"House of Commons passes measures to criminalise Net Zero disobedience" by David Turver

#SayNo to Centralised Control of “Smart” Appliances

❝I'm a conservative for freedom, not to put people in prison for not adhering to this new net zero religion. This is a horrific bill. It should be scrapped. It should be parked in the Lords if it gets there and never see the light of day again.❞ – Craig Mackinlay MP

I am grateful to David Turver for the following excellent summary and analysis of the critically important Energy Bill debate in Parliament yesterday which apparently didn't really happen.

We are now officially at war.

Criminalising Net Zero Disobedience

House of Commons passes measures to criminalise Net Zero disobedience

By DAVID TURVER • 5 September

Introduction

Today, the House of Commons debated the Energy Bill that is passing through Parliament. I watched some of the debate and thought that overall quality was poor, with many MPs anxious to signal their Net Zero virtue at the same time they were demonstrating they had no clue about energy or commodity markets. My favourites were Green MP Caroline Lucas and Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse. Lucas demanded an end to new oil and gas developments to free us from Putin’s influence while acknowledging we would need hydrocarbons well beyond 2050. She wants to cut off our own supplies of oil and gas to somehow save us from global despots. This is insanity. Hobhouse wanted to ban new coal mines and permanently ban fracking while bemoaning expensive gas prices. She does not seem to understand that restricting supply increases price.

The Energy Bill contains some very disturbing clauses that a small number of Conservative MPs, led by Craig Mackinlay and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, vigorously opposed.

Sinister Clauses in the Energy Bill

What were Mackinlay, Rees-Mogg and the others getting upset about? Let us go into some detail on the clauses that troubled them and me. In this discussion, I will refer to the third reading version of the Energy Bill and the table of amendments in today’s debate. The Hansard debate can be found here.

Criminalising Non-Compliance with Energy Performance Regulations

Part 10 of the Bill, paragraphs 246 gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations  “enabling or requiring energy usage or energy efficiency of premises to be assessed, certified or publicised”; “enabling or requiring improvements to energy usage or energy efficiency to be identified and recommended” and “restricting or prohibiting the marketing and disposal [including leasing or letting] of premises” on the basis of whether their energy usage or efficiency has been assessed, certified or publicised.” The proposals then go on to giving the power to the Secretary of State to confer functions and impose requirements on any person.

Para 248 then goes on to describe the sanctions available for non-compliance with the regulations. These include fines of up to £15,000 and imprisonment up to 12 months (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Energy Performance Regulations Civil Penalties and Criminal Offences

In effect, if the Bill is passed into law, the Secretary of State would have the powers to create new criminal offences that would for instance make a criminal of someone letting or selling their house if it did not comply with the energy performance regulations. It also appears that not complying with “recommendations” to improve the energy performance of your home may well result in civil or criminal penalties. This is the jackboot of the eco-zealots on the neck of the poorest who can least afford to make the changes required to comply with the rules. Effectively, they could be fined or imprisoned for being too poor to afford to modify their homes to comply with regulations. Rees-Mogg argued that creating new criminal offences should be a matter for Parliament and not be at the whim of the Secretary of State.

Centralised Control of “Smart” Appliances

Part 9, Chapter 2 deals with Energy Smart Appliances and Load Control. Paragraph 235 defines energy smart appliances to include fridges, dishwashers, washers, heaters (presumably heat pumps and immersion heaters), air conditioners and electric vehicle charge points.  Effectively this is most of the high consumption devices in any home, other than a cooker.

The same paragraph stipulates that the smart function is “capable of operating in response to load control signals from any person carrying out load control.” In other words, the control of domestic appliances will be handed to anyone the Government sees fit to carry out load control, see Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Central Control of Domestic Appliances and Heating

Centralised control of our domestic appliances, heating and car chargers. What could possibly go wrong? This is a power grab of epic proportions. The Government is inadvertently making the case against smart meters and smart appliances without even realising it.

Powers to Enter Premises Without Warrant

Paragraph 152 of the Bill gives powers to enter premises taking part in the hydrogen grid conversion trial to enter premises to inspect anything on the premises or carry out tests on anything.  Mackinlay et al tabled amendment 50 so that exercise of this power would require a warrant issued by a judge.

New Sanctions for Heat Zones

Part 8, Chapter 2 of the Bill creates new regulations about network heat zones, or more colloquially, district heat networks. Paragraphs 230 and 231 determine how these zones will be enforce and provide for the penalties for non-compliance. The specific penalties are not identified but give broad powers to specify the maximum penalty amount and how it would be recovered.

Where is the Resistance?

In the debate, important speeches were made by Craig Mackinlay, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir John Redwood and Richard Drax. They all raised concerns about what is being proposed and urged caution upon the Government. Mackinlay tabled a series of amendments to remove or water down all the proposals above. Sadly, as far as I can tell, no vote took place on these amendments, so the Bill passed third reading with these sinister provisions in place. The last line of defence is the House of Lords, so we can only hope that Lords Frost and Lilley fillet the Bill when it goes to that place.

Craig Mackinlay also tabled an amendment to introduce a clause (NC41) that would put a duty on Government to ensure the lowest possible cost of energy to businesses and households. Unfortunately, this amendment was not put to the vote.

Small Mercy: No Need to Decarbonise by 2030

Some proposed amendments were put to a vote and thankfully were voted down. New clause 59 was tabled by Ed Miliband that for the grid to be fully decarbonised by 2030. In effect, it would enshrine Labour’s energy policy in law. This is even madder than Government policy and thankfully was voted down by 310 votes to 223. I am drafting an article on Labour’s energy policy that will be published soon.

