Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

8th Report - Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Public Accounts Committee HC 351 Published 7 February 2025
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
26 items (11 recs)
Government Response
AI assessment · 26 of 26 classified
Accepted 16
Acknowledged 6
Not Addressed 4
Filter by: Clear

Recommendations

11 results
5 Accepted

Set out rationale for supporting CCUS in each sector, considering cost-effective alternatives

Recommendation
To date, the Department has done little to ensure that government support for CCUS is directed to the sectors or locations where it will be essential for achieving net zero. CCUS is currently seen as the only way to decarbonise … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees, stating the recommendation has been implemented as the Department already sets out its rationale for supporting CCUS in various sectoral strategies and compares costs with alternative approaches to achieve net zero. It ensures resources are allocated to sectors with few alternatives and where CCUS is cost-effective.
HM Treasury
View Details →
6 Accepted

Set out urgent new carbon capture targets and clarify how to address net zero shortfall

Recommendation
The Department has downgraded its ambitions for the CCUS programme, stating that the original 2030 ambitions are no longer achievable. The current CCUS programme is the government’s third attempt to introduce the technology. Compared with previous attempts, the government is … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees and outlines its plan to monitor and report on net carbon captured by CCUS projects once operations begin, detailing obligations for Transport & Storage Companies and capture projects to report capture rates, storage performance, and leakage to relevant regulators. It has also established a Cluster Sponsor Function for performance oversight.
HM Treasury
View Details →
9 Accepted

Untested business models and contracts expose taxpayers to huge CCUS programme costs

Recommendation
Given the scale of the funding announced for the first five projects and the size of the contingent liabilities that the Department has recognised for its underwriting of the programme, the potential costs to taxpayers and consumers are huge. The … Read more
Government Response Summary
The department has created business models that provide the minimum subsidy required, keeps the allocation of costs and risks under review to reduce subsidy, has established assurance and control mechanisms, created a new construction team and finance lead, and will carry out monthly reviews reported via the Sponsor Function Board.
HM Treasury
View Details →
12 Accepted

Department lacks clear plan for government to share in successful CCUS project profits

Recommendation
We asked the Department whether its business models allow for the government to take a share of any profit a project makes if the programme is successful.37 But the Department could not provide a compelling answer.38 Now that the Department … Read more
Government Response Summary
The department will continue to evolve business models including mechanisms to ensure taxpayers and consumers benefit financially from the success of CCUS projects, including gainshare, and will work with the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to support delivery and drive value for money, with a target implementation date of December 2026.
HM Treasury
View Details →
16 Accepted

NESO report indicates power CCUS reduces energy costs but requires more upfront financial support

Recommendation
The Department referred us to recent work from National Energy System Operator [NESO] on decarbonising the power system.53 It told us that NESO’s report, which concluded that CCUS was one of two pathways to a low–cost energy system, highlighted that … Read more
Government Response Summary
The Department and HM Treasury will assess whether the full CCUS programme will be affordable for taxpayers and consumers, with a target implementation date of Summer 2025.
HM Treasury
View Details →
21 Accepted

Concerns raised about CCUS effectiveness and unaddressed methane leakage from LNG supply chains

Recommendation
The Department recognised that there are some “contested views” concerning, for example, the effectiveness of CCUS in reducing emissions from gas–fired power stations.69 We received written evidence suggesting that there are higher levels of methane (a gas with significant greenhouse … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government will reappraise on an annual basis its approach to assessing the value for money of CCUS projects, considering the impact of up-to-date scientific understanding. This appraisal has been implemented since the start of the CCUS programme and was implemented most recently via Full Business Cases in Summer 2024.
HM Treasury
View Details →
22 Accepted

No BECCS projects in Track 1 despite importance for unachievable 2030 greenhouse gas removal targets

Recommendation
The original 2030 targets for the CCUS programme, which the government has now told us are unachievable, included a goal for the UK to achieve 5 mtpa of engineered greenhouse gas removals. The bulk of this was expected to be … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agreed that any future support for BECCS will be accompanied by monitoring arrangements that provide real assurance that industry is meeting sustainability criteria, which will build on existing sustainability criteria for biomass, with target implementation in Summer 2025. The department plans to consult later this year on the development of a common biomass sustainability framework. An independent review will consider how Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) can assist the UK in meeting the government’s net zero targets and ensuring security of supply, out to 2050.
HM Treasury
View Details →
23 Accepted

CCUS remains only viable decarbonisation method for specific industrial process emissions

