 3840 Email: fecdhaelu? peterlilleyxouk Dear Mr Lille}; FoUuu-ing our emails in January I wondered if you have received any further inl?onnatiou from DECC regarding Ihe Royal Society Report recommendations and how many have been imilemented so far since June 2012? On 28 .lanan' 2014 19:4 1. LILLEY. Peter ?Tote: Thank you for your email and sending me the letter from DECC. As a result I have inserted the highlighted paragraphs in my generic reply below. Thank you also for pointing me to the reference Farm. As it happens I have never suggested that fracking was used at Farm since my knowledge of that field made me assume it was not relevant - and mentally brushed aside the reference to it in the Royal Society Report. I will get the DECC to respond about the implementation of the Report's recommendations rather than giving you my own possibly imperfect understanding. I can assure you I have absolutely no desire to misinform on this issue. Best regards Peter Lilley . - . 1 . a. a; lhank you lot your email about the f. hannel 4 debate on tracking on hundajv 27 January. This reply responds to those from outside my constituency who contacted me both supportive and critical. So I apologise if it covers points you did not raise. I will reply individually to my own constituents. I respect the sincerity of those who are protesting against plans to use hydraulic fracturing for shale gas even though I disagree with their arguments. It is sad that most of those who disagree with me felt it necessary to impug?r my motives and honesty. Resort to personal abuse is usually an indication that the abuser has no solid argument to rely on. 1 equally deplore the offensive personal remarks about-and other protesters which have been posted on various websites. Sadly, 1 do not stand to receive a penny for supporting tracking in the UK nor does any person or company with whom am associated. Tethys Petroleum Limited operates exclusively in Central Asia and, as it happens. is not involved in hydraulic fracking. Details of that could be checked by googling a little. AlthOUgh_accused me of lying she baulked at accusing the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering of dishonesty. Yet it was them 1 was quoting. Their report begins: ?The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ??acking') as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational hast practices are implemented and enforced through regulation. Hydraulic fracturing is an established technology that has been used in the oil and gas industries for many chades. The UK has 60 years' experience of regulating onshore and offshore oil and gas industries." The Report was also the source of my point that about 200 wells have been fracked which emanc- ?The UK has experience of hydraulic Fracturing and directional drilling for non-shale gas applications. Over the last 30 years, more than 2,000 wells have been drilled onshore in the UK. approximately 200 of which have been hydraulically ?actured to enhance recovery.? See page I 7. Since the broadcast have seen the DECC letter -: uoted saying "Cuadrilla is the only operator in the UK so far to use high volume hydraulic fracturing". have asked DECC how their statement is compatible with the Royal Society statement. They say the question related to high volume hydraulic fracturing Preese Hall used 10,000 tons of water whereas the previous 200 wells mentioned in the report used far less water- at most 200 tons. Even the larger volumes used at Preese Hall should be no problem. Again the report says: Bedroom indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amnion needed to water a golf course for a month; the amount needed to run a 1,000 MW coalp?red power plant for 12 hours; and the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities? region in north was: England every hour. A number of people linked to web sites claiming that lots of allegations of water contamination have been made but the reason no cases of humans being poisoned by contaminated water have been confirmed by the US anthorities, notably the Environmental Protection Agency, is that the Agency had covered them up. That pretty incredible conspiracy theory was disposed of by one respondent on the website, himself an environmental inspector, who explained: "To suggest that there is some sort of cover up is just laughable. The EPA was not there to determine if gas drilling caused methane migration. That has already been well established. The litigants were screaming that there was all sorts of chemicals in their water. EPA was there to confirm or deny that accusation. They did their tests, there was no drilling chemicals, the water came back as safe to drink- So that's what they reported. Also, shortly after their claims of water contamination by 3 drilling chemicals were proven false, they settled their lawsuit with the gas company, which they swore they would never do. If gas drilling is SO bad, there should be plenty of legit issues you can point to in order to make your case. There shouldn't be a need to aggressively distcirt reality as is the case here.? Even an alarmist Guardian article admitted that 2011 Penn State studvfound that about 40% of water wells tested prior to gas drilling failed at least one federal drinking water standard?. A number of people - in almost identical terms - accused me of ignorance and lack of research of this subject. Had they done any research themselves they would have discovered that I have studied the whole issue of global warming in at least as great depth as any MP, being one of the few with a degree in Natural Sciences though my main contribution has been to question the Economics of Climate Change see the attachment. That may be why. although my views differ from those expressed by most MP5, they chose to vote the onto the EHErgy and Climate Change Select Committee. I do hope in future it will be possible to debate these issues from positions of mutual respect and courtesy. Best regards Peter Li Hey Dear Mr Lille}: name is .I. saw your interview on Channel 4 and the fact that you are so saying over 200 wells have been tracked in the UK. In August this year and with Cttadrilla I wrote to DECC to get a clear on this. Attached is the letter I received. the letter was referring, to. Please can you retract what you said and get