Energy Bill [HL]

Written evidence submitted by Dr Muir Freer, University of Manchester (EB19)

 

Title:   Energy Security Bill - Call for Evidence

 

1. Dr Muir Freer is a researcher at the Tyndall Centre at T he University of Manchester, whose research focuses on developing and analysing C arbon C apture S torage (CCS) and B ioenergy C arbon C apture S torage (BECCS) supply chain integration strategies for low-carbon and low-cost transportation and geological storage integration. He has published and presented his research over the past five years in the field and has collaborated with a wide range of industrial partners in the Glass, Energy, Cement and Chemical sectors to develop CCS transportation integration strategies to meet Net-Zero. The University of Manchester and the Tyndall Centre are leading voices in CCS and BECCS research with a strong record of impactful industrial and policy collaboration, supporting the evidence presented.

 

2. Summary:

 

3. The Energy Bill 2023 aims to bolster the UK's energy resilience, support climate change commitments, and reform the energy system to protect consumers. It has three pillars: driving investment in clean technologies, reforming the energy system, and ensuring energy system safety and security. The Bill proposes a low-carbon energy system, including an economic regulation for CO ₂ storage and transportation, a hydrogen levy, and a low-carbon heat scheme. It also establishes an Independent System Operator and Planner and reforms the energy code governance. Finally, it ensures robust fuel supply and environmental standards, amends the Petroleum Act 1998, and enhances the nuclear third-party liability regime .

 

4. Part 2

 

5. Clause 102: Access to infrastructure

6. While this clause provides a robust framework for regulating access to CO 2 transport and storage infrastructure, it overlooks the uneven distribution of CCS infrastructure access across the UK. Notably, it does not sufficiently account for the divergent levels of access to CCS infrastructure among different locations within the UK.

7. For example, Track-1 and Track-2 clusters typically have robust access to infrastructure (1–3) . In contrast, many dispersed sites, particularly those located in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, lack a clear, immediate strategy for accessing the UK's CCS infrastructure (4) . This discrepancy can impede the cost-competitive integration of these sites into the wider CCS network and potentially exacerbate regional disparities in CO 2 capture and storage capabilities (5) .

8. The clause could be amended to explicitly mandate the Secretary of State to consider regional disparities in access to CCS infrastructure when developing regulations. This could involve provisions supporting the deployment of additional pipelines or strengthening the capacity of the UK's non-pipeline transportation methods, such as rail, road, and shipping.

9. Furthermore, the clause could stipulate that the Secretary of State undertake regular assessments of regional disparities in access to CCS infrastructure and adjust regulations accordingly. This would help to ensure that the regulatory framework remains responsive to the evolving landscape of CCS in the UK.

10. While Clause 102 provides a strong foundation for regulating access to CO 2 transport and storage infrastructure, it could be improved by more explicitly addressing regional disparities in access to CCS infrastructure. This would help to ensure a more equitable and efficient distribution of CCS capabilities across the UK.

11. Policy a sks

12. Explicitly mandate the Secretary of State to consider regional disparities in access to CCS infrastructure when developing regulations.

13. Make provision for regular assessments of regional disparities in access to CCS infrastructure and the adjustment of regulations accordingly.

14. Part 3

15. Clause 118: Climate Change Act 2008: meaning of "UK removals"

16. This clause rightly acknowledges the importance of engineered methods like D irect A ir C arbon C apture S torage (DACCS) and BECCS. However, it lacks specificity regarding the types of DACCS and BECCS that will be considered. The clause is vague about these 'engineered' methods, which could lead to ambiguity in the interpretation and application of the regulations (6–11) . For instance, not all BECCS configurations are related to land-use; BECCS-waste-to-energy is one such example that falls outside this scope (8,11–13) .

17. Furthermore, the meaning of "UK removals" should be more closely aligned with the Committee on Climate Change's BECCS classifications (14,15) . Some classifications of BECCS are heavily linked to the objectives outlined in the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, such as BECCS-hydrogen and BECCS-biofuels for sustainable aviation fuel production (16) . The clause does not explicitly make this connection, which could potentially overlook important opportunities for aligning carbon capture initiatives with broader environmental goals.

18. Another point of critique is that the clause does not sufficiently highlight that BECCS and DACCS are industrial processes that should be developed and integrated alongside other forms of CCS within the ICCS clusters. This integration is vital for enhancing these carbon capture methods' efficiency and effectiveness and fostering synergy within the ICCS clusters (5,11,17,18) .

19. To address these issues, the clause could be revised to provide greater clarity about the types of DACCS and BECCS that will be included. The clause could also stipulate that the interpretation of "UK removals" should align with the Committee on Climate Change's BECCS classifications and reflect the strategic goals of the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution (15,16) . Lastly, the clause could mandate the integration of BECCS and DACCS with other forms of CCS within the ICCS clusters.

