Sustainable Biomass
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-04966, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on sustainable biomass. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government’s stated intention that sustainable biomass should be recognised as a limited resource and that it should be used at an appropriate scale and primarily for heat and high-efficiency combined heat and power; notes that the EU renewable energy directive calls for a minimum efficiency rating of 70% for industrial applications; also notes concerns in the wood processing industry throughout Scotland and particularly in the Highlands and Islands regarding wood supply and understands that wood products provide a carbon store; looks forward to the outcome of and would welcome a widespread response to the Scottish Government’s supplementary consultation on the Renewables Obligations Banding Review, for which the deadline for views on the proposals on biomass sustainability criteria is 11 January 2013.
17:02
I thank members for supporting my motion. This is an important debate as it comes ahead of the Government’s decisions following the consultation on renewables obligation certificates for biomass plants.
Biomass has a role to play in providing us with renewable heat. I have seen really good examples of that in the Highlands and Islands—examples such as Sleat Renewables Ltd, which is a community-owned company that uses land-locked forestry in Skye for local heating. It provides advice to its community on the use of wood for heating, and it supplies Sabhal Mòr Ostaig with woodchips for its heating boiler.
Another ideal use where there are sustainable local supplies of biomass is district heating schemes, although there are challenges in using such schemes in rural areas where houses are not close together and shared facilities are not possible. Also, individual biomass boilers are much more expensive than other alternatives. However, local sustainable biomass provides an alternative to expensive electric heating when homes are off the gas grid. It also means that wood is not shipped over long distances, so carbon emissions from transportation are reduced and there is less impact on our often inadequate country roads.
However, the motion is about subsidies for larger scale biomass plants and the impact that they can have on both supplies and carbon emissions. The Scottish Government has just finished consulting on its proposals and I hope that it will consider the speeches in this evening’s debate as part of the process. There are a number of concerns about large-scale biomass plants, especially those that are designed to predominantly generate electricity. We need to ask whether that is the most efficient use of biomass.
Although the European Union has said that biomass should be considered for industrial use only where there is 70 per cent efficiency, the combined heat and power quality assurance programme categorises plants with as little as 35 per cent efficiency as “good quality”. It is regrettable that, following its very recent consultation, the United Kingdom Government has not significantly improved the definition; however, it is also the definition used by the Scottish Government. If we are to attempt to attain the efficiency outlined in the EU renewable energy directive we cannot use that definition as the basis for allocating subsidies.
Concern has also been expressed about the sustainability of supply and the impact on our wood processing industry, which tells us—rightly—that by making products from our wood resources it not only utilises our timber resources sustainably but provides us with a carbon store. It believes that wood should be used for energy only when it has no further use and fears for wood supplies.
In the past, Government has said that it will look only at large-scale plants that source fuel from sustainable overseas markets. However, it is unclear to me how we can ensure the sustainability of overseas supplies. The global move to electricity from biomass will increase demand for wood, which, in turn, will lead to higher prices. If we risk reaching a point at which it is no longer economically viable to process wood it might well impact not only on our ability to store carbon in wood products but on our economy, given that wood processing is worth £600 million to the UK economy and employs more than 7,900 people. That is why the industry is alarmed by the move to large-scale biomass electricity plants, even if the vast majority of their fuel is imported.
An increase in global prices and scarcity of supply will also impact on small-scale biomass plants because at the moment it is uneconomical to export the wood that they use. However, increasing the value of biomass might make exporting such wood economically viable which would render useless interventions such as the use of district heating systems to combat fuel poverty.
Higher prices could also lead to unsustainable felling. When developing nations find such a resource that brings them substantial income, can we govern where felling will take place? Indeed, it might also have a knock-on effect on food security in those communities. Dependence on imports also raises energy security issues. Those are probably subjects for another debate, but I felt it important to highlight them. In any case, we need to make decisions on biomass in the round, noting that it is a limited resource and taking into account our carbon emission targets and the sustainability of our natural resources. All that must then tie in with our economic and social needs.