your facts and it is embarrassing. watching you either lie or have so little disregar tor mg in communities you cannot be bothered to research the facts. I am not sure which is worse. know that the next step for you will be to start talking about Farm. 1 have seen. others before you go through the same steps - reference 20!] wells 3 Fact which the Royal Society report got wrong, and then start talking about Farm. have done the research on Farm too. so just to save you some effort here it is: "Dorset County Council Planning Committee - Date of Meeting 06 September 20 3 point 7.15.1 Whilst the fraclting:t of shale gas formations has never been undertaken within the oilfields. the existing planning permissions do not restrict the extraction ot?petroleum to purely conventional means. The ES states that there are no known shale gas or coal bed methane deposits in Perenco's licence blocks nor are there any plans to seek such opportunities. The current planning applications seek no change to the existing situation with the continued production ot?oil taking place by conventional means only." So back to the Royal Society Report - you will note that actually what that report said was there were IO multi-point recommendations, sensible recommendations which should he in place before extraction takes place. Perhaps you can do some research of your own, to ?nd out which ifany ot'these has been achieved since the report was published in June 2012. I hope that you find this helpful. UK Parliament Disclaimer; This e-mail is con?dential to the intended If you nave recewed it in error. please notify the sender and deiete it from your system. Any unauthorised use. dis-Closure. or C?p?ftng is not permitted This e'rnai has been checked For 'v-ruses. but no liability is accented for any damage caused by any inf-.55 transmitted by this earrail. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Mcmher oi Parlinment for l-Iitchin and l-lt-trpendcn House of Commona London SW 1A Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW 1 A ZAW 31 March 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ol?an email I have received From the above constituent of mine about climate change. I would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: Ill!) 711?} Fax: l'ltl 73.19 3840 Email: Dear Mr Lilley In View of the recent UNXIPCC report, will the government be stepping up its efforts to combat, check and adapt to climate change, which appears to be dominantly man-made and part of a global pattern? I am thinking in terms of preparations for more extreme weather events, e.g. flooding, drought, cold and snow, high winds, more rapid erosion, etc. Mans.r thanks Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Merit-her of Farlituncnt for Hitc?liin and Home of Commons, 1A DAA Rt Hon Edward Dave): MP Secretary ol? State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SWI A IAW 07 April 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a cop): olian email I have received from the above constituent ol" mine about his support for the onshore wind industry. I would be grateful ir?you could let me have a repl}r to the pointe that have been raised. Yours sincerely ?if-Lad. Tel: {511'} 72!? 45-7.? Iinx: Ultl 721?} 134'? anll: feedback tr Wu Dear Pete? Lilley, Onshore Hind Industry?s contribution to the UK I am writing as one of your constituents to urge you to contact the Prime MinisterJ and those involved in writing the manifesto for the next General Election, to warn them of the cost of not supporting the onshore wind industry. ese are an inc professional, technical and highly skilled persons who make a significant contribution to the UK economy and skills base in the UK. The sector is also drawing in increasing research, design and manufacturing into the UK (The most recent announcement being the Siemens plant in Humberside). The thought that a moratorium could be imposed on future development of onshore wind is obviously hugely concerning to me and potentially could halt inward investment into the UK or at worst result in the major wind players exiting from the UK market. We employ extremely high standards when developing wind farms ano wor closely with communities at all stages. I therefore find it difficult to understand how any artificial limits 1 on onshore wind benefit the country as a whole. Recent announcements in the offshore sector have resulted in a number of major players exiting or suspending offshore work, the same must not be allowed to happen for the onshore sector. Onshore wind is the lowest cost low carbon generation that it?s possible to develop at scale, cheaper than other renewables and new nuclear. As we have binding decarbonisation targets, if we?re going to meet them without onshore wind energy bills will increase unnecessarily, something no one wants. Even it it wasn?t For decarbonisation lots of old capacity needs to be replaced, and our imports of coal and gas are at record levels. Reducing the dependance on imported gas and other energy sources is important particularly in light of recent issues with Russia. Onshore wind helps develop that independence. whenever onshore wind is criticised it seems to be because politicians think it will attract support from voters. Whilst I recognise that some people don?t like onshore wind, the overwhelming majority do a poll last year by the Mail on Sunday revealed that over 63% of Conservative voters would be happy to have a windfarm in their area, and nearly the same percentage 0? UKIP voters. This also translates to the ballot box one third of Conservative voters said they would be more likely to vote for a local candidate who backed wind farms in the area compared to 29% who would be less lieely to. Playing politics with onshore wind leads to great uncertainty for people like me, but also the wider energy industry on previous occasions when there have been political rows about onshore wind organisations like the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the CBI have warned abdut the dangers of an investment hiatus. I would be very grateful if you could contact the Prime Minister to appraise him of my concerns, and for a response to my email. Yours sincerely, Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member oi Parliament For and Harpendun House of Commons Lf'nd Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place LondOn SW A 2A 16 April 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email 1 have received from the above constituent of mine about climate change. I would be grateful il?