Q459 Mr. Dave Anderson: Are you happy that the draft NPSs provide sufficiently clear guidance both to the IPC but also to local planning authorities?

Mr Wells: It certainly does provide some guidance but clearly there is potential for inconsistency between the IPC regime and the Town and Country Planning Act regime. That is partly inherent in the nature of the IPC process. It is major infrastructure we are talking about and the Town and Country Planning regime is dealing with smaller developments. The smaller developments equally play a big part cumulatively in helping achieve government targets. We do believe that there should be greater consistency between the NPSs and the TCPA, for example. At the moment, I think I am right in saying that the NPSs may be used by the LPAs as guidance; it is the guidance in the NPSs themselves. The LPAs have a whole raft of guidance that they have to use. They have their own development plans; they have planning policy statements; they have the national policy statements. We need to ensure that national policy statements are given sufficient weight so that there is consistency between the IPC regime and the TCPA regime.

Q460 Mr. Dave Anderson: If they are given sufficient weight, what would happen if you had a dispute, if the NPS said "we want to go consultation on X" and they said, "yes, we will go for that" but the local authority, which might not be directly in X but in Y that will not be affected except perhaps by connection to the grid and pipe work, and that goes to court? Do you think the NPS should have the power to overrule that?

Mr Wells: Being a lawyer, obviously I would say that this is a bit of a grey area! Clearly, our expectation is that the development plans will in time be aligned with the NPSs and the process to enable those to be aligned is under way and will happen as development plans are revised. Clearly there is that opportunity for conflict. At the end of the day, a dispute is resolved ultimately is through the law, I suppose, but how it is resolved will depend on the weight given by the local authority to the various plans it has to take into account.

Q461 Mr. Dave Anderson: Until such time as they come into line, do you think that that fills in an almost automatic risk of delay and challenge and therefore more legal challenge?

Mr Wells: There is always the risk of legal challenge. The risk of successful legal challenge is the same; it depends on the weight to be given. It is probably worth bearing in mind that it could be developers who are challenging this; it could be anybody involved in the process who may end up in that sort of challenge.

+++

Q501 Mr. Dave Anderson: So if there was final support from the Government for other forms, for demonstration plants in effect for gas or biomass, you would feel happier.

Dr MacLean: Effectively the Government would have to underwrite any cost that is required for retrofitting to a combustion plant project in the way that it has for the four gas ones for us to demonstrate that that will be commercially viable. With the volumes of gas in particular that need to be built, that just seems like a commitment that even the Government would not be able to give to that sort of bottomless pit of cost that might be required to retrofit CCR to any plant.

Mr Steele: We have identified this issue and commented on it in our response to the Government's consultation on CCR. We think that it is possible on a kind of scenarios basis to write a case that is capable of acceptance, although we do agree with SSE that the wording is defective. We have put forward a planning case around Damhead Creek 2 which addresses this issue and so far has not been rejected by DECC under section 36. I am not sure I would put the matter quite as starkly as Keith does, but it is the case that the requirement to say that the retrofit is commercially viable is an over-implementation of the directive and, in our view, should be struck out. That does not mean to say we believe that the CCR requirement generally is inappropriate; I think it is just a mistake in the way ---

Q502 Paddy Tipping: Can we put this in more simple terms for me - I am struggling with this! Carbon capture readiness has two tests, does it not? Is it technologically going to be able to deliver? Are we going to do some work on that?

Dr MacLean: Yes.

Q503 Paddy Tipping: We are going to sort that out. Is it commercially viable? That is the bit that is difficult, is it not?

Dr MacLean: Absolutely.

Q504 Paddy Tipping: Because we have not got a clue, to put it bluntly in my terms, whether things are going to be commercially viable in the future.

Dr MacLean: Absolutely. To clarify, we are not opposed to the carbon capture readiness clause or a requirement in terms of having the physical space and those aspects; but it is particularly, as Mr Tipping is saying, setting that hurdle of being able to demonstrate commercial viability. We just cannot do it.

Ms Smith: What we are saying is that it is a phased approach. Until you can prove that it can work at a commercial scale, then the industry is just not in a position to comply. We support it; we want it to work, and we are going to be actively involved in making it work, but let us have a commitment in the NPS that says that, and as soon as it is commercially viable, then it comes in.

Q505 Mr. Dave Anderson: The question is about getting the word right rather than the intent.

Ms Smith: Yes.

Q506 Mr. Dave Anderson: Clearly, you are very much aware that some of the opposition, to do with anything on coal or gas, the real intention is to build some power stations and then say, "Oh, because we are desperate for supply we will let them go unabated." We are clearly not going down that line by suggesting taking this out.

Dr MacLean: Absolutely not.

Mr Sambhi: It is in the overarching statement at 4.71, the last bullet point, where we are saying the criteria is that it has to be economically feasible. It is either elimination of that or significant re-wording that is required.

Q507 Mr. Dave Anderson: Can I ask you about the specific other issue, which is not in here, and that is about guidance on the transmission and storage for gas in particular. Do you think that should be in?

Ms Smith: Yes, absolutely. CO2­ pipelines and storage are absolutely essential, as I mentioned earlier. As far as we understand, we believe it is just a simple omission, and that DECC will certainly look to include them, because obviously we need to take the carbon dioxide away and store it in a secure underground storage space.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript may be read here.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT