Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his introduction to the energy policy statements before the Committee. They are necessary and important. Energy security and lower bills for consumers can best be delivered by delivering clean power by 2030 on the pathway to net zero. This is a vital growth opportunity that will benefit communities across the country through good energy projects creating modern jobs and resilient connectivity. The fast-growing renewables sector will underpin manufacturing and supply chains. I look forward to the development of plans and announcements from Great British Energy, as well as the National Wealth Fund, to drive low-carbon investment.

Specifically, these policy statements bring forward Labour’s drive in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan for clean power sources to produce at least 95% of the UK’s power generation by 2030. Is my noble friend the Minister in a position to give any indication of the responses to the consultation that closed at the end of May, which he mentioned?

I welcome the establishment of the presumption in favour of consent under draft EN-1 through the remit of critical national priority—CNP. This should speed up the planning process and strategically assess the pipeline of deployment of offshore wind, onshore wind and solar, with nuclear as a backbone and low-carbon hydrogen likely to play an increasingly significant role. Importantly, energy from waste is now excluded from CNP as it no longer meets the definition of clean power. It is important that EN-1 underscores the need for flexibility and resilience to deal with unexpected events and challenges from continuing climate change.

EN-3 is very important as it reintroduces onshore wind into the nationally strategic infrastructure projects regime at the threshold of more than 100 megawatts, although Wales will keep its own dedicated consent decision-making process. Could my noble friend the Minister give some reasoning behind why this level of threshold was decided on and its implications? Can he assure the Committee that the community obligations and benefits will be commensurate with the size and impact on communities? The guidance under EN-3 is only applicable in England. I am aware of a plethora of development applications, especially in Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland, where naturally high-lying exposed sites present multiple challenges not only to residents but environmentally and ecologically to catchment areas.

The challenge of upgrading the grid is contained in EN-5 and is arguably the more critical, with the need to integrate electrical power to all parts of the country, urban and rural, for development and growth. EN-5 introduces centralised strategic network plans, as my noble friend indicated, and the process to identify future infrastructure needs up to 2050. Here again, looking strategically across the network and project endorsements within CSNP, this should bring benefits of reduced risk and shorter planning timelines to development consent orders. This replaces the date order of applications for projects that led to long delays for connections.

As the nation powers up electricity to all new areas, down transition systems into the threads of distribution systems to local development projects, flexibility and future-proofing with spare capacity will be at a premium. Although the establishment of NESO has significantly improved the co-ordination of whole-system planning, delivery remains fragmented. Grid infrastructure is still likely to be developed reactively based on project applications rather than long-term system needs. Is my noble friend the Minister assured that centralised strategic network plans co-ordinate with regional development and local needs that endorse clusters which can be built around various local sector developments? They risk being constrained without future-proofing.

Although I welcome the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—it is based in the Treasury. How will NISTA co-ordinate with NESO in the department, and the department with regional mayors and development plans, to avoid conflicting priorities and delivery through a lack of clear responsibility? What will be the Government’s arrangements and what will they look like? Is it recognised that NESO could be improved with a statutory duty mandate with investment authority based on power needs in line with its strategic mandate? The build ahead model must be embedded in law to give clear obligations to delivery bodies and regulators to plan infrastructure on forecasted clean energy demand, rather than on the sum and mix of existing applications. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that this could provide the impetus to attract investment to build the infrastructure clearly identified in the clean power plan?

The greatest fear is that investment could slip back into the Conservative-type switching on and off of government resources in the Treasury that has so bedevilled infrastructure development in the past, either with or without national industrial strategies. Can my noble friend confirm that the sensible multiyear detailed capital spending plans for each department will be maintained, providing certainty and confidence to businesses and investors? Can he give any indication of the outcome of the Green Book review to endorse proper co-ordination between departments and mayoral plans for their areas? I know that this is critical to areas such as mine on Merseyside, where the Mersey barrage has such great potential.

In more rural areas, and perhaps below the NPS threshold, transmission capacity has already been improving. Although district network operators—DNOs—were not designed for decentralised applications, there have been notable improvements in access, but there is still a backlog of projects. Although queue reforms are beginning to unlock developments, there still remain many zombie projects to be cleaned out of the process. The problem of grid balancing for renewables remains to be solved. Can my noble friend the Minister give an update on battery storage development and funding, which is so vital to flexibility in connectivity efficiency?

Finally, it is rewarding to see biodiversity protection and delivery, as well as climate change resilience and adaptation, enshrined in these policy documents at last. It is admirable that this is being adhered to in these statements and the Government’s array of strategy documents. However, there remains one that is vital to co-ordinate across departments: the land use framework. This should integrate with a joined-up approach and give co-ordination across all the demands for land required for infrastructure, as well as housing, transport and everything else needed to transform Britain. Can my noble friend the Minister make sure that this is neither too late nor the last aspect to be considered, as it should match ambition with delivery?