'Tension' in power plant's approval, court hears

The power station is planned for the Teesworks site, near Redcar

The Court of Appeal has heard there is a "tension" in the government's decision to approve a new "net zero" gas power station.

Environmental consultant Andrew Boswell lost a High Court case in August after arguing against the green credentials of Net Zero Teesside, which is planning to use carbon-capture technology.

He was given permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal where it was heard earlier.

Legal representatives for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said "no legal error" had been made.

The plant, which is planned for the Teesworks site, near Redcar, is being developed by a firm called Net Zero Teesside Power – owned by BP and Equinor.

The company has previously stated the project could generate up to 860 megawatts of low-carbon electricity.

It has claimed that at least 90% of the gas power station's emissions would be captured and funnelled beneath the North Sea

In February 2024, the government granted the project a development order (DCO) which is required for nationally significant infrastructure projects.

'Inconsistency'

Barrister Catherine Dobson, representing Dr Boswell, had previously told the High Court the environmental consultant had exposed "a large double-counting error" regarding how the power station's greenhouse gas emissions would be calculated.

She said the final assessment - that it may contribute more than 20 million tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent" into the atmosphere over its lifetime - was "significantly greater" than previously estimated.

Ms Dobson told the Court of Appeal that the government had accepted Dr Boswell's calculations and had acknowledged the project's lifetime emissions could cause "significant adverse" effects.

Nevertheless, the government had granted permission for the scheme, insisting it would help the UK reach its goal of hitting net zero by 2050.

She said there was an "inconsistency" in this argument and the government had not given a "coherent explanation".

She said the government had an "obligation" to reach a "reasoned conclusion" on the project's environmental impact and had so far failed to do so.

'Question of judgement'

Barrister Rose Grogan, representing DESNZ, described the case brought by Dr Boswell as the "epitome of a legalistic obstacle course-type" challenge.

She said the government accepted that the plant would produce greenhouse gas emissions that caused a "significant adverse" impact, but that this alone did not prevent it from approving such schemes.

"This is a question of judgement," she said.

"Fossil fuel remains part of the government's energy mix," she said. "It's part of the transition to a low-carbon economy... but it needs to be low carbon through the deployment of CCS [carbon capture and storage]."

The case continues.