An appeal court heard that a High Court ruling over emissions from the Net Zero Teesside (NZT) power gas project was “wrong” to conclude Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was unaware of the planning inspector’s guidance.
Campaigner Dr Andrew Boswell’s legal claim against BP and Equinor’s plans to develop a gas-fired power station with carbon capture in Teesside was heard in the Court of Appeal in London Tuesday.
Represented by law firm Leigh Day, he argued that calculation errors made by the developers will mean that the power station will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than initially declared.
© Supplied by ShutterstockWhile the revised emissions calculation was accepted by Miliband, the project was nevertheless granted approval in February 2024, on the basis that it would “help deliver the government’s net zero commitment” by 2050.
According to Boswell’s legal case, those higher than anticipated emissions are at odds with the UK’s net zero commitments.
At stake is whether BP and Equinor’s flagship NZT power station will contribute towards the government’s net zero targets.
The project was awarded funding under track one of the UK government’s £21.7 billion carbon capture and storage scheme alongside a major carbon capture and storage facility known as the Northern Endurance Partnership (NEP).
Boswell’s claim was initially dismissed by a judge in the High Court last year, but he was granted permission to appeal in September 2024.
Judge Nathalie Lieven had rejected the claim in August on the basis that Miliband did not need to rely on the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) guidance that a panel of planning inspectors used to evaluate emissions.
An appeal was nevertheless granted in September on the basis that the judge had erred in determining that the secretary did not rely on IEMA guidance.
“The judge was wrong to conclude that the secretary of state did not base his assessment of significance on the IEMA,” the appeal court heard today. “We say that wasn’t a conclusion that she could properly reach on the material before her.”
That guidance was used by planning inspectors to conclude that emissions from the development would have a “significant adverse” impact, according to Boswell’s lawyers.
In court, Boswell’s legal representative highlighted “tension” between what IEMA says and achieving net zero.
The appellant’s legal representative added in court: “There is therefore an inconsistency between the conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are a significant adverse impact and the statements in the decision letter that the development would help deliver the government’s net zero commitment.”
The case comes after BP revealed plans to slash its investment in low-carbon projects by $5 billion at its latest capital markets day, but told shareholders that NZT and NEP plans were “economically viable”.
However, the oil company is expected to axe a planned green hydrogen production facility at the Teesworks site, Hygreen, as it shifts its focus away from investment in renewable energy projects.
© Supplied by Net Zero TeessideThe combined NZT and NEP projects would involve the construction of a gas-fired electricity generating power station, with a post combustion carbon capture plant and a pipeline for transporting carbon dioxide to be stored under the North Sea.
Boswell said: “BP and Equinor initially failed to declare any upstream emissions for this carbon capture plant, although there is no technology to capture these emissions and they form the largest part of the plant’s carbon footprint.
“Methane accelerates climate breakdown more rapidly than carbon dioxide, and it was left to me as a member of the public to correct the estimates of the climate impacts.
“The heart of the case is that the previous energy minister agreed with my analysis, but then perversely deemed that these severe climate impacts were consistent with UK net zero policy.”
Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said: “Dr Boswell’s calculations have shown that the NZT development would release more greenhouse emissions than initially thought. Despite this, consent for the power station has still been granted.
“Our client believes the logic and reasoning for this decision was flawed, and argues that the Secretary of State has interpreted and applied environmental assessment guidelines inconsistently when giving permission for the development.”
The Court of Appeal will hear arguments for the appeal case again on 5 March. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Justice Holgate are presiding over the case.
“We [Net Zero Teesside Power and Northern Endurance Partnership] don’t comment on live proceedings,” a spokesperson for the developer said in an email
BP declined comment. Equinor was approached for comment and Boswell was approached for further comment.
Recommended for you
