Draft Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Burt, Alistair (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
† Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
† Glindon, Mrs Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)
† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)
† Hames, Duncan (Chippenham) (LD)
† Healey, John (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
† Jenrick, Robert (Newark) (Con)
† Kwarteng, Kwasi (Spelthorne) (Con)
† Moore, Michael (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)
† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)
† Neill, Robert (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
† Rudd, Amber (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change)
Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab)
† Wallace, Mr Ben (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Marek Kubala, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Cunningham, Sir Tony (Workington) (Lab)
Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 10 March 2015
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
Draft Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015.
The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.
Amber Rudd: These statutory instruments both relate to energy infrastructure. The first draft instrument implements secondary legislation for the emissions performance standard. The emissions performance standard, or EPS, was introduced by the Energy Act 2013 and constitutes one of the measures that collectively make up the Government’s programme of electricity market reform. The regulations clarify the application of the EPS in particular cases and set out the practical arrangements for implementing and enforcing it.
In summary, the EPS acts as a regulatory backstop on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that new fossil fuel plants can emit. To be clear: a new plant is an electricity-generating station that secures development consent after the EPS came into force, on 18 February 2014. The EPS is part of the Government’s strategy to transition to a low-carbon electricity system at the lowest cost to consumers while maintaining security of supply. It works to complement our existing planning policy which prevents any new coal-fired generating station from being consented unless it is equipped with full-chain carbon capture and storage technology. In combination, these measures ensure that any new coal plant will be equipped with and use CCS.
The power to make these regulations is contained in the Energy Act 2013. Part 1 of the regulations establishes their extent and application. Part 2 makes provision for additional application of the emissions limit duty, which is the legal duty to conform with the requirements of the EPS, and modification of that duty in specific circumstances; it will apply throughout the United Kingdom. Part 3 sets out the monitoring and enforcement arrangements to apply in England.
I will now describe the operation of these parts in more detail, starting with part 2. As an exception to the EPS applying only to new fossil fuel plants, part 2 of the regulations clarifies the limited circumstances in which the EPS will be applied to an existing coal plant. The regulations provide that where an existing coal plant installs or replaces a main boiler, and so effectively extends the life of the plant by a period comparable to the operating life of a new plant, then that plant is
treated as if it were a new plant and therefore will be subject to the EPS. This is consistent with the approach set out in the Act. Part 2 also sets out the circumstances in which a plant’s annual emissions limit will be modified. Where a plant commences or ceases operation part of the way through a year, the emissions limit is amended for that year to take into account the proportion of the year to which the EPS applies. Similarly, if the installed generating capacity of a fossil fuel plant changes, for instance by adding or retiring generating units, its emissions limit is to be adjusted to reflect the new situation.Part 2 also establishes arrangements associated with the three-year carbon capture and storage exemption from the EPS as provided for by section 58(1) of the Act. The regulations clarify that the exemption only applies to those generating units of the fossil fuel plant equipped with a full CCS chain. It also sets out a methodology for calculating emissions arising from qualifying combined heat and power plants which provide that the emissions associated with the reduction of useful heat are not taken into account for EPS purposes. This is to ensure that the EPS does not become a barrier to the development and deployment of good-quality combined heat and power plants.
Finally, part 2, together with the relevant provisions in the Energy Act 2013, provides that where a power plant is using fuel derived from fossil fuel that is gasified offsite, the associated emissions will be taken into account when the relevant power station’s total emissions are calculated. This is to avoid any possible circumvention of EPS.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): The impact statement suggests that the costs are going to be only £50,000 a year and that these are administrative costs only. Can the Minister tell the Committee what other costs are likely to be involved? Clearly, this sort of investment is going to be much greater than an administrative exercise.
Amber Rudd: The costs associated with the EPS are already covered in primary legislation. What we are discussing here is amendments to make the provisions clearer for implementation, so we do not recognise that there will be any significant associated additional costs from the statutory instrument. The additional costs the right hon. Gentleman refers to are for administration, for additional clarification, and do not, in themselves, carry any significant additional costs.
To resume, outside England the monitoring and enforcement obligation will fall to the relevant authority within the territory. These arrangements have been developed in close co-operation with the Environment Agency, which will act as the enforcement authority in England. In designing this framework, we have sought to minimise any regulatory burden by basing them on and tying them to the arrangements already in place for the EU’s emissions trading system, which is also administered by the Environment Agency.
Before commencing operation, a plant’s operator will be required to declare its emissions limit, calculated in accordance with section 57 of the Energy Act, to the Environment Agency The operator will then be required to provide emissions data in cases where the plant’s total annual carbon emissions, as measured and reported
under the EU ETS, exceed the plant’s EPS emissions limit. This approach removes, for many plants, the need to do significant extra regulatory work, as carbon emissions data already has to be compiled for the EU ETS. Where the reported EU ETS emissions for a plant exceed the plant’s EPS limit, the plant operator will be required to provide a further breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions, identifying those that are relevant for EPS purposes and those that are not. This information will allow the Environment Agency to verify whether the emissions limit for the plant has been breached in any particular period.Power plants throughout the UK have a strong track record in complying with their regulatory responsibilities and many took part in our consultation on these regulations last year. We therefore do not expect that there will be breaches of the emissions limit duty in the future, but in the event that there are, the regulations give the Environment Agency the ability to take strong and proportionate enforcement action to ensure that no plant breaching its emissions limit is able to benefit commercially from that breach. Under the regulations, in cases of breach by a plant operator the Secretary of State may issue enforcement guidance that can set the parameters of any penalties to be applied by the Environment Agency. An appeals route is also provided.
The purpose of the draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015 is to bring certain development relating to geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste within the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): Will the Minister say a little about how local democracy fits into this new consultation process?
Amber Rudd: I will be addressing that question. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene again if he finds that that is not covered in my comments. This is an element that I know is important to all of us.
Making this legislative change will help us to implement geological disposal—an action vital for both our energy past and our energy future. As a pioneer of nuclear technology, the UK has accumulated a legacy of higher activity radioactive waste and materials. More will arise as existing nuclear facilities reach the end of their lifetime and are decommissioned and cleaned up, and through the operation and decommissioning of any new nuclear power stations.
Most hon. Members will be aware, but it is worth reiterating, that geological disposal is recognised across the world, including by our own independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, as being the best available approach for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste. A geological disposal facility is a highly engineered facility capable of isolating radioactive waste within multiple protective barriers deep underground, so that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface.
Last year my Department published a White Paper to move forward the process of implementing geological disposal. It set out three initial actions for the Government and the developer, Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, which were informed by a review of the GDF siting
process that had operated since 2008. Those actions are to be carried out over the next two years. The purpose of the actions is to provide greater clarity on issues of geology, development impacts, and community representation and investment, before communities are asked to get involved in discussions about considering a GDF.Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I seek some clarity. Is the Minister absolutely clear, therefore, that this will be done with a voluntary approach and that there is absolutely no way that the Secretary of State can decide that these facilities can be placed in a community without its full consent, through the full planning process, as is normally the case?
Amber Rudd: I am now going to make some comments on exactly what the role of the local community is, how that works within the planning system, and how—if at all—it will change. I urge her to allow me to make those comments, and then if she wishes to comment again or speak herself because she feels that I have not addressed her question, I will be happy for her to do so.
The purpose of these actions is to provide greater clarity before communities are asked to get involved in discussions about considering a GDF. A national geological screening exercise will consider the available geological information across the country, and provide guidance on features relevant to building a safe GDF. The detail of how Government and the developer will work together with communities will also be developed. These are important and challenging issues on which there must be clarity before communities are asked to get involved in formal discussions with the developer, from which they will have an ongoing right of withdrawal. The Government continue to favour an approach to siting a GDF that is based on local communities’ willingness to participate in the process.
The 2014 White Paper entitled “Implementing Geological Disposal” is clear that the final decision to apply for development consent and regulatory approvals for a GDF will not be taken until and unless there is a positive test of public support for hosting a GDF at the site in question.
Amber Rudd: I would like to make a little progress on this point. The order is therefore not about where the GDF will be sited, but about how the facility should be consented to from a planning perspective, once a mutually acceptable potential site has been identified and supported by the local community. Bringing the process of consent and development of GDFs within the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 is another important step to give clarity to communities, and to facilitate future public consultation and the provision of greater information.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): On this point, will the Minister give way?
Amber Rudd: If the hon. Gentleman would let me finish this particular point, I will give way before moving on. It is important to remember that the process used to consider development consent applications for a GDF
will only be triggered if there is that positive test of public support, and the final development consent process does not replace that earlier process to identify a potential site. Issues of community acceptance of a GDF will be properly addressed through the site selection process, the details of which will be developed over the next two years, in line with the commitments made in the 2014 White Paper. The development consent process can then consider issues related to local development rather than reopening issues of national policy. A GDF for the UK’s higher activity radioactive waste is clearly an infrastructure project of national significance, and the Government believe that it is appropriate for the approach to land use planning decisions to reflect this.The Planning Act 2008 created a new regime for development consent for certain types of nationally significant infrastructure such as major energy, transport and waste projects. The process is designed to streamline the decision-making process for these projects and, while ensuring there is still a thorough examination of the benefits and impacts of the projects, make it fairer and faster for communities and developers alike.
Sir Tony Cunningham: I am listening with interest to what the Minister has said. The question is really what “local” is. By local consent, do we mean the consent of the local parish council, or the local town council, or the local district council or the local county council? We can talk about local consent, but what exactly does the Minister mean by this?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, there are many ways of interpreting that and different initiatives do that in different ways. That is why we set out a general statement that will be developed over the next two years. The key to the order is that communities will be at the centre of any decision-making proposals.
John Healey: The Minister mentioned—I think I am quoting her correctly—a positive test of consent. Can she explain what would be deemed as such, perhaps with specific examples?
Amber Rudd: May I clarify for the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that the GDF is a new initiative and that it is at least two years away? The legislation aims to create the framework on which some decisions can be made.
John Healey: With respect, the order places the GDF in an already established framework for exactly the process of consent for permissions for major projects, which has been in place since the 2008 Act. Therefore, the regime is not new and the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, other Members and I have raised are entirely appropriate. The Minister ought to have answers.
Amber Rudd: The right hon. Gentleman is right in so far as the framework is not new, but the initiative for this particular type of infrastructure is new. That is why we have not yet set out what we mean by communities,
but we will develop that with communities, stakeholders and people who have a role in it during the next two years.Tessa Munt: My experience related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing suggests that the Department’s ability to consult and extrapolate what is support and what is not for any process from responses is flawed. It is therefore extraordinary that we should be asked to deem that this is an accepted process when I cannot see any force given in writing—unless the Minister can direct me—about what she claims will be the process and protection for members of the public.
Amber Rudd: It seems to me that the core of the hon. Lady’s question is: does the order in any way reduce the role of local authorities? On that, I can completely reassure her. We are not in any way making changes for the worse if such a change would be to reduce the role of local authorities. The nationally significant infrastructure planning regime is simply the most suitable route for an infrastructure project of such scale and importance.
The Planning Act 2008, into which the order falls, requires the developer to consult local communities, local authorities, statutory bodies and other interested parties before any application for consent is made. The hon. Lady’s disagreement with the role of shale in the Infrastructure Bill is well known.
Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for giving way. She has been keen to communicate the assurances she can give the Committee about the role of local input, but we have heard only an assertion that the Planning Act 2008 contains the most suitable framework for considering a GDF. Will she help us by explaining, in implementing the policy, what the drawbacks would be of not adopting the order today and leaving such a facility under the existing planning rules? Perhaps, in doing so, she might reflect on whether both parties in the coalition Government supported the 2008 Act under which she plans to place the facility on consent.
Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive question. The main change in the order is that the developer will have to engage with planning bodies, statutory bodies and local authorities to a far greater degree than now before requesting permission. It seems to us—to the Government—that this is a positive approach because it will naturally engage the community more, it will allow for more transparency and will allow local authorities and local communities to be much more aware of what other bodies think, before they have to make a decision themselves. This is about providing more transparency and more information before local communities are consulted, which we think will help them to make a more informed decision.
The purpose of this order is to bring both the GDF and the deep borehole investigations necessary and to assess and characterise the suitability of potential sites, within the scope of this process. The draft order defines in detail the specific characteristics that a certain development relating to a GDF will need to possess in order for it to fall within the scope of the Planning Act 2008. This will provide a clear process for the developer
seeking consent and places specific requirements on the developer to consult local communities, local authorities and other interested parties.In support of this approach to land use planning, the Government will produce a national policy statement setting out our policy in more detail on the need for these types of infrastructure. This will be subject to an appraisal of sustainability, which will be carried out in such a way as to also satisfy the requirements of applicable environmental assessments. The Government intend to bring forward the preparation of a generic—that is, a non site-specific—national policy statement as soon as is practicable, to help inform the process of working with communities on GDF siting. This approach to land use planning would only apply to the development of a GDF in England. The development of a GDF elsewhere in the UK would need to go through the appropriate devolved planning system.
The purpose of this order is to put in place an appropriate process for land use planning decisions in relation to GDFs and facilitate the provision of greater up-front information to interested communities through the production of a national policy statement. In this way, it will help to ensure that we are able to implement geological disposal, which will contribute to securing our energy past and future. I therefore propose that these two orders are accepted.