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely - {Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay) Tr]: Hill 7.1. 9 4-177?- ng: {1107.219 3.3.1.1] Email? pererlillct'umgil-z Dear NIP. It tt-nn?t east the earth in 53*. the planet. take action an climate change.- 1 really care about our Please take the time to read the latest report - because this is probably the greatest pnlitienl issue facing the world in nur generation. Ynu can read the report here: - i l-tl?tfr?Ll Please push I'm :1 strung commitment From your part} in Sat}- tt hat the} dn In our ewnnm} rapidly. particularly by increasing him eurhnn energ} and driving energ} ef?ciency. an the report say}; we need EU. ?'1an water and sun are much more secure than buying CL?Iill and oil l'mm Russia ur Qatar. Wishing jinn a restful time nil'mer the Easter recess. Kim! regards. This email was sent tin I contacted Mr Lilleyr because of his role as Energy Secretary. I thought he might be interested that rather than simply making bills more transparent British Gas (at least) have used the changes in billing to add an additional income stream in the form of standing charges which actuall increases the income they ain from low usage customers or even An additional point that nobody has yet been able to explain to me is if I sell this house to someone who does not take up a gas company contract who becomes this unused meter's new guardian and handles its bills. My initial telephone contact at British Gas insisted that any new occupant would HAVE to take up a new gas contract with a supplier, simply binng the house and choosing to use another energy source would not be acceptable unless the meter was removed. I thought he might ?nd ?nd this outcome from his department's illuminating. As it happens I live in but I am not seeking constituency services simply policies that protect customers (or in my case ex?customers) from sharp unethical business practices. Best regards, Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member ul? Parliament for Hiccliin and Harpenden House of Commons London A UAA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department ol?Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A EAW 13 May I 4 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ol?a letter I have received from the above constituent of mine about Drax Power Station. I would be grateful ifyou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: 020 7219 4577 Fax: U20 7119 .154? Email: feedback); pt-terlilley.co.ult Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP House of Commons LONDON A 0AA 3? May 2014 Dear Mr Lilley I read with concern the letter by -in Saturday?s Daily Telegraph. the 3?1 May. This concerns the conversion of Brett power station to burn bio fuel. have noted that this conversion has been the subject of news comment over the past year or so First it is ?on? and then ?postponed' and now it appears to be ?on'again. Could you kindly ?nd out through the good of?ces of the appropriate Minister just what the present position is? Secondly what is his comment about the letter in the Telegraph and is it factually correct? Thankng you in anticipation Yours sincerely Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Mr tin: lliI-?lzin limpet-den imm- I under: Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A ZAW 25 June 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a cop}: Ol'an email 1 have received from the above constituent ofmine who is concerned about a 20 year contract BP have signed to supply natural lique?ed gas to China. I would be grateful ii?y?ou could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours l:i ?ll "l I?m: ?3 I'l fulfill re: Lil?iiL .1l-t RN i? .Ili A 20-year contract for BP worth E1 1.8bn to supply natural lique?ed gas to China and a bilateral agreement paving the way for partioipation of Chinese companies in the construction of the H32 rail link have been announced as part of a series of contracts fostering cooperation between China and the UK. Dear Mr. Lille},r Just a minute - - I am under the mpressron that as our North Sea reserves have run out. and that we have to import expensi ve Russian gas. that we have nothmg to export and also that our gas Dill have soareo? in direct conseQuence How can we have gas to spare for export 9 Yours sincerer Rt Hon Peter LiJley MP RI-gnlher of in: liih in?! l'lome ul' Commum l..un~.lon SW. R1 Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary ol?State Department ofEnerg}: and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A 3A July 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy ol?a postcard have received from the above constituent l? mine about climate change. I would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely "Ila? 537'" fax: ll? Fmafl: "culturehammeriillvj. Knoll gm/ mu Alum, We love the world Dear Mr Lilley I ensure that action on climate change is a central element of the UN's post-2015 development goals Please ask your party leader to put action on climate change at the heart of your general election manifesto. - make ambitious plans to achieve a fair. transparent and legally binding global climate deal in 2015. .u .11. Climate change is already driving hunger, conflict and extreme weather in the world's poorest countries. This For further information. please see year's floods brought home the reality our briefing: christianaidorguiu of climate change to people in the climatebrie?ng. UK too. But the future could be safer for millions of people it the incoming government ups its game. luvlulnp Hing?. I.'ll ?irt-mung Fir-E13 MFlr'U '3 u, mh ?mm-1 Your party's should make commitments to: a fully implement the Climate Change Act - increase support to poor countries to adapt to climate change and access clean energy Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member m? Parliament fur Hitchm and Harpenden House of Commons London DAA Rt Hon Edward Dave}: MP Secretary nl'Stale Depamnent ol?Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A 2A Vt." It) Jul); 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a cop)" ot'an email have received from the above constituent of mine about energy bills and Fuel poverty I would be grateful ifynu could let me have a reply to the paints that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: [1307319 457.7 Fax: 1120 7.119 .534? Email: feedback?!peterlilletmuadt Dear Mr On average 25,003 peeple die of the cold every Winter it's a national scandal It is in this country the: people are dying of cold I'rr lane at tnousands of people calling for carbon taxes already cellemed from our energy bills to be used to: - Make home energy efficiency a UK Infrastructure prierity - Make 2 mill-an low income homes highly energy ef?crent By 2020 and all low Income homes highly energy efficient by 2025 This :5 the only aermanent to high energy bills and fuel poverty To show your suppon please emaii or tweet @EnergyBillRe-v I Please let "he know If y'ch will join me in supporting this Important campaagn Yaurs s-nsereiy Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP oz" Parliament for 3rd Hammad-en House of Commons London (HA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change '3 Whitehall Place London SW1A ZAW :3 July 2014 Dear Ed Further to previous correspondence. I enclose a copy ofan email I have received from the above constituent of mine about Drax Power Station. I would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the additional points that have been raised. Yours sincerer a? 1? 5i Signed in Peter Lilley?s absence to ax-oid delay} .I I. lids: [I'll] "ll" ?H-?ill Tel tilt! "in: ltlnazl: tin-Lilia; Roi-pew: ml: was uvg?nn'tcrlillem. i. Rt Hon Peter Lille)? MP House of Commons LONDON SWIA 0AA is? July 2014 Dear Mr Lilley Many thanks for sending me e. copy of Mr Davey?s to n1}: enquiry of the 8lb. May. 1 have read this and frankly. he has not answered the speci?c points I raised, viz: Who thought it would be enviromnentallv and economically viable to convert part of Drax to burn wood pellets which are to be imported from North Carolina? 15 the Dras: environment head correct in statmg that the exercise adds 3% more C02 than the equivalent amount of coal and what about the C02 generated in transportation is this included in the calculations? 1 would appreciate Mr Davev?s response to these queries. Whilst writing I should also like to know the current average strike prices per l?vah for: Coal Gas On shore wind power 0ft" shore wind power Nuclear power Finally, given the current price per is between ?50 and ?60, how is the difference made up to the providers of this power? I am sorry to burden you with these questions, but I consider the matter to be very important and suspect that we are future generations with substantial commitments. Thanking you in anticipation. yours sincerely Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP \Iemlmer nt' l?arlinittem {In Huehin and Harrtenc?vn l'luuse of Commons tundrer fi??flr?t Rt lion Edward Davey NIP Secretary of State Department nt?Energy' and lClimate Change 3 Whitehall Place London 5 A 2A 18 August 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email I have received from the above constituent of mine about solar power. I would be grateful il?you could let me hat-e reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely W?i lned in Peter Lilley?s absence to avoid delay) 'l'czl: Il?ll 4?37? ?Ill 7.11:) 3km ?we. Ilear Peter L. i 1 let. Solar putter tiller: huge. opportunities the aehmth and tn generate elean eleetrieit}. and make matter at the same time. I he eennt'inties nl'mlar are improving vet} attieLI} the price t'tt'panela is plummetingI antl utlt'tl?t'm in the are a thirtl tat'tthat they ite in Elli?. In eral enanlt'ie~' t'llaljt. Ltertnan} 1 large Silents can already ttrutlttee eleelrieit} eheaper than haying it iron] the grid. Vt hat uttl) '52 Panels on our roe-tend we are beneiitting than making ?stun eleett?teil}. he as a seam] pt?qieet :?tet?nsa the and businesses are rapidly taking advantage ut'the mlar tt'analin'ntatinn. But tens nt'sehnnla are still being left in the dart-t. The hettelitr?. liar are huge: 11 t3 pieal seeandar} hCih?Ul titted with a sular stem save up tn ?8.00? a year. ll'et er} in the lfli installed St'tl?l' they could earn more than tnillian. and pretent the same antnunt ut'tL?UE entissiona as taking ears nt'l'tlte mad making an intalttahle to the 5 tackle elintale Vt hile SL'l'l?Ul'h have already gun-e ahead u-ith installing :nlar. tens hm _\et It": tin su. Iteltl haek h) high capital planning anti gt'ttl barriers and a emtthaing schemes. lltata'fl ?t 1511"! nt asking gait to l-rientir-t nf'the Eartha"? l'a eantpaign tn ensure that ever} aeltunl in year eonslilueney that ?ants tn Sl'l?lliLl he ahle tn inwtall solar ptmer. As a Iirst ask I would like In know whether this is a ynu support. unuld he willing [u mite to all local urging them tn_iuin up tn the eantpaign. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP .?tlcanhcr -ul fur .mJ Hume nl' 1 [ll-lull Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department ot~ Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW A 2A 20 August 20 I4 Dear Ed I enclose a copy oi?an email I have received From the above constituent of mine about the Friends ofthe Earth?s Run on Sun campaign I would be grateful if you Could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised twee l, . p4 Signed in Peter Lilley's absence to avoid delay Tel: nan ?far-i lax: ozn ?sis Mn lint-All: 21.le Dear Peter Lillev, Solar power offers huge opportunities for schools and communities to generate clean electricity, and make money at the same time. The economics of solar are improving very quickly se- the price of panels is plummeting and support costs in the UK are a third of what they were in 2010. In several countries (Italy. Germany) large roof?top systems can already produce electricity cheaper than buying it from the grid. the UK communities and businesses are rapidly taking advantage of the solar transformation. But tens of thousands of schools are still being left in the dark. The benefits for schools are huge: a typical secondary school ?tted with a good?sized solar PV system could save up to a year. if every school in the UK installed solar they could earn more than ?200 million, and prevent the same amount of C02 emissions as taking 110,000 cars off the road making an invaluable contribution to the efforts to tackle climate change. While some schools have already gone ahead with installing solar, tens of thousands have yet to do so, held back by high capital costs. planning and grid barriers and a confusing proliferation of schemes. why Ia?