I am grateful to members who signed the motion and are supporting this debate and ask the minister to consider the issues and come forward with a subsidy regime that deals with what are very genuine concerns.
As this is a popular debate, I ask members to please stick to their four minutes.
17:08
First of all, I thank Rhoda Grant for securing this welcome and long-overdue debate
As members will be aware, I have been concerned about large-scale biomass-fuelled electricity generating plants for some time now. Indeed, I should declare that previously, as a member of Falkirk Council’s planning committee, I successfully moved against a planning department recommendation to support what was at the time a proposed 100MW biomass electricity plant. I note that the application itself has since been increased to 120MW.
After the planning committee refused to support the application, it went to a public local inquiry that was held last May and at which I had the gruelling experience of being grilled by the applicant’s eminent Queen’s counsel. I have to say that it was not the most pleasant experience in my political life and it is something that I am not in a hurry to repeat. As the application is still live and due to be determined one way or the other by the Scottish ministers, I will understand it if the minister finds himself unable to refer to that specific application in my constituency.
Even prior to the application being lodged in my council ward and subsequently my constituency, I was opposed to large-scale biomass—and indeed remain so. I am fully in favour of small to medium-sized projects and good-quality combined heat and power plants, but in my view large-scale electricity-only biomass has too many arguments against it and precious few, if any, plus points.
Lobby groups such as Friends of the Earth, Biofuelwatch and RSPB Scotland have made a very good case against large-scale biomass electricity production, but one recent development caused me even more alarm. Ash dieback disease, which recently swept across the UK, attacked ash trees the length and breadth of the country. However, it transpires that other microscopic fungi could come into the country with biomass material and completely devastate our woodlands. According to the Society for General Microbiology, imported logs, woodchips and cut timber can present a serious risk of disease transmission. In my book, that is a risk too far and should be avoided at all costs.
The industry’s chiefs have given an assurance that they will not source their biomass fuel from the UK. Forth Energy has stated that it will source imported virgin wood from North America, South America, Russia and the Baltic states. An unsustainable bioenergy industry risks serious damage to wildlife and the climate by driving substantial additional logging overseas.
In addition to all those concerns, there are fears that large-scale use of wood for bioenergy can result in local communities being exposed to increased air pollution, including particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and dioxins. That was a major argument that was put forward by the Grangemouth community council coalition when it presented its case at last year’s public local inquiry.
Meanwhile, a growing number of scientific studies show that burning wood for energy commonly results in a carbon debt of decades, or even centuries, compared with fossil fuels that might otherwise have been burnt. In addition, although the industry is making great play of the benefits of combined heat and power plants, I have serious concerns about its commitment to the retrofitting and installation of the infrastructure required, given the significant costs involved in rolling out district heating, particularly when money is tight for any major capital investment. My concern is that the firms that promote CHP will promise the heating element of a project simply to get the application approved and then fail to deliver.
In my view, the introduction of large-scale biomass plants in Scotland is a decision that must not be taken lightly. I have highlighted just a few of the many concerns that I have had over the past few years, and I urge the minister carefully to consider the detrimental impact that large-scale biomass plants can have both on our local communities and on the communities halfway around the world that would supply the virgin wood for Scottish biomass plants.
17:12
I thank Rhoda Grant for securing this evening’s debate.
How Scotland meets its present and future energy needs is one of the key issues facing this Parliament and future generations. During the 20th century, we saw a massive expansion in energy production and we now live in a modern society in which, when we flick a switch, we expect energy to be available. However, in recent years we have had to pay more and more for domestic energy. While increasing numbers of people are entering fuel poverty, everyone is finding that they are spending a greater share of their income on energy bills. We are also facing significant climate change challenges, and in Scotland we have made a clear commitment to achieving a low-carbon economy.