2.52 pm
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This secondary legislation sets out provisions for the implementation of an EPS to apply to new fossil fuel plant. It will limit emissions at such a plant to 450g CO
2
/KWh. I begin by saying that Labour supports the principle of an EPS and that we will not seek to divide the Committee on these regulations. However, the specifics of these regulations raise questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to provide characteristically illuminating answers. If she cannot do so today, I would appreciate it if she could put them in writing to me.As with any policy relating to our energy mix, there must be a focus on meeting our climate change commitments. For this reason, I was pleased to see that the impact assessment for these regulations acknowledges:
“The electricity system needs to be substantially decarbonised during the 2020s”.
Given that the Government have acknowledged the need to effectively decarbonise the electricity system by the end of the 2020s, and that businesses, NGOs and the Committee on Climate Change backed a 2030 decarbonisation target to provide certainty about that trajectory, could the Minister explain why her Government voted against such a measure during the passage of the Energy Act 2013? The question remains whether this version of the EPS contributes to that goal of substantially decarbonising the electricity system during the 2020s. The short answer is that the Government do not seem to think that it does. The impact assessment states that the EPS is,
“not expected to have any impact on investment decisions or plant running hours”.
Instead, the explanatory memorandum describes the measure as a,
“regulatory backstop to limit how much carbon new fossil fuel plants can emit”.
Do the Government recognise that emissions arise from existing fossil fuel plants, as well as any new fossil fuel plants? For a new fossil fuel plant, the EPS provides a backstop. Has the Government considered such a backstop for existing fossil fuel plants? There appears to be some confusion on this point. The impact assessment reiterates that the EPS,
“acts as a regulatory backstop to the National Planning policy, which requires new coal fired power station to be equipped with CCS”.
But the explanatory memorandum predicts:
“In the future it may be appropriate to use the EPS in a difference way, for example to require CCS on new plant”.
Could the Minister clarify this point? The impact assessment seems to say that it currently requires CCS on new plant while the explanatory memorandum suggests that this might be considered in the future. It seems to me that the explanatory memorandum would make more sense if it speculated about the potential application of the EPS to existing plants rather than to new, in which case this would be an unfortunate and misleading typo.
One of the key issues in relation to fossil fuel plants and their supply chains is the roll-out of CCS. There are some who accuse CCS of being nothing but a fig leaf for the fossil fuel industry. I wholly reject that position. The evidence is clear. In our bid to decarbonise our economy, CCS is a necessity, not an option. Failure on CCS increases the cost of decarbonisation. The Energy Technologies Institute estimated that deploying CCS could reduce the cost of meeting UK carbon targets by £30 billion to £40 billion per year, or up to 1% of GDP by 2050.
Duncan Hames: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I can understand the aspirations that people might have for CCS. When does she consider it is realistic to expect that CCS could be deployed at a commercial scale within the UK’s energy industry?
Julie Elliott: There are pilots in Canada at the moment. This Government have pulled back on such pilots; we wait to see the results of those pilots to see where we go on CCS.
CCS has the potential to create 100,000 jobs across the UK by 2030, contributing £6.5 billion to the economy. The UK has unique global advantages in the technology, is home to 25% of Europe’s storage capacity and could turn this into an export opportunity. CCS is also one of the only large-scale mitigation options for reducing emissions from our industrial sectors. In the context of global decarbonisation and a rising European carbon price, industrial CCS could therefore give the UK a competitive edge. These benefits of CCS are clear. But this Government have proven remarkably unreceptive to that evidence.
In 2014, the Committee on Climate Change found:
“Progress with CCS is well behind the schedule we set out in our earlier reports.”
The Energy and Climate Change Committee report quoted one analyst as saying that,
“the current approach is a recipe for the period 2010-2015 being seen to be five wasted years for CCS in the UK.”
On industrial applications of CCS, the Committee concluded:
“We are disappointed that the Government has so far paid little attention to it.”
That is simply the wrong approach. From early drafts of the CfD which appeared to exclude CCS, to repeated delays in the competition programme, the Government have all too often given the appearance of not being serious about CCS. These measures are a case in point. In the first draft of the EPS primary legislation, new CCS plants faced a disproportionate risk that temporary faults in this technology would expose them to the EPS. In the Energy Bill, Labour had to push the Government to include an exemption for plants that were adopting CCS. I am pleased to see that regulation 6 makes that exemption law.