20. Clause 118 represents a positive step towards broadening the scope of GGR that can contribute towards UK carbon budgets, it could be improved by providing greater clarity on the types of DACCS and BECCS included and by emphasising the integration of these methods within the ICCS clusters.

21. Policy asks

22. Provide more clarity and specificity on the types of DACCS and BECCS that will be considered under "UK removals."

23. Align the meaning of "UK removals" with the Committee on Climate Change's BECCS classifications and the strategic goals of the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.

24. Mandate the integration of BECCS and DACCS with other forms of CCS within the ICCS clusters.

25. Information on earlier clauses

26. Part 1

27. Clause 2: Prohibition on unlicensed activities

28. The clause's initial focus on pipeline transportation of CO 2 suggests a lack of focus of the diversity of transportation methods that may be employed in CCS projects (4,15,19,20) . While the clause allows for the extension of the licensing regime to non-pipeline means of transportation (e.g., shipping, road, rail), it presumes these methods will only need to be regulated if competitive forces do not control prices as anticipated (5,21) . For example, CCS projects within South Wales and Southampton (Solent ICCS cluster ) will be utilising shipping transportation from their inception and will require representation within the Bill (22) . This perspective overlooks the potential for operational, logistical, or environmental circumstances to necessitate the use of non-pipeline transportation, irrespective of cost considerations.

29. The clause does not adequately address the potential need for CO 2 storage flexibility. In the dynamic context of CCS operations, facilities may need to switch storage sites due to various economic, technical, or regulatory factors (23) . For example, increased storage costs due to changes in lease agreements, taxes, or transportation fees may drive the search for more economically viable alternatives (24) . Similarly, storage sites might face capacity constraints, requiring facilities to identify and inject CO 2 into other suitable reservoirs (25–27) .

30. The clause also fails to account for situations where a specific storage field becomes unavailable, forcing the facility to either find alternative transportation to a different storage site or vent the CO 2 into the atmosphere (23,27) . Such scenarios underline the importance of CO 2 integration flexibility, which the current legislation does not address adequately.

31. While Clause 2 provides a necessary regulatory framework for CCS activities, it may benefit from a more nuanced understanding of the operational realities of these projects. Future revisions of the legislation should consider the potential need for storage and CO 2 integration flexibility and the potential for diverse transportation methods to ensure that the regulatory environment is responsive to the dynamic and complex nature of CCS operations.

32. Policy asks

33. Extend the licensing regime to diverse methods of transportation (e.g., shipping, road, rail) from the inception of CCS projects, not just when competitive forces fail to control prices.

34. Ensure the legislation provides for CO 2 storage flexibility to enable facilities to switch storage sites due to various economic, technical, or regulatory factors.

35. Address the need for CO 2 integration flexibility, considering situations where specific storage fields become unavailable, leading to changes in transportation and storage plans.

36. Clause 3: Consultation on proposals for additional activities to become licensable

37. The CCS infrastructure across the UK is rapidly developing, with new pipelines and clusters being established, such as the Peak cluster (28) . This expansion includes the potential addition of high-capacity feeder pipelines into regions of the UK currently less connected to CCS infrastructure and storage (4) . The integration of these pipelines could lead to significant shifts in how facilities surrounding these new pipelines connect to geological storage, potentially involving a mix of pipeline and non-pipeline transport methods.

38. However, the clause does not seem to consider these changing dynamics. Nor does it factor in how external variables, such as the decarbonisation of the transportation sector or geopolitical events affecting transportation costs , such as the War in Ukraine , could change how CCS projects integrate with geological storage sites. For instance, the recent war in Ukraine has demonstrated how geopolitical events can significantly influence energy prices and logistics (29) . Such events could necessitate shifts in the transportation methods used for CO 2 , with possible implications for licensing requirements.

39. While Clause 3's provision for consultation on extending regulations to non-pipeline transportation methods is a positive step, it seems to overlook the complexity and dynamism of the emerging CCS infrastructure landscape. The clause could be enhanced by acknowledging these factors and providing for a more flexible and responsive regulatory approach.

40. Policy asks

41. Acknowledge and plan for changing dynamics in the CCS infrastructure across the UK.

42. Take into account external variables (e.g., decarbonisation of the transportation sector, and geopolitical events) that could affect how CCS projects integrate with geological storage sites.

43. Allow for adjustments in the nature of the licensing regime itself, instead of simply extending existing regulations to cover additional forms of transportation.

