The fake Net Zero project 

This case is about Net Zero Teesside Power (NZTP) - a gas fired electricity plant in Teesside.

Is Net Zero Teesside helping the UK to deliver Net Zero? 

Not when the plans from the previous UK Government would lock gas use in Teesside for many years for generating electricity and producing blue hydrogen until past 2050.  

The High Court is hearing my legal case on the strange “Net Zero” project which is not Net Zero at all, on July 23^rd and 24^th.

After I challenged the original carbon figures, the Government say NZTP would emit at least 20 million tonnes of carbon pollution over 25 years (see Guardian article). However, recent work from Carbon Tracker estimates the total emissions could be up to 40 million tonnes of carbon.  

“I am taking this challenge to the £4 billion Net Zero Teesside Power (NZTP) joint venture from fossil giants, BP and Equinor, because my forensic review of the carbon footprint calculations shows this power plant, and others like it planned, is not consistent with the UK meeting its carbon budgets and international climate obligations.” Dr Andrew Boswell

Wider links to CCUS, blue hydrogen and Liquidified Natural Gas (LNG)

NZTP is also the springboard for a massive build out of untried technologies in Teesside including Carbon Capture and Storage and blue Hydrogen, all fuelled by imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).    Scientists are concerned that technologies like these do not provide a solution of the climate crisis but lock us in to fossil fuel usage for decades,  and come with their own massive carbon footprint (see, Anderson/Oldridge: Warning: the UK government’s hydrogen plan isn’t green at all, it’s another oil industry swindle, Howarth: LNG Carries 2.7x the Climate Impact of Coal, Howarth Warns, as U.S. Pauses Approvals). 

This legal case therefore also raises issues about the carbon deceptions in the UK Government’s Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS) programme and follow-on developments such as blue hydrogen and increased LNG imports that it is built upon.  

Carbon footprint deceptions

This plant uses carbon capture doesn’t it, so that’s OK isn’t it?  No, carbon capture is not a well-proven technology.  It has only been applied at a scale a few times, and no plant has ever achieved 90% carbon capture – NZT claim that they could reach 95% capture.

(Graph from https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/CCSpresentation4-MPCMarch24_CK.pdf - a recent review of CCS rates around the world) 

However, exaggerated CCS rates is not the biggest problem. Methane is.

The most signifiant carbon footprint comes from methane and other upstream emissions in the supply of the gas. Methane is a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. The UK is importing Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) increasingly (including at Teesside) and methane leaks to the atmosphere in many places in the supply chain including at extraction, liquefication, transporting, and re-gasification stages.

Although these upstream methane emissions are the biggest climate impact from the NZTP project, the companies did not initially declare them to the planning inspectors. Carbon Tracker estimates the total emissions to be 20 to 40 million tonnes of carbon (as below).

Hiding methane: the double counting error

NZTP initially only described the unabated combustion emissions (left hand column in graph above, "initial submission").  At the planning examination, I raised concerns and the companies acknowledged they recalculkate with upstream emissions included.  But they then double-counted the carbon capture emissions which masked the methane impacts.  BP and Equinor formally denied this three times to the Government, but the Government later agreed with me (My submission, Denial letter 1, Denial letter 2, My second submission, Denial letter 3).  

“Methane is a powerful and deadly greenhouse gas which, along with carbon dioxide, is driving global heating.”  Dr Andrew Boswell

Although the final emissions are staggeringly high, the previous Government minister Claire Coutinho approved the scheme anyway.   The legal challenge is that the minister approved the scheme despite knowing it would undermine UK climate goals.

(Note, the 21MtCO2 final figure above is lower than the real impacts in the Carbon Tracker report, and graph above, as it is based upon Governmet emission factors which underestimate future impacts, see Carbon Tracker report for more).

Legal grounds summary

My lawyers (see their press releases for more detail, May 13th and July 18th) have found potential legal flaws in the decision making including:

• inadequate reasoning to conclude that NZTP will help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment by 2050;
• a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning of the approval when the Secretary of State assessed NZTP as having significant adverse climate effects but went on to find that the development “will help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment”;
• The Secretary of State did not reach her own view on the need for the development despite being required to do so.

 “Analysis from our client shows that the operational emissions of the power plant will hinder rather than help the delivery the Government’s net zero commitment and decarbonisation of the power sector. Despite this, the Government has still gone ahead with its decision to grant a development consent order for the project. We now look forward to taking these arguments and the revised carbon emissions calculations to the High Court later this year.”  Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith

What about the wider implications of UK CCUS, LNG, gas-CCS and blue hydrogen policy?

Several similar gas power plants are planned in Teesside, the Humber, and Scotland. Keeping these plants operational would require more LNG imports, resulting in more methane emissions, contrary to the commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow. Blue hydrogen which also uses LNG is integrated into plans for CCUS, like at Teesside: blue hydrogen plants also come with similar large carbon footprints not consistent with Net Zero.  Such reliance on imported LNG also threatens UK energy security and independence.

(Map from Net Zero Teeside map)

"The new Labour Government has the opportunity to stop investing in questionable fossil fuel CCS projects like NZTP, and prioritise renewables, energy storage, efficiency, demand side response measures, and demand reduction instead.   They should grasp these sustainable solutions for meeting net zero targets and securing a sustainable energy future." Dr Andrew Boswell

What happens next?

I instructed experienced lawyers at Leigh Day.  They and my barristers, Catherine Dobson, Alex Shattock and Isabella Buono, have secured the High Court hearing with the generous support of Dale Vince of Ecotricity to reach this stage. My legal team have very generously agreed to work for a discounted fee, but I still need to build up a fighting fund of £10,000 for preparing and arguing the detailed arguments at Court, adverse costs and any further hearings or appeal if necessary. Please help me raise these funds by supporting this vital legal case with a donation now, and please share widely (on Facebook, X/twitter).

Together, let's stop fake carbon capture projects locking-in fossil fuels.