In trying to meet those challenges, alternative sources of energy need to be explored, but it is clear that we need greater public engagement and confidence in the debate. It is difficult to think of any energy source that does not present a series of challenges or have a host of supporters as well as a group of detractors. It is important that the different needs are balanced in delivering a more sustainable low-carbon cleaner energy future. Several times in this Parliament, I have had meetings with campaigners who are raising concerns over the scale and location of large biomass proposals, and those concerns should be heard.
This evening’s debate focuses on wood biomass. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, wood is a limited resource and there are various demands on the sector in Scotland: it plays a significant part in carbon capture; it has industrial uses; it supports our forestry sector; and it provides recreation opportunities. As a limited resource, although there is a potential that the use of by-product and small-scale wood biomass could provide a sustainable alternative energy source, any large-scale biomass in Scotland will need to rely on imported wood as there is not a large enough market in Scotland to support the sector even if we exclude all other interests. The Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that 10 per cent of wood for biomass will be sourced domestically and 90 per cent will need to be imported. That introduces a whole host of concerns, not least of which is the lack of confidence in the sustainability of the imported wood.
Friends of the Earth and Biofuelwatch highlight contradictions between Scotland’s support for climate justice and the expected growth in reliance on imported wood for biomass. They have expressed concerns that that expansion will cause huge destruction to vulnerable communities and their food and water security. There is a real lack of confidence in international accreditation schemes, and when considering any applications the Scottish Government must be aware of and address those concerns.
The Scottish Government’s stated aim that sustainable biomass should be recognised as a limited resource and that it should be used at an appropriate scale and primarily for heat and high-efficiency combined heat and power is to be welcomed. Subsidy plays a large role in shaping future energy production, and the decision to exclude large electricity-only stations from renewables obligation certificates should be welcomed. I recognise that the Scottish Government has proposed that a 10MW threshold should apply to electricity-only biomass and that, above that, biomass plants must generate electricity and heat.
There is a loophole that the Scottish Government must address. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, the EU directive recommends that 70 per cent efficiency must be achieved in CHP. The Scottish Government proposal—and the UK Government proposal—is just 35 per cent. We need to increase the level of efficiency that has to be reached to receive subsidy and we should aim to meet the EU directive.
Robust measures must be put in place to ensure that the infrastructure, capacity and market is there to use the heat that is captured, which was referred to by Angus MacDonald. We need to have confidence that applications can deliver what they say that they will deliver. Under current proposals, although 10 per cent heat efficiency needs to be achieved, that heat must be used, not exported, which means that it could be used within a plant to dry wood chips, for example, and still qualify as good quality CHP. In advance of the debate, Forth Energy contacted members to say that it would bring renewable heat to major urban and industrial areas. If that is the case, the achievement of a higher efficiency level should not really be an issue.
This is a short debate in which to explore the issues, but I particularly urge the Government to look again at the proposed efficiency level and to ensure that the power of public subsidy is used to its greatest advantage.
17:17
I, too, congratulate Rhoda Grant on securing today’s debate.
The Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued that our energy should come from as broad and diverse a range of sources as possible. We therefore believe that sustainable biomass has a role in Scotland, albeit one that will clearly be limited relative to other kinds of energy production and which will often be particularly successful at a smaller scale and at community level, where it is most appropriate for heat-only or combined power plants. Sustainable biomass also offers a potentially viable alternative option for many of the 30 per cent or so of Scottish households that are not connected to the mains gas grid, many of which are in our remoter regions.
Although we can support electricity generation and heat production from sustainable biomass—and there are some good existing examples of that across Scotland, such as the mid-Argyll community pool in Lochgilphead, forestry housing at Whitegates, and many other examples across the Highlands and Islands—the schemes must be efficient, cost effective and, of course, compliant with all the relevant environmental regulations.
Rhoda Grant is right to highlight the genuine concerns of the wood processing industry—especially in our own region, Highlands and Islands—about the possible impact of any substantial expansion in large-scale biomass. Experts have warned for some time that there is not enough indigenous wood fuel supply available to meet possible future demand in Scotland and that, if biomass supplies are limited, there is a risk of significant levels of imports.
