Olivia Powis, Jack Norquoy and Myrtle Dawes gave evidence.

We are now going to hear oral evidence from Jack Norquoy, the director of communications and public affairs, Scottish Renewables, Myrtle Dawes, the chief executive officer of the Net Zero Technology Centre, and, I hope, from Olivia Powis, the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, although Ms Powis has been slightly delayed. We will proceed and hope that she is able to join us later. For this session we have until 3.50 pm. Please introduce yourselves for the benefit of the record.

Myrtle Dawes:

My name is Myrtle Dawes. I am a chemical engineer and am currently CEO at the Net Zero Technology Centre. For those of you who do not know that organisation, it uses government funding to work with industry to accelerate and develop emerging technology.

Jack Norquoy:

Good afternoon, Committee. I am Jack Norquoy, representing Scottish Renewables. We are the voice of Scotland’s renewable energy industry. We represent nearly 400 organisations working across all renewable energy technologies and the supply chain in Scotland.

From one Scotsman to another—I call the shadow Minister.

Q Thank you, Sir Roger. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today to help our deliberations on the Bill. My first question was going to be to Ms Powis, but I will expand on it to Ms Dawes to begin with. The Carbon Capture and Storage Association has written to the Committee expressing concern about the definition of technologies that GB Energy might be able to invest in and work on. It would like to see an extension of the definition from

“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”,

to include technology that might be involved in carbon capture and storage. It is not set out clearly within the Bill that that is the case. Ms Dawes, as somebody who works with the companies involved in the extraction and production of fossil fuels in Aberdeen and the drive to transition to net zero, do you share the concern with the narrow prescription of what GB Energy will be allowed to invest in and be involved in?

Myrtle Dawes:

I understand their concern. From my perspective, I understood that that would be covered under clause 1(2)(b), which concerns the reduction of greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the storage or utilisation of carbon dioxide comes with the reduction of greenhouse gases. [Interruption.] As Olivia is here, she could probably respond.

Order. If I may interrupt, we have now been joined by Olivia Powis, who is chief executive of the Carbon Capture Association. For the benefit of the record and Hansard, could you identify yourself?

Olivia Powis:

I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I am Olivia Powis, chief executive officer of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.

There is no need to apologise; we understand the vagaries of travel in London and are grateful to you for joining us. Minister—shadow Minister, I beg your pardon—would you like to come back?

Q It was the case once, Sir Roger.

Thank you for joining us, Ms Powis. I was going to ask about the concerns that your association has brought to our attention about the definitions in the Bill, particularly in clause 3, concerning the objects that GBE is restricted to facilitating, encouraging or participating in. Please could you expand on those, and also on your suggested changes to the Bill, about which you kindly wrote to us two weeks ago?

Olivia Powis:

I would be pleased to expand on that. We welcome the Bill and its support. In his opening remarks on Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that

“Great British Energy will support project development” to

“help speed up the roll-out of offshore wind and other technologies”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 460.]

such as CCUS, wave, tidal and hydrogen.

We believe, however, that the narrow definition of clean energy in the current draft of the Bill could be prohibitive to low-carbon technologies and inadvertently limit the scope of GB Energy’s investments, thereby reducing the potential for public projects and hindering the UK’s ability to meet its net zero targets.

The definition of clean energy should be clarified to ensure that it encompasses energy sourced from fossil fuels when combined with carbon capture and storage—that is, when abated. We, alongside Hydrogen UK, have proposed some alternative wording that would enable abated fossil fuels to be included, and ensure the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels. We must future-proof this definition to make sure that GB Energy is able to invest safely in projects such as low-carbon energy with CCS and is not at risk of being challenged.

Jack Norquoy:

I understand the concerns that have been raised. Some of our members will also be members of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. I understand those concerns and am happy with the suggestions. Our recommendation for the Bill, and moving forward, is that it maintains alignment with what the Climate Change Committee has within its scope as part of our transition to net zero.

Q Ms Powis, do you suggest that if we do not make those changes to the Bill, it might be prohibitive to further investment in CCUS, or do you think that the words from the Secretary of State on announcing the Bill were enough to calm any jitters in your industry?

Olivia Powis:

No, we would recommend that the wording is changed in the Bill so that it is future-proof. We welcome the words that came alongside it, but we want to ensure that it is future-proofed for when people come back to this legislation in five years’ time. It must be on the face of the Bill.

Q This is a question to Ms Dawes and then to Mr Norquoy. You obviously represent two different types of energy companies. The Net Zero Technology Centre represents companies that are still very much involved in the North sea, although investing heavily in the next generation of technology that will get us to a cleaner future. How do you see this Bill, and the creation of GB Energy as a company, as helping to facilitate your work at the Net Zero Technology Centre? To Mr Norquoy, I ask the same question: how do you see it as assisting the members of your organisation, Scottish Renewables?