*?m asking you to support Friends of the Eartha??"s campaign to ensure that every school in your constituency that wants to should be able to install solar power. As a first ask I would like to know whether this is a proposal you support, and if you would be willing to write to all Iocai schools urging them to join up to the campaign. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member ['ll?Plil'?Em?l?l for Hitchiu sod House of Commons London Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate hange 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A EAW 22 September 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of a letter from two young constituents of mine. -who are concerned about climate change. I would be grateful if you could let me have a response to the pints that have been raised on this issue. Yours sincerely Tel: 020 721') 4577' Fax: DELI 7'2 53:21) Izrnall: ia-J-u?p?yha-H?nl?n? Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member ell-Parliament Fur Hitchin .utzl Harpendm House of Commons London A 0AA Rt Hon [Edward Davey MP Secretary ot?State Department ot?Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A ZAW 03 October 2014 Dear Ed El I enclose a copy of an email have received from the above constituent of mine about the Warm Home Discount. I would be grateful it?you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely ?(Signed in Peter Lille3r?s absence to avoid delay) Tel: .72 4?37." Fem. till} f?i?e'??il l?nzailr Dear Rt Hon. Peter Lilley MP, I am shocked that the Children?s Society have found that two-thirds of families, living in the UK today that?s five million families - are likely to turn their heating down because of the high cost of their energy bills. They also found that when they asked 28% of children said their home was too cold last winter. It?s currently uo to energy companies' discretion whether these struggling families, receive the Warm Home Discount worth ?135 per year to held them with their energy bills. The Government should make sure the energy companies are giving this discount to all families living in poverty so that children?s health is not out at risk by cold homes. Please write to Rt Hon. Ed Davey MP. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on my behalf, to ask him to ensure that all families in poverty receive the Warm Home Discount. Yours Sincerely, Sincerely. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Ul Parliament for Hitchin and House or Common: London A Clx?tf?i Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3. Whitehall Place London A 3A 3 October 2014 Dear Ed I enclose a copb? ofan email I have received from the above constituent about the potential effects oi'climate change on London. I would be grateful il'you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: ?120 Tent new 722? we Ennis. uUl-C. 11k Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP '1 Member nf l?ariiantcm for Hitchm and Harpem?let! I House Dl'. Commons London A Rt Hon Edward Dave}; MP Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A 3 A 03 November 3014 Dear Ecl I enclose. a copy of an email I have received From the above constituent of mine about climate change. i would be grateful if?you could let me have a reply,? tn the points that have been raised. Yours sincerer Tel: 020 457.7 Fax: 020 7219 fill-?ill Email: Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Hitc'nin and Haroenden House of Commons SWIADAA Dear Mr Lilies/g As a constituent of yours and as a supporter of CAFOD, I?m writing to ask how your party?s election manifesto and proposed programme for govemment would commit the UK to: 1. 3revent ciimate change pushing people deeper into povertv overseas 2 Support a transition from polluting fossil fuels, to sustainable energy which meets the needs of the communities around the world. Fours sinCErely, Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP oi Parliament for Hitchir". and i-ia; pence? l'louse of {135111110215 London SW1 Uflu?t Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of Staie Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1A EAW [8 November 20 '4 Dear Ed I enclose a copy of an email 1 have received from the above constituent of mine about biomass electricity subsidies. I would be grateful it'you could let me have a reply to the poian that have been raised. Yours sincerely ill-l: [Ill] ?ll?i Vii?'7 lids: Email uk womapettrliliey tn ill-t Dear Mr Lille)?. 1 am writing to you as tn}- loeal MP. and heeause you. like man} others. talte a lteen interest in issues ol?energy and climate change. I am asking you to please support the campaign to end subsidies [or biomass electricity and- in doing so. to. call on Ed Dare}: MP to malte sure that no more Contracts for Difference [ClDt subsidies are giten to hiontass power stations. The UK urgently needs to take the lead on reducing climate-changing emissions. substantially limiting the impacts of our energy policy abroad. and at the same time protecting from both the impacts or?energ}: generation and fuel poverty. Subsidies for biomass electricity undermine these objeeth es. large-scale biomass is promoted as an alternative to coal. and indeed some coal-tired poner stations hate eom'erted to burning wood pellets. We must more atra} from dirt}: Fossil fuels and stop coal. But strapping it with biomass is a false solution. and one that is doing more harm than good. ('urrently. lLthEtii\ subsidies in the form ot? Renewable mitigation L'ertiticates and Contracts lior Ui?'erenee are ineentirising eompanies to burn millions oft-rood much ot?it imported. In the UK alone. current industry plans would create a demand for imported stood on a scale net-ct seen before. I?m talking about almost 7? times the annual wood production. Big biomass is unsustainable. A signi?cant proportion t?or bioenergy is heing sourced from the eleitI?