'Net zero' plant aids energy security, court hears

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

The decision to approve a new "net zero" gas power station was "perfectly lawful", the Court of Appeal has heard.

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

His legal representatives have argued the government did not fully explore the environmental impacts of the scheme before approving it.

But barrister Rose Grogan, for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), said the government had acknowledged the "significant" greenhouse gas emissions the scheme would cause before any decision was made.

Dr Boswell's team argued that was still not enough.

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 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.

'Value judgement'

On the case's second day, Ms Grogan continued to argue that the former secretary of state for energy security and net zero had acknowledged the "significant" carbon emissions the project would cause in her decision making process.

She said the examining authority had ruled this to be true "even with 90% [carbon] capture".

"It's a lot of carbon," Ms Grogan said, though she added that it was not a large percentage of the country's total carbon budget.

She said the minister was "entitled" to look at all types of factors when making the verdict.

In aiming to achieve net zero by 2050, Ms Grogan said the government had to balance "energy security" needs with possessing an "energy mix" which enabled back-up fuels if renewables were "not operational".

She said it was a "value judgement" and the government had made a "reasoned conclusion" which was "perfectly lawful".

She said there was no "real" doubt in the case.

'Important to detail effects'

Catherine Dobson, representing Dr Boswell, said making a "reasoned conclusion" of a project's environmental impact required more than simply calling an effect "significant".

She said it was also key to detail "how significant" that impact would be and how it would affect the environment.

She said a better understanding of the significance might have affected the "planning balance" but even if it had not, it was still important to detail the effects.

Referencing previous environmental legal cases, she said: "It's important this is known."

The judges did not say when the court would make a decision on the case.