44. Clause 4: Territorial scope of prohibition

45. The clause's stipulation that the prohibition extends across the UK, both onshore and offshore, fails to address the potential need for cross-border pipeline infrastructure (4,20,30,31). In particular, it does not account for situations where offshore pipelines might need to cross national boundaries for the purpose of collaboration between nations. This oversight could potentially inhibit the effective development of CCS projects that require transnational cooperation (32–34), which may be crucial for achieving broader emission reduction goals.

46. The clause seems to neglect the specific complexities that might arise in the context of the Irish border. There may be a need for onshore pipelines to cross the Irish border to enable industrial emitters to access adequate shipping ports for the geological storage of CO2 in the East Irish Sea (4). The current language of the clause may inadvertently create regulatory barriers to such necessary infrastructural development. It is crucial for the legislation to provide a regulatory framework that enables, rather than impedes, the necessary logistical arrangements for effective CCS operation.

47. While Clause 4 establishes the territorial scope for the operation of a CO2 transport and storage network, it could benefit from a more nuanced consideration of the potential need for trans-national collaboration and cross-border infrastructural development. To ensure that the regulatory environment is conducive to the effective operation of CCS projects, future revisions of the legislation should consider these factors.

48. Policy asks

49. Make provision for the need for cross-border pipeline infrastructure, especially for the purpose of collaboration between nations and the dynamics of the Irish Border.

50. Acknowledge and address complexities that might arise in the context of the Irish border, ensuring the legislation enables, rather than impedes, necessary infrastructural development.

51. Clause 10: Competitive tenders for licences

52. Carbon storage sites can become unavailable for various reasons, including technical issues, regulatory changes or capacity constraints. In such situations, CCS facilities may need to rapidly switch to alternative storage sites to avoid interrupting their operations and potentially venting captured CO 2 into the atmosphere, undermining the purpose of CCS projects.

53. However, Clause 10 does not seem to provide for such contingencies. The focus on competitive tendering could, in fact, exacerbate these issues by potentially delaying the granting of emergency licences (23) . By their nature, competitive processes require time for applications to be received, evaluated, and decided upon. This could result in a critical time lag in situations where a swift response is needed in an emergency .

54. For instance, if a storage site becomes suddenly unavailable, a CCS facility would ideally need to secure a licence for an alternative site as quickly as possible. A prolonged competitive tendering process might make this difficult, increasing the risk of having to vent captured CO 2 to the atmosphere (35–37) .

55. While competitive tenders for licences can help ensure economic efficiency, Clause 10 should also consider the need for flexibility and agility in responding to unexpected changes in the availability of storage sites. A streamlined emergency licensing process designed to handle such contingencies could be a valuable addition to the regulatory framework provided by the Bill .

56. Policy asks

57. Incorporate flexibility and agility in responding to unexpected changes in the availability of storage sites, possibly through an emergency licensing process.

58. Clause 53: Cooperation of storage licensing authority with economic regulator

59. While this clause is undoubtedly critical for regulatory collaboration and information exchange, it seems to overlook some key nuances of the UK's CCS landscape. Specifically, it does not seem to account for the geographical complexities and economic dynamics of CO2 transportation and storage across devolved nations in the UK.

60. For instance, it is economically more viable for certain CCS facilities in South East Scotland to integrate via the Teesside ICCS cluster in England than to integrate via the Scottish cluster (4,5). Similarly, the collaboration between Wales and the North West cluster is crucial for successful CO2 transportation and storage (38,39).

61. These interdependencies underscore the need for cooperation and information-sharing within each devolved nation and between them. Full transparency and cooperation across all devolved nations will be essential to ensuring a sustainable and cost-effective CCS sector.

62. Clause 53 represents a significant step towards regulatory cooperation and transparency, and it could be enhanced by explicitly acknowledging and providing for the interdependencies and economic dynamics of CO2 transportation and storage across devolved nations. This would help to ensure that the regulatory framework is robust, flexible and capable of supporting a sustainable and cost-effective CCS sector.

63. Policy asks

64. Explicitly provide for cooperation and information-sharing across devolved nations in the UK to acknowledge and handle geographical complexities and economic dynamics.

June 2023

References:

1. V Net-Zero. V Net-Zero - Humber Cluster [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 May 4]. Available from: https://www.vnetzerocluster.co.uk/

2. OGC. Teesside Cluster Carbon Capture , Usage and Storage (CCUS) Project. 2019.

3. DESNZ. Cluster sequencing for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS): Track-2 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Apr 1]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cluster-sequencing-for-carbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccus-track-2

4. BEIS. CCS Deployment at Dispersed Industrial Sites. 2020.

5. Freer M, Gough C, Welfle A, Lea-Langton A. Putting Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage in a Spatial Context: What Should Go Where? Frontiers in Climate. 2022;4.

