Legal claim against Teesside project

Dr Boswell, who is represented by Leigh Day, argues that calculation errors by the developer mean that the power station will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than initially declared, and will be at odds with the UK’s net zero commitments.

The claim was initially dismissed by a judge at the High Court following a rolled-up hearing, but permission to appeal this decision was granted in September 2024. The Court of Appeal is now due to hear arguments for the claim on 4 and 5 March 2025.

The development, known as Net Zero Teesside (NZT), would see the construction of a gas-fired electricity generating power station, with a post-combustion carbon capture plant including a pipeline for transporting carbon dioxide to be stored under the North Sea. Reviewing the plans for the power station, Dr Boswell found that upstream emissions (emissions from operations such as transporting gas to the power station) had not been correctly accounted for, and that the development would in fact result in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than initially declared.

Despite the Secretary of State accepting these corrected calculations and assessing that the development would have "significant adverse impacts" on the UK’s carbon footprint, NZT was given approval by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (SoS) in February 2024, with the SoS determining that the project "will help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment". Dr Boswell argues that the decision to approve the NZT development did not give legally adequate or logical reasons to support the conclusion that it will help with the Government’s target of net zero by 2050, and instead inconsistently applied environmental assessment guidance.

In summer 2024, a judge rejected Dr Boswell’s arguments, concluding that the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidance that the panel of planning inspectors had used to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions did not need to be relied upon for the SoS’ final conclusion on the significance of these emissions. But in September 2024, permission to appeal this ruling was granted on the following grounds:

• The judge erred in concluding that the SoS did not rely on the IEMA guidance, and failed to recognise the consequent inconsistencies from it. The IEMA guidance appears to have been relied upon by the planning inspector to conclude that greenhouse gas emissions from the development would have a "significant adverse" impact, which is inconsistent with the SoS’s conclusion that NZT will support the transition to net zero.
• The judge erred in concluding that the National Policy Statement encapsulates how the significance of greenhouse emissions is assessed as well as the weight this assessment is given in the planning application.
• The judge erred in finding that the SoS was entitled to endorse the use of the IEMA guidance while also assessing the significance of the emissions in a different way.

Judgment on the outcome of the hearing is likely to be reserved. Dr Andrew Boswell said "BP and Equinor initially failed to declare any upstream emissions for this carbon capture plant, although there is no technology to capture these emissions and they form the largest part of the plant’s carbon footprint. Methane accelerates climate breakdown more rapidly than carbon dioxide, and it was left to me as a member of the public to correct the estimates of the climate impacts. The heart of the case is that the previous energy minister agreed with my analysis, but then perversely deemed that these severe climate impacts were consistent with UK Net Zero policy. The influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of MPs recently warned that carbon capture storage (CCS) is a high-risk investment, with massive costs for taxpayers and consumers. This case further undermines the credibility of the UK’s CCS strategy that already has £59.7bn allocated to it in subsidies. It is an unproven technology which risks keeping energy bills high and tied to the volatile gas market, whilst offering no guarantee of success or meaningful progress toward Net Zero."

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said "Dr Boswell’s calculations have shown that the NZT development would release more greenhouse emissions than initially thought. Despite this, consent for the power station has still been granted. Our client believes the logic and reasoning for this decision was flawed, and argues that the Secretary of State has interpreted and applied environmental assessment guidelines inconsistently when giving permission for the development."