Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I start also by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the work that he did as a Minister. I know that it was his decision to step down, and it has been really good to see him about the House since he took that decision.

On these Benches, we very much welcome the publication of these revised draft energy policy statements. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, they are extremely comprehensive. These documents are absolutely critical, and we welcome the Government’s efforts in bringing them forward; we understand what a great job of work that is. We welcome the fact that they integrate our net-zero targets.

I echo the points that other noble Lords have made about how it would have been useful to have some of the consultation responses, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made about the involvement of the Select Committees. We welcome the overall direction that the Government are taking in these policies, but it is really important that we look at them, because they are big and important policies. Perhaps next time we could do one policy at a time, which would provide better scrutiny. However, I recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, that these have not been debated at all in the other Chamber, so we need to look at them.

I turn to EN-1, which serves as the overarching policy document, the master blueprint for the main energy infrastructure projects in the UK, designated as nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. It provides a primary policy framework for decisions made by the Secretary of State. This is the first time that this document has been updated since 2011, so it is really about time that we did it. EN-1 has been updated to bring the clean power 2030 action plan into the section previously covered by net zero. The aim is to put the plan in the forefront as a primary policy embedded by the NPSs. The clean power 2030 action plan, formed in December 2024, proposes that clean energy sources provide at least 95% of the UK’s energy by 2030.

Some of this debate has been about people in London taking power to destroy the countryside, and to my mind that is completely the wrong way of framing it. We did not frame it that way when we were talking about burning hydrocarbons. But the Government need to take people with them and support communities. Energy is for all of us, and we need to make sure that we include, talk to and listen to communities as we transition in energy.

There is a lot to be set here for net zero. We are talking about 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind, 27 to 29 gigawatts of onshore wind and 45 to 47 gigawatts of solar. The Government recognise the role of the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan; the land use framework has also been raised. A lot of policies need to come together to drive this energy transition.

A critical concept with EN-1 is the critical national policy priority for nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure. The CNP applies a presumption that the urgent need for such infrastructure, along with its national security, economic, commercial and net-zero benefits, will all generally outweigh other residual impacts that are not addressed by the mitigation hierarchy. As other noble Lords have, I welcome the mitigation hierarchy throughout all these documents—the need for good design and to limit damage. That is in stark contrast to Section 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but we welcome the detailed plans that are in these documents, in that way.

Notably, I also welcome that the energy from waste facilities is now excluded from the CNP. That is very welcome, as it does not now meet the definition of clean power technology under the clean power action plan. We welcome this, and it is worth noting that this form of energy is now the most polluting form of energy that we generate. This statement explores how waste energy can be reduced using low-carbon technology and energy-efficiency measures. Negative emissions can also be balanced by greenhouse gas removal technologies. The document sets out requirements for carbon capture-ready designs for certain power plants. Again, we welcome this; we recognise that the Government have targets for 20 to 30 megatons of CO₂ to be captured each year by 2030 and that the need for this technology is recognised by the Climate Change Committee. We also welcome considerations about climate change adaption and resilience in the planning framework; this is really important stuff.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister on EN-1. How will the Government ensure that the 2030 target is not perceived as a proverbial cliff edge and that, after the 2030 delivery timeframe, projects that are crucial for the 2050 net-zero target will continue to receive the necessary support? Indeed, in many ways, the period after 2035 is when we will have some of the most difficult and challenging decisions to take. There is a need to continue that pace and scale after we come through clean power.

We welcome the inclusion of climate resilience but are the Government doing enough in that space? We are increasingly seeing things having a real impact on our energy generation and transmission—whether high temperatures, floods, wildfires, rising sea levels or the siting of Sizewell—and every bit of our critical energy infrastructure needs to be adaptive and resilient to the changing world.

Finally on EN-1, we call for the land use framework, local plans and local nature recovery strategies to also be considered alongside planning permissions for all new energy infrastructure, such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity, to find an optimum balance between food production and ecosystems.