We must try to match wood supplies with demand for biomass products so that biomass can be truly sustainable. We should also bear in mind that biomass feedstock from Scotland could be used for biomass electricity production in England and Wales, especially if other generators decide to press ahead with existing proposals to develop or increase biomass use at coal-fired power stations in England and Wales.
I am also very aware of the importance to many rural communities of the jobs that come from processing timber into solid wood products. Other members, including Rhoda Grant, have pointed out that wooden products act as a carbon store and their use, for example in the construction sector, can displace more carbon-intensive materials such as concrete and plastics.
I read with interest Confor Scotland’s practical response to the ROC banding review consultation, which states that biomass
“should complement not displace existing wood users”.
I am also sympathetic to its view that local energy generation can provide more jobs than large-scale biomass power generation.
I echo Angus MacDonald’s concerns about the possibility of diseases coming in with wood imports. Especially in the light of the recent past, we must be very careful about that.
The key outcome that we should be aiming at is to achieve some biomass schemes that allow us to meet our energy needs and energy targets without hitting other parts of the wood-processing sector that are very important to our rural economies. That will be no easy feat. We look forward to the Scottish Government considering carefully and responding to the recent consultation on the renewables obligations banding review.
17:21
I, too, welcome the debate and thank Rhoda Grant for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.
Small-scale biomass is quite easy to support and it is sensible to make use of waste material close to the point at which it is available, be it from forestry or otherwise. It is also sensible to contemplate small-scale local coppicing of resources, if that is appropriate. However, as other members have said, importing substantial timber from halfway round the world makes absolutely no sense. It is worth looking at the effect that might derive from that large-scale delivery of timber from one part of the world to another.
The UK is likely to turn to the Philippines and Brazil, where the sources are likely to be very quick-growing cane crops. The effect of continually replanting crops in a monoculture way simply to burn them elsewhere is to deplete minerals, to reduce biological load in the soil and to reduce biodiversity dramatically in a way that is likely to be uncontrolled. By contrast, when we use local resources in a controlled and limited fashion, we do so in the context of a forestry system that is tightly regulated and requires the replanting of felled timber. That is a truly fungible approach whereby the replacement of a consumer resource is not merely possible but required.
Like other members, I welcome the withdrawal of financial support for new proposals of more than 10MW. It is important that we protect the vital role that trees, and vegetation in general, have in capturing CO2 and returning it to its constituents. We should focus on small-scale developments, as they can be something that local communities can get involved in and can benefit from, both economically and environmentally. Wherever possible, those communities should, as a minimum, be partners.
It is interesting that our timber industry opposes large-scale biomass. One might think that increased demand, which would drive up the price of timber, would benefit the industry, but the industry recognises that, as the price rises, that will drive buyers out of the market—particularly local, small-scale buyers—reducing the number of buyers and leaving a few very large-scale buyers in the market who will then control the subsequent price. In this particular case, increasing demand does not necessarily benefit the seller.
We do not have legislative competence in the area of energy; we have merely the administrative powers that have been devolved to us. I am not quite certain where this sits, but one area in which difficulty arises in exploiting the heat that is part of small-scale local biomass concerns freestanding heritable rights of access, which, south of the border, are known as wayleaves. It would be interesting to hear what the minister has to say on that subject. I recall visiting a plant in Dundee that had excess heat that it wanted to deliver to housing that was only a few hundred metres away, but it could not get the necessary protected permissions for the pipes to do so.
I very much welcome the debate, agree with the sentiments expressed and approve of the fact that we will not be burning precious resource in major plants—small scale and local is the way to go.
17:25
Biomass is a bit like alcohol: it is not intrinsically bad; rather, it is harmful if used in the wrong way. The questions for debate and on which the Government must come to a conclusion are: where the line should be drawn, what the acceptable forms of biomass are, and what should be ruled out.