6. Fajardy M, Mac Dowell N. The energy return on investment of BECCS: Is BECCS a threat to energy security? Energy Environ Sci. 2018;11(6):1581–94.

7. BEIS. Investable commercial frameworks for ‘Power-BECCS’ [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Apr 12]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investable-commercial-frameworks-for-power-beccs

8. Krause A, Knoke T, Rammig A. A regional assessment of land-based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy, BECCS, reforestation, and forest management. GCB Bioenergy. 2020;12(5):346–60.

9. Fajardy M, Koberle A, Mac Dowell N, Fantuzzi A. BECCS deployment: a reality check. Grantham Institute. 2019;28(28):1–14.

10. Zhang D, Bui M, Fajardy M, Patrizio P, Kraxner F, Dowell N Mac. Unlocking the potential of BECCS with indigenous sources of biomass at a national scale. Sustain Energy Fuels. 2019;4(1):226–53.

11. Gough C, Garcia-Freites S, Jones C, Mander S, Moore B, Pereira C, et al. Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5°C. Global Sustainability. 2018;1:1–9.

12. Albanito F, Hastings A, Fitton N, Richards M, Martin M, Mac Dowell N, et al. Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain. GCB Bioenergy. 2019;11(10):1234–52.

13. CCC. Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/land-use-policies-for-a-net-zero-uk/

14. CCC. The Sixth Carbon Budget Methodology Report. 2020.

15. CCC. The Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s path to Net Zero. Committee on Climate Change. 2020.

16. HM Government. The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 2020.

17. Mander S, Anderson K, Larkin A, Gough C, Vaughan N. The Role of Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage in Meeting the Climate Mitigation Challenge: A Whole System Perspective. Energy Procedia [Internet]. 2017;114(November 2016):6036–43. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1739

18. Forster J, Vaughan NE, Gough C, Lorenzoni I, Chilvers J. Mapping feasibilities of greenhouse gas removal: Key issues, gaps and opening up assessments. Global Environmental Change [Internet]. 2020;63(May):102073. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102073

19. BEIS. Business model for power bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ('Power BECCS’) A consultation seeking views on potential business models for power bioenergy carbon capture and storage. 2022.

20. BEIS. Clean Growth The UK Carbon Capture Usage and Storage deployment pathway An Action Plan. 2018; Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759637/beis-ccus-action-plan.pdf

21. Freer M, Gough C, Welfle A, Lea-langton A. Carbon optimal bioenergy with carbon capture and storage supply chain modelling: How far is too far? Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2021;47:101406.

22. Armstrong LM, Hall R. Solent Decarbonisation Cluster. 2020.

23. Jensen MD, Schlasner SM, Sorensen JA, Hamling JA. Operational flexibility of CO2 transport and storage. In: Energy Procedia. Elsevier Ltd; 2014. p. 2715–22.

24. Greig C, Bongers G, Stott C, Byrom S. CO2CRC: Overview of CCS Roadmaps and Projects. 2016.

25. McKinsey. Carbon Capture & Storage: Assessing the Economics. Carbon. 2008.

26. BEIS. Business models for carbon capture, usage and storage. 2019.

27. Oei PY, Herold J, Mendelevitch R. Modeling a Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage Infrastructure for Europe. Environmental Modeling and Assessment. 2014 Dec 1;19(6):515–31.

28. Peak Cluster. Securing a Low Carbon Future [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 2]. Available from: https://www.peakcluster.co.uk/

29. KiM. Cost Figures for Freight Transport-Final Report. 2020.

30. GCCSI. Global Status of CCS 2021. 2021.

31. GCCSI. Global Status of CCS 2022. 2022.

32. Equinor. Environmental Risk Analysis and Strategy for Envionmental Monitoring - Equinor - Miljorisiko for EL001, Northern Lights, mottak og permanent lagring av CO2. 2019.

33. Acorn. Project: ACT Acorn Feasibility Study: D20 Final Report. 2017.

34. Pale Blue Dot. ACT Acorn Feasibility Study: D20 Final Report. 2019.

35. Shell. PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER Peterhead CCS Project Doc Title: Relief and Vent Study Report. 2015.

36. Energy Institute. Technical guidance on hazard analysis for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines. London; 2010.

37. Holt H, Helle K, Brown J. CCS CO2 RISK MANAGEMENT - NEW INDUSTRY GUIDANCE [Internet]. 2012. Available from: www.DNV.

38. HyNet. HyNet: Delivering Clean Growth. 2020.

39. BEIS. Cluster sequencing for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) deployment: Phase-1: Track-1 clusters confirmed [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 9]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cluster-sequencing-for-carbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccus-deployment-phase-1-expressions-of-interest/october-2021-update-track-1-clusters-confirmed