Myrtle Dawes:

I am really excited about this. For reference, the Net Zero Technology Centre received £180 million of Government funding. We have managed to raise and match that with industry and go on to have more than 100 start-ups. We have more than 69 commercialised technologies. We have done more than 300 projects and gone on to give value back to GB of an order of one to nine in cost-benefit terms. When I see something like this, on a much bigger scale—our work is really a microcosm of this—it is really exciting. It is a catalyst sitting at the heart of Government, which will make sure that there is support for innovation during the period when it needs acceleration, when we need this technology to make things more efficient and drive down costs, and when we need to get good technology into the next set of infrastructure projects. For us, it is really exciting. Given what we have seen at the NZTC, it could go on to deliver quite a lot of value.

Jack Norquoy:

I share that enthusiasm. Scottish Renewables has welcomed the development of GB Energy, alongside many of our members in industry. Of course, we welcome any additional investment at this time, particularly when we have heightened ambitions towards 2030. We have an unprecedented line of sight in Scotland with our pipeline, so we welcome the conversation and the development of GB Energy to deliver the support that will be needed to accelerate deployment.

We are particularly interested to see what the goals of GB Energy are. That has been set out in the Bill and in the surrounding documents, but we will need to see some clearer objectives and pathways to support that with industry. We appreciate that that might come after the Bill. We have interest in the governance, too; the importance of operational independence has been discussed today. Finance is very important to the heightened ambitions for what GB Energy will do, as the Bill sets out, but we also want GB Energy to work with industry.

This comes at a time when there are a lot of welcome moving parts in industry, such as the development of a strategic spatial energy plan, the national wealth fund and GB Energy. We welcome the Bill and we would like to see the establishment of GB Energy, but in the steps ahead we would like to see a pathway to give some assurance to our members in industry who are now actively involved in the pipeline on how they can help towards the deployment to 2030.

Q This will be my last question, Chair, I promise. Mr Norquoy, you represent Scottish Renewables. In the past, there have been moments when the aims and objectives of the UK Government and those of the Scottish Government have not been entirely aligned. Your members operate in a devolved administrative area, Scotland. How content are you, given the provisions of the Bill, that GB Energy—an arm of the UK Government, a company established by the UK Government and answerable to the UK Secretary of State—will have the autonomy and power to work constructively with and under the auspices of the devolved Administration in Edinburgh?

Jack Norquoy:

The Bill includes a reference to working with Scottish Ministers, which is welcome, as part of improved relations at the moment, which are welcome too. On governance and devolved competency, as we heard in earlier evidence from the Crown Estate, the partnership with GB Energy is welcome. There will have to be development across the UK to support our net zero targets, but we want to ensure that there is parity with Crown Estate Scotland too. At the start, I highlighted the pipeline that we have sitting in Scotland. On the point about the competency of the Scottish Government, we would like to see some more detail—again, probably outwith the Bill—on how we can ensure parity between extra powers to the Crown Estate and to Crown Estate Scotland.

Q We have heard a great deal today, and rightly so, about the potential investment that GB Energy could make, whether that is in production, storage or generation and so on and so forth. I am particularly interested in the innovation space and in your experience with the Net Zero Technology Centre. Do you think that GB Energy’s focus should be on that, given the relatively small quantum that is available, or do you think that it should be broader and more focused on the de-risking of projects that might already be in the pipeline but might require assistance in relation to consent, planning or further capital investment?

Myrtle Dawes:

I suppose it would have to be towards the impact. Naturally, the budget we are looking at is well suited to innovation. The crowding in of money that we could get around that from investors—the impact that we could have by moving on a lot of projects—is quite significant.

To take the example of floating offshore wind, we have some of the best wind resources in Europe and actually the world. We are sitting with one of the best supply chains for subsea in the world, because the North sea has been the harshest place in the world to do business. If we are ever going to get an effective floating wind business, with technology and jobs here in the UK, we need to start and move on it now. Not only is there an opportunity to get electricity here in the UK, but we are very close to the heartland of Europe, which is also looking for electricity and for hydrogen. We can do lots of things where the impact, if we were to move now, would be great.

I have also worked on de-risking in major projects. They do need de-risking. I do not think that those in the supply chain are necessarily looking for a handout; they are looking for clarity, for investable business cases and for things where they can do the commercial work that they normally do. I can tell you that at the heart of this is technology that has to be sufficiently robust and reliable, and cheap enough that the product is cheap for the customer, who in this case is those who are using our energy.