I think that we would all accept that small-scale sustainable biomass, particularly with locally produced wood, is a desirable form of biomass that we see examples of throughout Scotland. We could probably go further and say that larger-scale use is also acceptable, as long as there is extensive use of heat because, obviously, the availability of heat is one of the potential attractions of using biomass.
There are a number of factors to take into account that suggest to me and many others, particularly those in environmental groups, that any wider use of biomass is not best suited to achieving the Government’s climate change low-carbon objectives. An obvious example—which Angus MacDonald referred to—is the time taken between the sequestration and burning of the fuel stock and the resequester and subsequent absorption of carbon dioxide. That leads to a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere that lasts for a long time, and that should be factored into considerations of what constitutes sustainable use of biomass. It appears that, in setting out to produce clear guidelines on sustainability, that carbon debt, along with problems concerning changes in land use and in the monitoring of crops, have been omitted from the equation. Like the campaign group Greener Leith in my constituency, which has done a great deal of work on this, I urge the Government to look again at those particular matters.
I commend the Government for ruling out electricity-only biomass beyond 10MW, although I may prefer to have no renewables obligation certificates whatsoever for any form of electricity-only biomass, given that it involves efficiencies of only 20 to 30 per cent.
One of the main concerns about the Government’s position relates to exceeding the 10MW ceiling for so-called combined heat and power biomass stations. I have praised biomass in so far as it genuinely uses and captures a great deal of the heat but, under UK-wide rules, as Claire Baker and Rhoda Grant emphasised, that could mean efficiencies as low as 35 per cent. If CHP is to receive subsidy, it must have efficiencies of at least 70 per cent.
A further point is made by the no Leith biomass plant campaign in its submission to the recent consultation in which it asked whether the Government is looking at capacity to provide heat or the actual provision of heat. An issue in Forth Energy’s application for the Leith biomass plant was the general talk about how it could potentially use the heat all over Leith and Edinburgh, but there were no definite plans and certainly no funding available as far as it was concerned to do so. That is an important issue, too.
I have many other issues to mention and only one minute to go. Clearly, we must look at the importation of wood—if 90 per cent of wood is imported for large-scale biomass, that is not environmentally friendly. We also have to look at the replacement of forests in other countries because that is where the wood will come from. We have little or no control over that. Under current guidelines, biofuels sourced at the cost of forests is not considered sustainable. However, industrial plantations are at present categorised as forests and that leaves a potential loophole to be exploited, to the detriment of the indigenous peoples and environment of the region and to the detriment of the reduction of the carbon debt. We must consider the human rights of people in the countries where the wood has come from.
The standards proposed cannot mitigate the serous climate, environmental and human rights impacts of large-scale biomass. I urge the Government to go a bit further, although I welcome the steps that it has taken so far.
17:29
I thank Rhoda Grant for securing the debate.
Biomass certainly has a role to play in helping us to meet our renewable energy targets on electricity and heat, but we need to be extremely careful. If we install too much of it, we will completely outstrip our timber supply, as the wood panel industry and Biofuelwatch have clearly demonstrated. That will mean rising prices and supply difficulties for the wood panel and construction industries at a time when we desperately need affordable housing, and it will mean that we need to ship in vast volumes of wood from abroad. Quite simply, chopping down foreign forests to burn here in Scotland is a daft way to produce energy, and there is no way the Scottish Government should support that with taxpayers’ money.
Why is importing bad? The sustainability of imported wood is incredibly difficult to establish and the existing accreditation schemes have had doubt cast on them time and again. Sustainability kite marks in no way guarantee that the imported wood has not come from monoculture forests that have been planted by multinationals on land that was once natural woodland and which was owned and managed by and for the local communities. As we have seen in Scotland’s miles and miles of Sitka spruce plantations, monoculture does not support any level of biodiversity or natural soil regeneration.
The second issue is a human rights one. Stories abound of companies forcing people off their land to create an industrial forestry industry in developing countries. It is vital that Scottish Government support schemes do not promote the import of timber to burn, but that is what will happen if we do not halt some of the large biomass power stations that are in the pipeline, and if we do not vastly improve the efficiency of existing installations.