-te1led tore-sis ot? the southern US- (the world's most hiodiserse temperate forestst and highly hiodit'erse Forests ot'Canada. Whole trees are eing cut don-n. turned into pellets. loaded onto ships. transported thousands of miles across the ocean. loaded onto trains. and delit'ercd to potter stations to be burned. This is not renewable energy. it is an ecological disaster. l-It'en admit that this scenario is worse in terms ol'Ct'}: emissions than burning coal. Yet the_' still oll'et' subsidies for It. Big hiomass isn?tjust polluting. it's espensire too. Already. the induatry is subsidised to the tune of billions of pounds a year. while being responsible for forest destruction, increased carbon emissions. and damaging community health through exposure to wood dust. particulate and pollutant emissions from biomass infrastructure. On average. each job in a biomass power station requires 151.2 million in subsidies, money that should be spent on reducing emissions through home insulation and support for truly low?carbon renewables. On top ol'this. the Wood Panel Industry Federation has warned that up to 3.60!) UK jobs are under threat as a result of growing competition for wood. Biomass electricity is inef?cient. Biomass power stations are generally 20-30% and never more than 40% ef?cient. But biomass heating and ef?cient combined heat and power can reach 80% ef?ciency Subsidising electricity creates an incentive for CHP operators to maximise electricity generation rather than e?icient heat and. in the process. makes power Stations as inef?cient as 35%. Crucially, the sustainability of imported wood can never be adequately certified or controlled through sustainability standards. That?s because the scale of the demand is simply too big. Although standards are proposed in the there is no proposal for any independent veri?cation. Effectiyel y. this is an invitation to fraud. Moreover. the proposed greenhouse gas standards have been shown to be inadequate by DECC's own research. As my MP. I'm asking you to join communities. campaigners, concerned scientists and conservation organisations. in North America and the UK, in calling for an end to subsidies for biomass electricity at every opportunity. and to support efforts to roll back this polluting industry. For the reasons I?ve outlined above. please join me in calling on the Energy Secretary to make sure that no new are awarded to biomass power station operators. I look forward to your response and to seeing correspondence on this matter. Many thanks in advance. Yours sincerely. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitehm 3nd Harpendt-n House of Commons London SWFIA 0AA Gregory Barker MP Minister of State Department of Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London A ZAW 0? February 20H Dear Greg enclose a copy ol?a letter 1 have received from the above constituent of mine about the installation of solar panels on pension fund owned commercial property. 1 would be grateful if you could let me have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerely Tel: 0.10 7219 45"? Fax: 02o 7219 3s40 Email: feedback? peterlilletzcouk Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitchin and Harpenden House of Commons London SW1 A 0AA Tuesday 4th February 2014 Dear Mr Lilley. I do beiieve the Nation is breathing a sigh of relief that, at last. the economy is on the mend and that house prices are recovering adding to the feeling of improvement con?rming that the coalition's policies are beginning to work. i received this morning a note from Whoeming a pension fund owned commercial propertyord the fund installs solar panels then it will be taxed on the purchase of the units and also on the feed in tariff income that could be generated. This is in contrast with the statement yesterday from Greg Barker MP that installing solar panels is better than a pension, but a pension seems to be penalised if they do. I enclose an extract from the letter I received. Enc. Environmental issues and energy ef?ciency measures affecting property owners A number of issues have recently come to our attention which soulc potentially have an impact on the property currently held within the EFF These issues are quite varied and whilst not all may directly affect the SIPP at this time we felt it would be beneficrai for you to be generally aware of the recent developments we have highlighted below. Installation of Solar Panels There are a few oossible scenarios The first seenario is where you would like to instalt solar panels on the building held within the paid for by funds from the SIPP. This is an attracsive as it would allow the to benefit from any applicable feed-in tariff payments and the tenant may also bene?t from reduced energy bills. so there could be scope to increase the rental payable f0r the prooerty'. However, HM Revenue 8: Customs views the purcnase of solar oanels by a pension fund as the acouisition of "Tangible Movable Property" and this will trigger tax penalties for the pension fund. it is also possible that the income from a feed-in tariff will be seen as trading income and also attract a tax charge. As a result. we would be unable to authorise the purchase of solar panels by a SIPP. Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP Member of Parliament for Hitehin and Harp.aner House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Rt Hon Edward Davey MP Secretary of State Department 01? Energy and Climate Change 3 Whitehall Place London SW1 A 2A 31 March 201-4 Dear Ed I enclose a copy oft-1 letter I have received from the above constituent of mine about nuclear fusion. I would he grate-?t] ifynu could let rrte have a reply to the points that have been raised. Yours sincerer Tel: Hill .7219 4577 Fax: 0.10721? 3344? Email: feedbackict Mari-2% Egg? ?{n3 2%ka ar??fcle from j?fergayjf Mali} Cinbgungay . (?Ef?e may 30 gne.r?ay. . I. 6:9an {1,515 gadqmy ?le, (weargw ?n?l 0U ?ke Chmefe, Car?Q ?r example, Imam}; 4" - . we We SF??gf?j 3 at; muck amgauy OR Su?j?fg?eg? Lufncg??UFgfnef DWI Tale Coun- "1 are any 53(0qu angle/??e ?may $71151 Power 0? CE {Clfo encu??h J?Ccate only year? May we Em: EA 1* Coca?: you 1? 