---

Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)

Yes, but I do not see why that occasions any concern. Clearly, if the debate takes place after the election, the scrutiny period will by implication have been extended. This has been a very helpful and interesting introduction. In fact, we have all got used to these debates and I wonder what we will do next week, because they are clearly proving to be so enjoyable. Today we are looking at the four national policy statements that set out our policy for the rest of the energy nationally significant infrastructure projects. These cover fossil fuel generating stations, renewables, gas and oil supply infrastructure and electricity networks. However, some technologies are not covered. Although fossil fuel includes oil, we believe it unlikely that developers will propose new oil-fired power stations of more than 50 gigawatts, and therefore they are not addressed. The renewables NPS does not cover hydro-electric plants of 50 megawatts for the same reason. Nor does it cover tidal and wave technologies, which are not yet commercially viable. We will look to another NPS or revision to EN-3 when the technology for tidal and wave is sufficiently developed. Lastly, the gas and oil supply infrastructure NPS does not cover the pipelines for CO2 that will be needed for CCS. We are looking at the best way of approaching consents for these and will amend EN-4 or bring forward a separate one, if appropriate. In the mean time, the IPC will receive applications and act as a recommending body to the Secretary of State for the infrastructure not covered in the national policy statements. Two weeks ago we discussed the need for all types of energy infrastructure. The lead scenario indicates that by 2020 we will need around 100 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity. Present capacity will need to be replaced as coal and gas-fired power stations close and nuclear plants reach the end of their lives. To meet carbon reduction targets, we are aiming for around 30 per cent electricity generation from renewable sources, mostly wind, by 2020. But because wind is intermittent, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out on a number of occasions in our debates, we need a mix of electricity generation to give us security of supply. There is also an urgent need for other energy infrastructure, including power lines, gas and oil pipelines and gas storage facilities. The need for energy infrastructure is national, but we do not believe that we should specify locations at a regional or local level. Further, to identify nationally all possible sites for all types of infrastructure and assess them for suitability would be a very long, complex and expensive task. And it would not necessarily give any benefits since ultimately it is up to developers to propose new projects. The technology-specific NPSs do not repeat information that is already in the overarching NPS. This is not because the information is not important, but to spare readers from even more text to plough through. They do have a common structure, so that the same type of information is in the same relative place. But because they do not discuss general energy policy or the need for energy infrastructure set out in EN-1, there are only two parts. The first briefly sets out the purpose of the NPS, explains what technology is covered, how it relates to the overarching NPS and its geographical coverage. The second part sets out any specific government policy for the technology described, any factors affecting decisions on location, climate change adaptation, good design, impacts that are specific to the type of infrastructure and additional information on generic impacts. We are grateful for the contributions we have received from statutory bodies during the drafting of the NPSs. We recognise the importance of protecting our historic environment. English Heritage in particular has made very helpful comments on the need for NPSs to be consistent with the current Planning Policy Statement for the Historic Environment. But the PPS is itself being revised, and of course when it is finalised, we will look at the text and ensure that as far as possible the NPS is in agreement with it. We welcome the offer of support from English Heritage, but owing to the size of energy infrastructure, I cannot give a categorical assurance that the NPS will mimic the PPS word for word I shall now describe each NPS in turn, rather than address all four together. EN-2 covers fossil fuel generating infrastructure that is fired by coal, gas or oil. In setting out government policy for fossil fuels, EN-2 explains that developers should have sufficient space available for carbon capture readiness, which will apply to all fossil fuel power plants and to biomass. There are specific requirements that developers must meet to be CCR. EN-2 gives an overview of the requirements and refers applicants and the IPC to Department of Energy and Climate Change guidelines published in November last year for more detailed information. The IPC is instructed that if developers do not meet the requirements for CCR, consent should be refused. However, CCR is only the first stage. New coal-fired power stations must have carbon capture and storage on at least 300 megawatt net electricity generating capacity. Power stations with less than 300 megawatt net total capacity must have CCS on their whole capacity. Section 2.3 of EN-2 instructs applicants to show how they will meet CCS requirements and address impacts from CCS plant in an environmental impact assessment. The IPC should refuse consent if it is not satisfied that the requirements have been met. We expect it to discuss the technical feasibility of the proposals with the Environment Agency. Consent would also depend on conditions set out in EN-2, including a requirement that the whole plant will be CCR until CCS can be retrofitted. Having set out factors that developers must consider when proposing a new fossil fuel power plant, EN-2 identifies six impacts on which more information must be given than in EN-1. For each of these impacts, the NPS sets out the features relevant to power stations, what can be done to avoid them and how the IPC should consider residual impacts. The next NPS is on renewable energy infrastructure. Part 1 covers the same ground as the other energy NPSs. However, EN-3 covers a range of renewable energy technologies: biomass and waste, onshore wind of over 50 megawatts and offshore wind of over 100 megawatts. Because each renewable technology has its own locational factors and impacts, Part 2 of EN-3 has separate sections, beginning with biomass and energy from waste. The section on offshore wind describes the consent regime that applies to wind farms in waters adjacent to Wales, for which the Welsh Government retain responsibility under devolution. There is concern that the operation of wind farms would have a significant impact on birds. EN-3 advises that applicants should consider modelling collision risks for certain species of bird, and that the IPC should be satisfied that such modelling has been done to a satisfactory standard. Onshore wind farms give rise to particular transport issues because they are frequently located on upland areas without major roads. Detailed consideration must be given to how the large components of a wind turbine—for example, blades that could be up to 50 metres long—get to a proposed site. The oil and gas supply infrastructure NPS covers underground gas storage and liquefied natural gas facilities, and alterations to them; gas reception facilities; and gas and oil pipelines. The last section is divided into gas transporter pipelines—the strategic pipelines that form the backbone of the national transmission system—and cross-country pipelines longer than 10 miles. Part 1 of EN-4 sets out the consenting regime for pipelines that cross the border between England and Wales. The IPC gives consent for cross-country pipelines that cross from England to Wales, and pipelines in England subject to the above thresholds. In describing the factors influencing site selection for gas and oil supply infrastructure, EN-4 sets out the limitations on where gas can be stored underground. These relate to geological factors such as the availability of porous rock, or storage in man-made salt caverns. Like EN-3, EN-4 covers a range of technologies and has sections on the impacts of each. The last NPS that we are considering today is EN-5, which concerns above-ground electricity lines of 132 kilovolts and above. This covers both transmission lines that form the National Grid and distribution lines. EN-5 is unusual because the technology it covers is not only an NSIP in its own right, but is complementary to other national policy statements on generation, since any generating plant will need connection to the grid. It must therefore be considered by the IPC with other national policy statements when determining consent applications for energy infrastructure. I have spoken at some length about the suite of national policy statements that we are considering this afternoon. The debates that are taking place in your Lordships’ House and in the other place will be extremely important in determining the outcome of the scrutiny and consultative process. The contributions of noble Lords are therefore very much valued, and I look forward to our debate this afternoon. I beg to move.