I support the Government’s stated intention as detailed in the motion, but if we are to achieve it we must greatly improve efficiency. The supplementary consultation details the Government’s intention to provide ROC support to large-scale biomass projects when they involve good-quality combined heat and power stations. The motion notes that
“the EU renewable energy directive calls for a minimum efficiency rating of 70% for industrial applications”.
That should be the minimum definition of good quality, but under the current proposals we could see subsidies being given to power stations that achieve efficiency levels that are as low as 35 per cent.
In its report on the achievability of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee was also concerned about the issue and wished to see
“substantive improvements in the efficiency of proposed biomass plants before they could attract subsidy.”
The bottom line is that there is no place for large-scale plants in Scotland’s energy mix.
I, too, want to congratulate the people who campaigned hard against the proposed biomass plant in Leith and who continue to oppose the plans for plants in Dundee, Grangemouth and Rosyth. Following their inquiries, it is now up to the minister to decide on the futures of the Grangemouth and Rosyth proposals. I will not ask him to comment on those, because he cannot, but I ask him to listen to the strong sustainability arguments, to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s concerns and to the concerns of the local people who are campaigning.
There is a role for small-scale wood burning for renewable heat, but burning whole trees for electricity is totally inefficient and makes no sense at all in a country that has a world-leading renewables industry that needs investment. The wood panel industry has made it clear in its briefing that using wood to produce power is a good idea, but that the focus should be on creating wood products that lock away carbon for years to come. Jamie McGrigor highlighted that issue.
I want a greater focus to be placed on use of community-scale renewables to heat and power our cities and homes than is placed on oversized and unsustainable proposals. Greens have been calling for the Government to support local authorities to set up public renewable energy companies to push local renewable energy generation and thereby generate much-needed revenue to pay for public services. Through the renewables revolution, we have an opportunity to give our councils the opportunity to meet climate targets and generate much-needed funds. Let us take that opportunity.
17:34
I am very grateful to Rhoda Grant for allowing the Parliament to debate these issues. It has been a good and useful debate in which many interesting speeches have been made. There has been a great deal of consensus. From my gleaning of what the members who have spoken in the debate have said, they all recognise that biomass has a role to play. Determining what that role is is a matter of weighing up carefully a number of considerations.
As members know, the Scottish Government has taken a careful and distinct position on biomass over the years. There is no question but that energy from biomass can make a major contribution to our renewables targets. Biomass already contributes more than 90 per cent of the renewable heat that is generated in Scotland. I think that Rhoda Grant alluded to some local examples in the Highlands and Islands, and I remember that, during my brief and unsuccessful attempt to learn Gaelic at a week-long pre-beginners course at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the building was certainly not cold.
To be serious, there have been a number of successful schemes all over Scotland, and as Stewart Stevenson said, local schemes are absolutely appropriate. To use the woody material—the waste material—locally for local purposes means that it is not travelling far. It is perhaps not really usable for any other purpose and might otherwise end up either lying on the forest floor or going to landfill unnecessarily, using up fuel, creating emissions and so on.
We all agree—in so far as I can ascertain from the members who have covered the topic in the debate—that biomass certainly has a positive role to play. Indeed, we want to promote and encourage its use, and to encourage community renewables to use biomass. I have visited communities as different as Comrie and Lossiemouth, where I have played a part in launching or opening biomass facilities, which are popular locally.
Biomass has a number of attributes, such as the ability to control output, which separate it from other renewables technologies and make it strategically valuable. However, there are other differences that have prompted us to revisit the role that biomass should play and the support that we should make available for it. Many members have referred to those differences, including the finite nature of the resource, its importance to other existing sectors and jobs, and the need to ensure that all the biomass that we use is appropriately sourced. All those issues have been raised in the debate.
