Chris Huhne at our RET lobby in the Lords in 2008 trying to get the legislation in the Energy Bill.
Initial proposals on renewable heat were not published until early 2010, on account of the RHI being a much larger mechanism designed to deliver 10% of the UK’s heat from renewables by 2020 – a ten-fold rise in current deployment levels. The infancy of the UK’s renewable heat industry and the novelty of applying such a structured approach to this sector also made for a slower time-table. But again enough of the REA’s proposals were reflected to secure industry confidence and the sector and investors began to buzz in anticipation. The potential for renewable heat generation in the UK is vast so it is bizarre that this sleeping giant has been overlooked for so long.
The arrival of a new Coalition Government and the unexpected Comprehensive Spending Review process derailed much of the momentum that had begun to build in the industry. Suddenly it looked uncertain. Many of the organisations that helped us win the legislation for the RHI regrouped – reflecting the huge importance placed on renewable heat. To my own delight Alan Simpson, who did so much when an MP to foster cross-party support for the enabling legislation, had joined Friends of the Earth and quickly took a front seat role in the campaign.
The final campaign push saw 160,000 postcards distributed to the public to send to their MP last summer. A cross-party EDM went down sponsored by Zac Goldsmith, Caroline Lucas, Alan Whitehead and Martin Horwood. 38 Degrees began an online petition to Danny Alexander. And collectively we rebutted negative newspaper stories and wrote to the Prime Minister and key departments setting out the clear case for renewable heat. The campaign culminated in a 21ft hot air balloon outside the Commons reminding MPs that fossil heating was responsible for ‘half the CO2 problem’.
So there was delight at the £860m budget allocation |46| ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE
announcement for the RHI in October which carried the additional benefit of being paid for out of general taxation, avoiding protestations from both heavy industry and fuel poverty critics. Credit was due in particular to Energy Minister Gregory Barker who has a good understanding of decentralised energy technologies and recognised the economic opportunity the scheme presented, as well as its necessity for meeting binding renewable energy targets.
While all this final leg of campaigning took place REA policy staff beavered away behind the scenes with civil servants at Decc and consultants, honing cost and technology data and policy detail. This built on the REA’s response to the consultation, which had input from a great many REA members across the full range of technologies.
The RHI is likely to provide payments over 10 to 23 years, depending on the technology. The scheme aims to provide a good rate of return on the additional cost of going renewable, as opposed to fossil. These rates need to be relatively generous as the technology is unfamiliar to most. Particularly in domestic instances heat technologies are usually a distress purchase. If you and your family are cold the wait for something greener than a gas boiler had better be worth it. If we are to meet the renewable heat target, then half of replacement boilers in 2020 in some sectors will need to be renewable. And early growth must be vigorous. Detailed research by NERA for DECC shows that the better the start the cheaper the scheme will be overall.
The UK industry starts from a very low base. And for bioenergy technologies there must be additional development in supply chains, not just technologies. That means transforming the UK’s forestry industry, which is largely cottage. Key conservation groups supported the RHI to secure a revenue stream for the refreshed management of the UK’s desperately neglected forests. It also means diverting some of the 100 million tonnes of organic wastes from landfill and from muck-spreading on farms. One of the technologies under the RHI is biomethane injection, which converts environmentally problematic waste into renewable gas, which can be injected into the national grid.
For smaller installations the RHI is likely to be ‘deemed’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180