We also welcome EN-3, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure, particularly the inclusion of the ambition for onshore wind to supply up to 50 gigawatts by 2030. I do not know why it was excluded in the first place—that is a question I might want to ask the Minister—but we are really pleased that it is back in this plan, with the revisions, where it should be. The wind is free; we just need to make the windmills to generate it. It is good for us and our energy security, and we need to do much more of it.

Solar photovoltaic generation is key to the clean power 2030 mission. I note that EN-3 describes it as cheap, versatile, and effective and clearly states a preference for

“brownfield, industrial and low and medium grade agricultural land”.

I welcome some of the Government’s policies more broadly. Recently, we have seen the future homes standard, we have talked about balcony solar and rooftop solar, and the Government are adding solar to carparks.

I question some of the net-zero rhetoric about our farmland. It is not taking 10% of our farmland, and it is perfectly possible to have farmland and solar energy. I also really welcome the inclusion of agrivoltaics in the policy. As we face an increasingly hot climate, there are lots of ways in which solar panels can work particularly well with farmland, grazing animals and efforts to increase our biodiversity. These things can coexist. The idea that it is either/or is simply not correct. How will the Government promote agrivoltaics as a policy and make sure that farmers are aware of it and know how to work with it?

We have talked a bit about heat from waste, so I will leave that for now. We welcome the strengthened section on undergrounding, which we have conversations about. I think all noble Lords are aware that undergrounding is 10 times more expensive than pylons, but it needs to happen in certain sections, particularly our protected landscapes. I recognise that, but is it is not an option to have it everywhere. It has its own environmentally damaging consequences: it involves encasing in concrete and every time you have a fault in the line you have to get out the sledgehammers and smash the concrete open to repair the line. It simply is not an option, even with the best will in the world.

There have been some issues with putting pylons out at sea. Energy UK raised the need to do more to mitigate the noise from piling. I know that there is some innovative technology, such as using water bubbles to try to control the impacts of noise on the marine environment.

Moving on to EN-5, the grid is crucial, and it has lacked investment. We discussed the NESO Heathrow report yesterday. We have £70 billion that needs to be invested by 2025 and much more by 2050. Against that background, predicted demand has doubled. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, challenged us on that and said it could be much more. We need to get this stuff out. We need to get the grid updated so that we can get to net zero, and we need a reliable and resilient electricity grid. That needs to happen.

I welcome the Holford rules and the Horlock rules. The Minister talked about updating them. Will he say a bit more about that? When will it happen, what will it look like and how will they work with communities to do that? These things are important. I desperately want to get away from pylon wars. I want to make sure that our communities are supported and get benefits from renewable energy infrastructure near their homes, such as money off their bills. We must support communities, take them with us and include them in the energy transition. I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said about SF6 emissions. Will the Minister say more about what plans the Government have? We should really stop using that stuff.

The National Grid has raised some concerns about development consent orders. It lacks the rights that other utility companies have, and it does not have the ability to safeguard land. It has also raised the issue of wayleaves and the relationship with the Public Order Act.

To conclude, I will make some general points. A number of tensions exist between the delivery and the quality of the assessments in these documents. It is important to address cumulative impacts, which is an issue running through them. I have talked about pylon wars, but I reiterate that I think we can balance these things. I would like to see the Government produce an annual report on our transition to net zero. It is important in terms of the resilience of the grid and the huge transition. I would really like to see more of this stuff put into the public domain, debated and put through Parliament. I think that would help to stop disinformation and other kinds of ideas coming forward.

I want to ask the Minister about greater use of AI. I welcome some of the stuff about moving away from radial lines. There is talk of the bootstraps and interconnectors. We have an opportunity to design this system and reduce the number of places that we have these cables coming onshore. Is NESO able to use AI better to look at how we redesign the grid, what order we do things in and how we connect renewables? There are lots of opportunities for doing things more efficiently, better, saving energy and in the right order. We generally welcome these policies; they are really important. I have not got time to go through everything. I thank everybody who has spoken, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.