Recommendation
At present, CCUS technology is the only way to decarbonise industries that generate emissions from physical or chemical processes, rather than from the combustion of fuels. For example, 60 to 70% of emissions from the cement industry come from chemical … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agreed to set out its rationale for supporting CCUS in each sector where it could be applied, including considering whether alternative approaches could be more cost effective, referencing various sectoral strategies and analysis. Separately, an independent review will consider how Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) can assist the UK in meeting the government’s net zero targets and ensuring security of supply, out to 2050.
HM Treasury
View Details →
24 Accepted

Alternative pathways exist for power sector decarbonisation without relying on CCUS technology

Recommendation
In other sectors, there are viable methods to decarbonise that do not require CCUS. For example, the Department told us that CCUS could play a particularly important role in power generation.80 However, there are other ways that the UK could … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agreed to set out its rationale for supporting CCUS in each sector where it could be applied, including considering whether alternative approaches could be more cost effective, referencing various sectoral strategies and analysis. Separately, an independent review will consider how Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) can assist the UK in meeting the government’s net zero targets and ensuring security of supply, out to 2050.
HM Treasury
View Details →
25 Accepted

Department's CCUS strategy prioritises cost-efficient geographical clusters for diverse industrial sectors

Recommendation
The Department’s approach to date has been focused on rolling out CCUS to geographical clusters. The Department told us that its cluster–based approach makes sense in terms of cost–efficiency as fewer and shorter pipelines need to be built and because … Read more
Government Response Summary
The department has already set out the relative role of CCUS in decarbonising sectors in various sectoral strategies and regularly updates its analysis as part of the carbon budget delivery cycle, ensuring that CCUS resources are allocated where few alternatives exist and where it is cost effective.
HM Treasury
View Details →
26 Accepted

Industries needing CCUS are not always clustered; support for dispersed sites undecided

Recommendation
However, there is no guarantee that the industries most in need of CCUS will be located in a geographical cluster.85 A cement plant was short–listed for Track 1 in March 2023, but as yet government has not agreed terms with … Read more
Government Response Summary
The department has already set out the relative role of CCUS in decarbonising sectors in various sectoral strategies and regularly updates its analysis as part of the carbon budget delivery cycle, ensuring that CCUS resources are allocated where few alternatives exist and where it is cost effective.
HM Treasury
View Details →

Conclusions (5)

Observations and findings
2 Conclusion Accepted
While the Department is taking steps to incentivise efficient delivery of the CCUS projects, it has not established mechanisms to make sure that taxpayers and consumers will benefit financially should the programme be successful. The Department has developed a range of business models for applying CCUS to a range of …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees, stating that existing business models already include mechanisms like a 'gainshare' in the Net Zero Teesside Dispatchable Power Agreement to ensure financial benefit for taxpayers and consumers. The Department will continue to evolve these models, working with the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy.
View Details →
3 Conclusion Accepted
The Department and HM Treasury have yet to assess the full financial impact of the CCUS programme on taxpayers and consumers. The costs of the CCUS programme are significant: in November 2024 the government announced £21.7 billion of funding over 25 years to cover only the first five CCUS projects. …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees and states that it already assesses the affordability of CCUS support as part of key policy processes and Spending Reviews. It highlights that rigorous assessments, in line with Treasury Green Book principles, have already been undertaken for the initial phases of the East Coast and HyNet clusters, considering impacts on taxpayers and billpayers.
View Details →
4 Conclusion Accepted
The Department and HM Treasury lack clarity on how they would take account of project underperformance and advances in scientific understanding as part of their ongoing assessment of the programme’s future. The Department had a clear set of five factors it considered when assessing the value for money of the …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees and is taking several actions regarding BECCS, including developing new sustainability criteria for future support, planning a consultation on a common biomass sustainability framework, commissioning BSI to develop GGR methodologies by mid-2025, and launching an independent review into GGRs.
View Details →
1 Conclusion Accepted
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (the Department) on its carbon capture, usage and storage programme.1
Government Response Summary
The government states it has already created business models to provide minimum subsidy, established a Cluster Sponsor Function to monitor progress and risks, and set up assurance and control mechanisms, including a new construction team with monthly reviews.
View Details →
8 Conclusion Accepted
Significant risks to the successful implementation of CCUS technology remain. There are still no CCUS plants operating at a commercial scale in the UK and the technology is unproven at the scale being planned.20 For example, written evidence we received stated that there are currently only two power stations worldwide …
Government Response Summary
The department has created business models that provide the minimum subsidy required, keeps the allocation of costs and risks under review to reduce subsidy, has established assurance and control mechanisms, created a new construction team and finance lead, and will carry out monthly reviews reported via the Sponsor Function Board.
View Details →