Olivia Powis:

I support everything that has been said. I think GB Energy offers the potential for targeted investment and support in areas of the value chain, for new innovations and across the supply chain. In particular, we look at some capture technologies with lower TRLs that would benefit from some investment, enabling them to move forward from what we refer to as the valley of death, to be able to compete on the open market. There are many opportunities within the innovation space.

Jack Norquoy:

A big part of what GB Energy will do is the local power plan, to which a sizeable contribution of that £8 billion allocation has been made. You raised a point about how the rest of it will be spent; I echo the comments that have been made about innovation.

There will be a need for GB Energy to have a balance. That has been outlined in what we have seen so far, in that there will be a need to generate revenue in order for there to be a public return, but it is important that that money be targeted at high-risk areas where we need the longer-term strategic view to support innovation. Sectors in Scotland such as the marine energy sector would very much welcome that targeted support. So we have a balance between GB Energy being willing to take more risk than perhaps we have seen so far and some investment going towards the local power plan, developing the stable revenue that we will want to see coming through.

Q I have two questions for Ms Powis. The first goes back to the definition. Before you arrived, Ms Dawes mentioned that she felt that it was covered in clause 3(2)(b). May I ask why you do not think that that sentence is sufficient to cover CCUS?

Olivia Powis:

We have proposed instead that the statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating and encouraging investment in, and participating in, one or more of the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, and the reduction, directly or indirectly, of greenhouse gas emissions from energy derived from fossil fuels, where that clean energy definition means energy and molecules produced from sources other than unabated fossil fuels. It is just about being clear about that clean energy definition. We have been told that, as drafted, it would exclude those with fossil fuels.

Q On CCUS, we want Great British Energy to have a broader portfolio once it is established—lots of witnesses today have said that. Where would you place CCUS, from a risky to a non-risky investment, for the £1.6 billion?

Olivia Powis:

CCUS, as an industry, very much welcomes the announcements from Government last week and the further detail provided yesterday. There is lots of private sector investment helping to drive forward these projects. The funding commitment from Government is for projects once they are operational. Obviously there are still first-of-a-kind projects here, so I would not classify it as a very high risk. This is not a new technology; it is an industry that has been deployed elsewhere, and there is an understanding of how it will work.

There will be first-of-a-kind projects in the UK, and there could therefore be areas in which GB Energy could play a critical role. We have yet to really explore the extent—we would welcome further discussion on that—but there could be a role in enabling infrastructure, oversizing pipes, import terminals and port infrastructure. There is a role it could play in driving forward that enabling infrastructure investment.

Ms Dawes and Mr Norquoy, have you anything to add?

Myrtle Dawes:

I am glad to get the clarification. We also invest in CCUS; it is really important technology for industrial decarbonisation. As an engineer, I will tell you that there is risk involved in that, because we are used to steady state, and we will want to stop and start things. It is a refrigerant, so it will not like it.

There is quite a lot to do to reduce costs. The monitoring and verification of the stores is super-important. If we can turn a waste stream going to store into a product stream that is being utilised, that will be fantastic. That has to be the way we need to go. There is lots of technology to look at, both on the capture of emissions—direct air capture has its role, especially if we are going to look at some kinds of synthetic fuel—and on some of the emerging technologies around capturing carbon dioxide from seawater. Apart from the fact that we might also be able to mine some minerals from doing that, these are things that we should be looking at. It is all about getting the security of doing these things closer to home.

Q Mr Norquoy, you said in your opening remarks that businesses would like a little more assurance, which would perhaps come in the Secretary of State’s statement on the strategic priorities. You mentioned the objects. Part of the Committee’s debate at the moment is about how wide we make the objects. If there were any objects included, because it seemed to be indicated that that might be beneficial, what would they be?

Jack Norquoy:

I am happy to clarify that. We are content with the Bill; we understand the need to enable flexibility so that it can evolve over time. We certainly want GB Energy to be durable at a time that we are building a new energy system. There are various mechanisms, which I highlighted at the start. This is an opportune time to enable that durability. I think the scope is right; yes, it is wide, but that is important for longevity. We would want to see clarity within the business plan and as part of the statements that come following the Bill.

I think industry is very keen. We are operating at pace, so we want some clarity around the architecture in which this will sit, to give assurance to businesses that are ready to engage and want to work closely with the Government and GB Energy. As has been highlighted to the Committee today, we want a sense of the role of GB Energy, where it will end when it comes to the national wealth fund and where those can complement each other. We also want clarity on the established array of institutions at a UK level, primarily the UK Infrastructure Bank. That is compounded when you come to Scotland, where we have the good work of the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise. I do not think that this detail is needed in the Bill, but clarity on some of that architecture would be very welcome shortly thereafter.

As nobody else on the panel wishes to respond, and there are no further questions, may I thank you for your evidence? We are very grateful to you for coming in.