I have spoken already about decarbonisation and the importance of CCS. I have a few more questions on the detail of the implementation of these EPS regulations. Regulation 3 under part 2 establishes that the EPS will apply to an existing plant that replaces its main boiler, in effect building a new plant within the shell of an old one. The replacement of the main boiler is the only criterion under which the EPS could apply to an existing plant. Has the Minister considered any other measures under which the EPS could apply, such as upgrade work that extends the life of the plant?
The enforcement regime established in part 3 relates only to England. What conversations has the Minister had with Ministers from devolved Administrations? When might we see equivalent regulations to those before us in the devolved Parliaments? Part 3, regulation 15 sets out the terms of the civil penalty notice for failing to comply with the EPS. However, it is only in the issuance of the notice that operators will get details of
“how the amount of the financial penalty imposed was calculated”.
Should this not be clarified in advance so that operators can properly understand the risks involved in breaching the EPS?
Part 3, regulation 10, further clarifies the exemptions relating to carbon capture and storage. The Minister will be aware that not all CO
2
captured from power plants will be stored. Increasing attention is being paid to the potential use of this resource, whether in chemical production, in the making of concrete or in many other innovative solutions. These technologies are at an early stage and some way from being commercially demonstrated, but what advice has the Minister received regarding the current wording’s exclusion of carbon capture and utilisation?Moving on to the second part of today’s discussion, the UK’s nuclear fleet has made and continues to make a major contribution to our energy mix. Nuclear power provides a stable, low-carbon base load that complements the variable output from renewables. For this reason, let me begin by reaffirming the Labour party’s commitment to nuclear power and to the proposed new nuclear build programme. However, there are well-known costs associated with nuclear power, relating to the management and disposal of waste. By the end of the century the UK will have around 300,000 cubic metres of higher activity radioactive waste, enough to fill about one quarter
of Wembley stadium. The process of disposing of this waste was begun under the previous Labour Government, which, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, established the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme.In 2006 it was recommended that waste should be deposited in a geological disposal facility. A GDF is a highly-engineered facility capable of isolating radioactive waste deep underground, such that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface. The Labour Government of the day accepted this. I am pleased that there is continuing cross-party consensus for the principle of geological disposal and we will not seek to divide the Committee on these regulations. However, the GDF is a major project and I have some specific question for the Minister in relation to these regulations and the GDF more generally.
Duncan Hames: The hon. Lady makes it clear that there is consensus that there should be a geological disposal facility, but, of course, that is not the item of business before the Committee this afternoon. We are being asked to agree a change to the means by which such a facility would be consented to. I would be very interested to hear whether her colleagues support the change before us this afternoon.
Julie Elliott: As I said, we will not be dividing on this issue. We broadly support the Government on this, but I do have some specific questions and concerns. Under the current plans, the design and building of a geological disposal facility for long-term storage of hazardous waste is expected to take 27 years, with completion in 2040. Once a site has been found for the facility, the plan allows 15 years to complete the detailed geological assessments necessary before the site can be confirmed as suitable. After that, a further 12 years will be required to dig out the site and construct the facility.
The Public Accounts Committee was particularly critical of this timeline, questioning,
“whether the Authority is progressing the development of the geological disposal facility as quickly as possible.”
What action has the Minister taken as a consequence of the Public Accounts Committee report? Has any adjustment been made to the proposed timeline for the construction of the GDF? Will she provide an estimate of the annualised cost of delaying the GDF if the completion date slips beyond 2040? What is the cost to the taxpayer of the additional measures required to secure our existing storage arrangements?
The Major Projects Authority currently rates progress on the GDF at amber. Will the Minister say what actions she has taken to redress this and what conversations she has had with the MPA to ensure that at the next assessment the GDF is given a green rating? The project is expected to cost £4 billion to construct, although it will cost a great deal more to operate until 2130, the current upper bound of forecasts. However, differences in the geology of the rock in which the geological disposal facility might be constructed could increase costs by £1.6 billion. Will the Minister provide an update on current forecasts for the costs of the GDF, and will she set out what degree of variance there could be in this price on the basis of geological conditions?
Much of the nuclear waste that will be stored in the GDF relates to our historical stockpile of radioactive material. However, cross-party support for new nuclear power plants means that we will continue to add to this stockpile in the future. Will the Minister confirm that all costs of nuclear waste management and disposal relating to Hinkley Point C will be met by the operator and are accounted for in the indicative strike price announced by Government? Will she confirm that there is no cap on the operator’s liability for that work?