I am well aware of the active representations made by bodies such as the Scottish Timber Trade Association and Confor, the UK forest products association. Charles Hendry, the former and much-missed energy minister—obviously, we work well with his successor too—attended two meetings that we arranged in Scotland with representatives from the timber sector. They put forward arguments that Jamie McGrigor rehearsed today alongside other members: demand is rising and the sector does not want to see the price that they pay for their material rise. Equally, the panel products industry is an important user of timber and an important customer for timber growers throughout Scotland. We have to weigh up those interests carefully.
The price of saw logs, of course, is much higher than the price of wood fuel, ensuring that saw logs do not enter the wood fuel stream—indeed they should not—as Alison Johnstone and Stewart Stevenson pointed out. I do not think that members mentioned, unless I missed it, the possible capacity of timber growers to bring additional wood on to the market. There are some practical reasons why some timber cannot be brought on to the market, such the lack of access to more remote forestry, the lack of forest roads or just the economics. Trees that fall in the forest could be used as wood fuel. We want timber growers to maximise their potential, because in turn that enables them to replant. Therefore, the more successful timber growers are, the more we will see replanting. Those are all forestry matters of which Mr Stevenson in particular will have a deep understanding.
As members have said, we have consulted on those issues at great length, and we recently proposed that there should be some form of capacity ceiling, above which support will not be available under the renewables obligation, except for those stations that capture and supply heat. The responses that we have had to our consultations on those proposals and on the sustainability criteria highlight the complex and sensitive nature of the issues and of the options that are available to us.
We have to strike a careful balance. Our approach must be designed to ensure that the fuel that is used in the biomass stations that are built meets requisite and meaningful sustainability standards. At the same time, we need to ensure that those requirements do not create a disproportionate burden for those who operate the stations in question or those who are charged with monitoring them. The system that we put in place must also ensure that we can continue to make progress towards our targets in a sustainable fashion.
In a number of weeks, we intend to announce our decision on the question of support for biomass under the RO. We need to consider matters very carefully. At Rhoda Grant’s request, we will study the contributions to this debate and consider them in our deliberations before decisions are made. The debate has therefore been timely, and I thank Rhoda Grant for that.
Obviously, I cannot comment on any individual application that is before me for a decision—I have not done so and I will not do so—but I make the general point that we can enforce and monitor sustainability standards through the conditions of consent that might be applied to individual power station consent determinations.
I want to respond briefly on the level of efficiency standards and the 70 and 35 per cent figures. I accept that concerns exist about the 35 per cent efficiency requirement, but it is important to remember that that is a minimum and that it is in everyone’s interests that energy stations operate as efficiently as possible. It is harder for biomass CHP stations to achieve such a high efficiency level due to issues such as the moisture of the wood fuel and the need to process it.
On imports, imported timber is subject to standards such as heat treatment standards, and I have been advised that it is most likely that pellets that are already heat treated are the form in which the material will be imported.
I appreciate that Mr Angus MacDonald has raised a number of concerns. He has expressed those concerns over a long period and has campaigned consistently on the issue. I acknowledge that, as a local member, he has made his position very clear. All the matters that he has raised must be carefully considered.
I appreciate members’ contributions to the debate and thank them for those contributions. As Rhoda Grant said, energy security is an issue that we must also take into account when we consider these matters. In a statement last October, the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets indicated that capacity falling to 4 per cent by 2015 means that there is a serious issue and that, at least south of the border, the lights may go out—I make it clear that we in our party do not want that to happen—which is why we will be able to export much more of our renewable energy. Although that may be an issue for another day, policy makers and Governments must take it into account. People expect us to keep the lights on. There has been a lack of investment in the UK over a number of decades thereanent, and I am afraid that such matters were not considered in the 70s, 80s, 90s or noughties. There are now serious challenges, all of which policy makers in government on either side of the border must take into account.
I am heartened that all members recognise that appropriately sited and properly used biomass, with the right element of electricity production and heat generation, can make a significant contribution to our energy policy.
I thank all members for taking part in the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:43.