Conclusions

As I was watching some of the debate, I was struck by how many MPs were opining on energy policy and commodity markets but really they have no expertise in the area at all. Despite claiming the bill is about energy production and security, we can see that many of the provisions are about restricting energy use and forcing people to comply with Net Zero dogma.

I fear that this is going to end in catastrophe. It seems politicians are gripped by a collective insanity. As I have discussed before, UK emissions are ~1% of the global total. Whatever we do will make no difference to global climate. Yet, both Government and Opposition seem hell bent on policies that will impoverish us all.

Energy is the fundamental lifeblood of the economy. Current policies have already led to the closure of energy intensive industries, leading to job losses and damaged productivity growth. If this Bill is enacted, we are on a very steep and slippery slope towards a totalitarian state, where decisions on whether you can heat your home or wash the dishes are taken by a state authorised body.

It is clear to anyone who understands what western values are supposed to stand for that we are on the wrong path. We need urgent action to change course before we end up with the riots and protests we have seen in France, Holland and Ireland.

---

What's next? Are they going to criminalise discussions about the potential harms and greater expense of having smart meters and “smart” appliances controlled remotely? I know about the increased cost for a fact from experience when in 2004 Ontario Hydro went around surreptitiously installing smart meters in properties without any notification, discussion with homeowners nor consent. Our electricity bills doubled. Higher rates were charged during peak hours in the morning and evenings. My husband and I got into a new routine of doing our laundry at night. After I moved to the UK in 2012 I noticed that there was finally a huge outcry from people and lawsuits commenced in Ontario. There were also many reports of people experiencing health effects from the “smart” meters.

In the UK, Money Market published The great smart meter rip-off: Energy giants will use devices to DOUBLE the cost of power when you need it most in November 2015.

I will personally never ever permit a “smart” meter of control to be installed in my cottage nor will I ever have any smart appliances.

Appliance makers sad that 50% of customers won’t connect smart appliances

Did users change their Wi-Fi password, or did they see the nature of IoT privacy?

By KEVIN PURDY • 1/24/2023, 6:20 PM

This hypothetical dishwasher owner is one of a minority of smart appliance customers getting the full value of their device, including timely reminders to buy more of the company's recommended dishwasher tabs and cleaning packs.

---

Appliance makers like Whirlpool and LG just can't understand. They added Wi-Fi antennae to their latest dishwashers, ovens, and refrigerators and built apps for them—and yet only 50 percent or fewer of their owners have connected them. What gives?

The issue, according to manufacturers quoted in a Wall Street Journal report (subscription usually required), is that customers just don't know all the things a manufacturer can do if users connect the device that spins their clothes or keeps their food cold—things like "providing manufacturers with data and insights about how customers are using their products" and allowing companies to "send over-the-air updates" and "sell relevant replacement parts or subscription services."

“The challenge is that a consumer doesn’t see the true value that manufacturers see in terms of how that data can help them in the long run. So they don’t really care for spending time to just connect it,” Henry Kim, US director of LG's smart device division ThinQ, told the Journal.

LG told the Journal that fewer than half of its smart appliances—which represent 80–90 percent of its sold appliances—stay connected to the Internet. Whirlpool reported that "more than half" are connected. Wi-Fi-connected smart appliances may be connected when they're first set up, but a new Internet provider, router hardware, or Wi-Fi password could take the device offline. And a smart oven is likely to be far down the list of devices to set up again once that happens.

That means companies like Whirlpool are missing out on services revenue, which is increasingly crucial to manufacturers facing rising input costs, declining replacement purchases, and hungry shareholders. Whirlpool acquired recipe management app Yummly in 2017, and its customers can sync a Yummly Pro subscription to a smart oven so that it follows the recipe's instructions (which must, apparently, sometimes go beyond "heat to this level").

For its part, LG saw an incremental increase in water-filter sales when it tracked water volumes on connected fridges versus non-connected fridges, the company told the Journal. Both companies also suggested that new features, including safety alerts, are issued to connected customers.

Whirlpool told the Journal that customers "have the opportunity to opt in or opt out" of sharing data with the company. LG doesn't offer that option, but Kim told the Journal that "all data is anonymized."

While the manufacturers blame technical constraints, some customers may simply not want to provide companies with vague privacy policies or bad histories with security access to their networks.

LG smart TVs were found in 2013 to be uploading extensive data to their servers about all the activity happening on them, including watching files on USB sticks. At the time, LG admitted it was collecting this data, but it suggested the data was "not personal" and was used only for advertisement targeting or as part of software projects that were discontinued. LG is far from the only TV maker to participate in automated content recognition, but it's one of a select few that also makes a dishwasher.

More broadly, smart home (or Internet of Things, or IoT) devices are too often built with an "acquire, upload, whatever" mindset. Take the test models from iRobot/Roomba (up for potential acquisition by Amazon) that uploaded images of someone on the toilet to the cloud. Or any of the dozens of devices detailed in an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers study, a Northeastern/Imperial College survey, or the Mozilla Foundation's "Privacy Not Included" list. The problems are so widespread and varied that the White House has called for universal IoT security labeling.

Appliance makers are eager for buyers to connect their smart devices, but at least some may think they've done the smart thing by letting them work offline.

---

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading Arthur Firstenberg’s The Invisible Rainbow – A History of Electricity and Life. This interview with Arthur provides a good overview of the history of and impact of electronmagnetic frequencies on humans.

For information about the impact of "smart” meters, 5G, 6G, the Internet of Things (IoT) and other technologies, I recommend FrancisLeader’s Uncensored blog.

WORLDWIDE TESTIMONIES ABOUT SMART METERS