46 r' Ila; I The mil on sander MARCH 23 - 2014 COULD stop roan-made lobal warming once and or all and give the world limitless, clean energy for as long as bumanitylaeta. Nuclear fusion - zero- carbon electric power produced from sea water in a doughnutsshaped reactor that imi- totes the sun is also for closer to a reality than most people think. But while Britain. the United States and' the European Union spend hundreds of billions on subsidies for wind farms, solar Eanels and power stations fuelled wood elleta. fusion is being starvedo funds. As a result, the ultimate prize of developing this revolutionary technology now looks certain to be claimed by China and South Korea do ite the fact that the science beh it was pioneered here and in the US. The challenge need by fusion has always been tinting. A conventional fission reactor. of the type develo to build the atom bomb by Manhattan Project during the Second World War, harnesses the energy ro- duced when atoms of urea um j: Fusion will provide us . . . . split. This can be dangerous. but it isn?t difficult. once you obtam a critical mass of enriched. radio? active uranium - when the chain reactimdevelops nfitsownaccord. and continues unless you stop it But it also has a nasty -product - nuclear waste that as to be buried in sealed containers. By contrast. a fusion machine taps the much greater amount of unleashed by fusing atoms of by an- I This has advantages. A fusion reactor'a fuel is? heavy hydrogen - atoms that contain one proton and one or two neutrons and can be refined from sea water. The helium gas created when the atoms fuse is not radioactive and is harmless. But to at the reaction going requires gas to be heated by giant magnets to temperatures of up to milmillion degrees Ceisiua,~ so that it becomos a plasma the fourth state of matter where the electrons that nonnally orbit the proton and neutron nuclei become detached. The chailenge'facing scientists developin fusion is containing a plasma an keeping it stable. Sceptics often sneer that fusion energy has been said to be '50 Keats awe for decades. and that owever ard scientists try. it always will be. But awarding to Professor Steve (barley; director of the UK's Centre for F?usitm Energy at Culham. near technological mile- stones ve already been passed in the quest to develop fusion on a int scale. These have been ignored by the media. design of a fusion reactor was settled long ago: a hollow doughnut known as a 'toltamait? or ?torus? ringed by powerful mag; nets. 'i?hese keep the plasma lace. At JET. the Joint European run at Culham. nuclear fusion first tetianou utot? l?mega- watts (Whack in 99?. to not didn'tseem torealise' how a cant that was said Prof Cowley. 'I'm always being asked. howcan we getthe But we've already done that at and we're done it predictably. So far. the scale has been small ?But would you have told the Wright brothers that their first fli ht didn't count because they?d flown lOilt?t?? Dave Rasmussen, leader of the fusion energy group at the US Natimtai laboratory at Oak Rid Tennessee. which was once Manhattan Project?s home. des- cribes other advances. For example. the discovery that plasmas are none to disru tion - shockwaves can cause em to lose heat and damage the reactor resented a 'or urdle. at an exu-apr solution has been found: bring into the plasma pellets of solid gas. cooled to minus 263C. Thanks to this breale through. plasmas have been kept going for many hours at JET. Prof Cowley and Mr Rasmussen are both playingnitey roles in the International ermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). This is like 'lZ' . . - . . 3593bottle whose construction is now under we at Cadarache in France. is will be five times bigger than JET. and its goal is ambitions: to achieve. some time in the mid- 20205. an out at of SDOMW as much as a raised commercial power station far are the potter It takes to start the fusion reaction. This would be a game~ changing event. Debate about climate and energy policy would start to and right thani as people and governments real and that a safe andinfinita low-carbon energy source was within reach. The scientists are confident. ?We?ve solved more or less all of the problems, and most of 2 engineering tssues.? Mr Rasmussen Prof Cowl added: large-scale demonstration of nuclear fusion isn't five decades away. but a little more than one.? However. enormous obstacles remain - not least those imposed by humans- 'At about EITbillion. building ITER isn't chea but this corn- ares to the ?sh on the UK will ve spent on subsidies for wind, biomass and other of renew- able energy by 20 . plus man billions more on connecting inst - lations to the grid. The taspayenfunded Engineer- ing and Physical Science Research Council budget for fusion costs just ?40 million a year. but research into renewablea is more than three times as much at ?130million. As for Europe' by 2011 the total EU investment renewables was running at E67biilion a year - a fi re which. thanks to colossal su oldies. has continued to rise. Yet though the EU is one of the main international sponsors for ITER. its total contribution is just ?400 million a year. The reluctance to end big moneymeansl'l'ERhas dtobe funded by an unwieldy coalition, including the US. China. .India. the EU and South Korea. rssaytheproiectisbogged down it bureaucrac . andlsomev times i use involve are forced to make decisions that make no scientific sates. For exam is. its tokamak will be assembled rom nine identical seg- ments. Because each ITER partner wants to stimulate their own hi- tech industries. it has been agreed that seven segments will be made in Europe. and the other two in South Korea. What will happen if they don't quite fit toget er? ?It will be a MARCH 25 2014 The Mail on Sunday ?eco-power' gravy train instead. the Chinese will get it first .. neittatrdsu f. though a ?hianid? armmd the doom, slidt teats rats in steam turbines Greens hail MOS expose of forests destroyed to give UK ?clean? ener leading green groups yesterday condemned the practice of burning American hardwood trees in British power stations - as revealed by [his newspaper last week. And in a derelopnient with potentiall huge ai nll'lcance, senior ads of Earth (FOE) of?cial Kenneth Richter. revealed the European Commission has launched a funnel investigation into the subsidies decreed by the Government for Dras's ?biomnss' operations, followl an complaint. Mr RI ter said: 'Cutting down forests to burn them doesn?t make sense as a was of cuttinl??ogrbon emissions, and it gers the forests. ?Wood is dirtier than coal, and even it? the trees re row, for many years they absorb much less carbon than they Would have if left alone. this practice is the opposite of what we should be dill:be The all on Sondai? 