Written questions by Cartlidge.

What progress he has made on introducing new consumer protections for heating oil customers.

Awaiting answer.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes in the level of aviation fuel demand on the availability and pricing of kerosene for domestic heating consumers in South Suffolk constituency.

Awaiting answer.

What steps his Department is taking to monitor heating oil supply levels ahead of winter demand periods.

Awaiting answer.

Whether his Department has conducted contingency planning relating to potential disruption of kerosene supplies used for domestic heating in South Suffolk constituency.

Awaiting answer.

What discussions he has had with fuel suppliers regarding the availability of kerosene for domestic heating oil users in South Suffolk.

Awaiting answer.

What assessment he has made of the resilience of domestic kerosene supply chains for those in South Suffolk who heat their homes with heating oil.

Awaiting answer.

Whether he has had discussions with the downstream oil sector on ensure the supply of kerosene to off-grid households in South Suffolk constituency.

Awaiting answer.

How he plans to support people using heating oil as the primary means to heat their homes.

The Government recognises that many households, particularly in rural and off‑gas‑grid areas, rely on heating oil as their primary source of heat. We continue to monitor heating‑oil supply chains ensuring households can access fuel when needed. Households using heating oil benefit from wider cost‑of‑living support, including electricity bill reductions announced in the Autumn Budget, and the Warm Home Discount, which provides eligible households with £150 off energy bills until 2030/31. Through the Warm Homes Plan, households can access Boiler Upgrade Scheme grants, and the Government has consulted on alternative low‑carbon options for properties where heat pumps may not be suitable.

If (a) his Department and (b) Ofgem will make an estimate of the cost of the (i) sealing end compounds and (ii) other costs associated with the construction of the (A) underground and (B) other sections of National Grid’s proposed Norwich to Tilbury route.

It is the responsibility of the developers of electricity network projects – in this case National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - to propose the route and obtain planning permission for that route. NGET presented cost estimates for the Norwich to Tilbury proposals in their April 2024 Strategic Options Backcheck and Review. Ofgem reviews proposed project costs and ensures that network companies spend efficiently. Electricity network reinforcements are only approved where they are in the interests of consumers and help reduce system costs. Ofgem will conduct a detailed cost assessment of this project for the Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment Project Assessment stage.

Pursuant to the Answer of 5 December 2024 to Question 17189 on National Grid: Costs of the Western and Eastern Links, if he will make an estimate of the time for delivering the onshore option for Eastern Green Link 1 and 2.

At the time of Ofgem’s decision for Eastern Green Link (EGL) 1&2 Final Need Case, an onshore option was expected to be delivered by 2036, based on information provided by the Transmission Owner, National Grid Electricity Transmission. It was not included as part of the Final Need Case,[1] as analysis conducted by the Electricity System Operator found that the reinforcement was needed earlier than the onshore option could be delivered.[2] [1] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/EGL1%20Project%20Assessment%20Decision%20Final.pdf[2] https://www.neso.energy/document/162356/download

Pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2024 to Question 16211 on National Grid: Costs of the Western and Eastern Links, whether (a) he and (b) Ofgem is able to provide the estimate requested.

The analysis of an onshore reinforcement (i.e. overhead pylons) for Western Green Link was conducted 16 years ago and cost estimates for alternative options are not available.As the option of an onshore reinforcement for Eastern Green Link 1&2 did not meet the timeline for delivery, it was not progressed to the cost benefit analysis stage. As such, an estimate was not made for that option. Analysis of further stages of Eastern Green Link will be available in the future.

If he will make an estimate of the cost of building (a) the Western link and (b) all current and future stages of the Eastern Link if that route was primarily overland via pylons instead of offshore cabling.

Ofgem reviews proposed project costs and ensures that network companies spend efficiently. Electricity network reinforcements are only approved where they are in the interests of consumers and help reduce system costs. Ofgem identified a net lifetime benefit for Western Link, due to lower project and constraint costs compared to alternatives. [1] The system operator set out the project need case in 2007. Ofgem’s analysis [2]of Eastern Green Link 1 and 2, noted that onshore reinforcements would not achieve required delivery dates resulting in increased constraint costs. [1] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consultation/transmission-investment-incentives-consultation-minded-position-western-high-voltage-direct-current-hvdc-link-western-bootstrap[2]https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consultation/eastern-hvdc-consultation-projects-initial-needs-case-and-initial-thinking-its-suitability-competition

Pursuant to the Answer of 8 October to Question 5072 on National Grid: Costs, what estimate he has made of the potential impact on consumer energy bills of the lifetime costs of delivering the coordinated offshore design set out in the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme for East Anglia.

As part of the feasibility work for the coordination proposal explored through the Offshore Coordination Support Scheme, independent analysis by Arup and the Electricity System Operator (now the National Energy System Operator) identified an increase in development costs by up to £890 million, and additional constraint costs of greater than £1.5 billion over the project lifetime. While these costs would be expected to be recovered from consumer electricity bills, the interactions with other bill components mean there are uncertainties preventing a precise estimate of the impact.