3.5 pm
Amber Rudd: I will address some of the hon. Lady’s comments. It was encouraging to hear her commitment to decarbonising our energy supply. That is one area on which we agree, although there is some disagreement on how to go about that. The Government are keen to do it in the most cost-effective way. That is where we sometimes digress; we think we can deliver our carbon targets while also ensuring that we manage costs and support businesses on the way.
The hon. Lady asked how EPS might be used in future. Putting the EPS in now will allow it to be used differently in future. We are committed to review the EPS every three years. Any future considerations will take into account security of supply, cost to consumers and progress with decarbonisation.
The hon. Lady commented on potential confusion in the explanatory memorandum setting out what we are debating on EPS and CCS. EPS is the standard, the regulation, and CCS is the means by which it is delivered. I do not think there is much confusion there. She asked why we had selected boiler replacements only in triggering the new EPS. That is the advice we have received from experts, because that is the trigger that makes it into a new site, taking on a new lease of life. That is why it is particularly relevant.
The hon. Lady asked what role the devolved Governments will have in the EPS. The Energy Act 2013 places a duty on the appropriate authorities to put in place a regime for monitoring compliance with and enforcement of the EPS. It also provides the necessary regulation-making powers, with detailed provision set out under schedule 5. Will the EPS be the same across all parts of the UK? The answer is yes. That is consistent with the policy intention to ensure certainty for investors.
The hon. Lady spoke at some length on CCS. Once more, like her honourable colleagues, she tried to characterise us as anything but enthusiastic about CCS. I reassure the Committee that she is entirely wrong. We remain enthusiastic about CCS. We are leading in Europe on CCS and are committed to delivering it. We have two pilots that are leading the world. We are working closely with Canada, as the hon. Lady mentioned. She is being a little stingy on the progress we are making and wholly wrong in characterising us as anything but committed to delivering CCS, for which we share an enthusiasm.
To answer the question that the hon. Member for Chippenham asked about CCS, we hope that by 2030 it will help to deliver 13 GW of energy through CCS and by 2050 up to 20%. That is an exciting and important part of decarbonising our energy supply.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central moved on to ask about GDF. It is encouraging to see that she supports nuclear power in general, although there
was little evidence of that under the previous Labour Government. It is only under this Government that we have seen such significant investment in infrastructure. She asked about challenges on our timeline and the PAC report. She will not be surprised to hear that I will write to her on that and address the questions she asked about costs to delay beyond 2040, the amber rating, which in this case does not seem to be positive, and any further issues to do with costs.Duncan Hames: The Minister may recall the intervention I made on the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. We seem to have discussed everything other than the point at hand in the order. I am a simple man, so will the Minister set out for me and the Committee how it will change who makes the decision on whether consent is given to the development of one of these facilities? Surely that is its most substantive consequence, so could an elected committee of councillors make that decision, or would that be done by a planning inspector or, indeed, the Secretary of State?
Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do feel that I have covered that, but I will repeat it nevertheless. The primary purpose of the change is one of structure in terms of how much information is provided by whom—in this case it is the developer—and at what stage. The change from the current procedure will mean that developers will have to work much harder and provide much more information before they approach local communities, who will still have the key role they have had to date. Once the change is in the infrastructure plan, there will be a different approach in terms of timing and evidence base before local communities are approached. I hope that that answers his question.
Tessa Munt: Forgive me—I do not get this. I did not think that I was that thick on planning, but will the Minister be absolutely clear? Does she anticipate that developers will apply to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, but before they do that they will have to carry out a consultation? She said that there had to be positive agreement from the local community. As an example, I cite Cumbria county council, which has said no three times to the siting of a GDF. Is there any capacity for that decision to be overturned by the process that she anticipates will take place as a result of this change?
Amber Rudd: The hon. Lady will have heard me say that this is not about site specifics. I am, of course, aware of the example she gave, but this is about providing the overall framework, not discussing individual sites. I reassure her and the hon. Member for Chippenham that local authorities will be in no way excluded from the decision-making process. Such a characterisation would be wrong.
The final development consent process does not replace the need for an open process to identify potential sites in the first place. The 2014 “Implementing Geological Disposal” White Paper is clear—I am happy to send copies to members of the Committee—that the final decision to apply for development consent and regulatory approval for a GDF will not be taken until, and unless,
there is a positive test of public support at the site in question. I therefore recommend that the Committee approves the order.That the Committee has considered the draft Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015.
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.—(Amber Rudd.)