3*?in that Euro biggest supposed ?renewable' energy or plant, [iron in Non oritshireI uses US firm Enrica as its mom supplier. and pumps the greenhouse Illnorllr. I?g??d 3.500 miles may S?l?l . unload. sill hem and burned Intbo vast ills? power station. lie-inn ll Miriam: out harem-1 masculine! a huge mu [if for. and all lot a chance. mutants Illililnl - . - I autumn Issue: our report on the Wadi] fast and At present, Drax receives ?62.5mlilion a year from the subsidies because biomass counts under EU rules es a 'carbon neutral? form of energy. This to Paid by consumers from has so added to their bills a onto that is set to triple as Dion?s biomass operations grow. The Government also save it a loan guarantee to underwrite some of the memo moreover ?700million cost of converting its furnaces from burning coal to wood. The will musider whether this amounted to unfair competition. (1 on UK called on i I [m .1. weak I mix, but the Government needs to set out a clear bolls},r to make it Work} Greenpeace sag no other forms of renews es, such as wind and solar energy, but not 'inet??cient systems burning coal, gas or wood'. Another cam group that has been biomass subsidies since zoos is Blot?uelwatch. Almuth the group's UK director, said re was now ?a scientific consensus that burni wood is harmful'. She said - eat made by IMamaodEnt.I sa-thatlt does not matter if the cut down trees take till] years to regrow - is misleading. ?Once out, they may never recover. and resources such as the North Carolina bottotnland woods here already shrunk drastically she added. Meanwhile to - - Prof Cowley admitted. And while funding shortages have delayed ITER's construction. they are already holding up the next stage of delivering commercial fusion power. The next big technological hurdle - and, perhaps, the last - is the it?s our idea but Chinese are pouring money into it develo meat of tiles for the toke- msk?s These will have to_ be tough to withstand the high- energy bombardment of neutrons produced by fusion. It is not that these tiles must he made before will work, but for a fusionreactor to be cumulercial, they need to last along time. Scien- tists led by a team from Oxford University - have many theoretical ideas about how to do this. But, to be sure, said Mr Rasmus- sen, they need a ?neutt'on factory? in order to test new alloys under the conditions they will meet inside a tokamak. He and Prof Cowley agreed that this could be done now, so that the tiles Were ready at the some time as ITER if the total budget were roughly doubled. Instead, said Prof Cowley, 'we?ll hava to wait until the world sees that Works. Then we'll have to and another decade or more on materials. This delay could slm?ly be eliminated'. i a Europe and America hang back on the sidelines, South Korea and China are already planning 'son of reactors and investing billions in the technology. ?The Chinese have decided that the pace of fusion development is too slow, and that they'll take the risk,? said Prof Cowley. ?They?re assuming that will work, and they are pouring money into the next step.' nun?u Hm one million tons or Enviva?s wood pallet fuel from its- chimney stacks each year. At least as per cent of Envlva's lists ccmet?rom hardw species such as salts and ies, not fast- growing on are. Much of the wood ls cut from the un ue ecosystem of the fbotto andF forests of North Carolina, then shipped 3,800 miles to Hull BBCboss gags a preach to biomass, saying recount-yin the claims made by the Department of Energy Climate thongs. It was not ?sustainable. A Greenpeace spokesman said: ?Biumasa power stations are supposed to burn waste wood - not timber harvested from natural forests. Properly regulated, biomass can play a supporting role in our energy uu-l-a- investors to sell any shares they may hold in Dre: because the-future of the firm's subsidies on which its blames business depends is uncertain. It the European Commission rules against the loan guarantee. and subsidies. this would represent a substantial downside risk, one of its reports states. ?sceptics? from climate change debates A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not-to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global sceptics. Alasdair claimed that such discussions amount to 'false balance' and breach an undertaking to the Co rntion's watchdog, BC Trust. Mr head of editorial standards and for BBC Scotland, snot an email on February 2? to 18 senior producers and editors, which lets been obtained by The on Sunday; It reads: 'thn covering climate change stories, we should not run debatesldiscussions directly between scientists and sceptics. 'Ifap' ?smmedoesrun such a cushion. it will . . . "'beinbreaChol?the editorial eiinesoa im gmm??lo weeks be are the email was sent, Lord lawsuit, chairman of the aseptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, was invited on to Radio 4?s Today programme to debate with Sir Brian lloslsinsi director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Research at Imperial College, whether this year's storms were the result of. climate change. In fact, as Lord tawson made class he is not a climate 'denier' and accepts that man- made emissionsof ecohouse gases have warm the Janet - but'h'e? believes their a facts will not be as serious as some people argue. However. his gnomes sparked pgot?atsd in green cups ac as: that such ates should not be brtiadcas_ t. . wrote that the reason the 'li'ust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBan give equal Weight to opposuig sides on climate change was that sceptics' views were ?based on inion rather than le scIiaenufic valid'rilt?tt at night a spa esman said: ?We agreed tliat there should he no attempt to. give equal We' the Opinion and to and ence in sciende coverage, but we said specifioali that this does not mean critical opinion should be'eacluded. - "We did not specify that the BBC should not broadcast between scientists and sceptics.I A BBC-spokesman added: ?All viewpoints continue to be given due wel in our gtl?l?gut.? Askedw was pro EXP . to disavow Mmde email; both officials failed to comment. GWPF director --Dr Benny Peiser said BBC coverage of climate change has been ffar too biased tartar too long'.