Letter to UK Environment Agency
Philip Duffy (CEO)
John Leyland (Exec Director, Environment & Business)
Steve Molyneaux (Director, Energy & Resources)
cc Dame Angela Eagle, Secretary of State for the Environment
11 August 2026
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: NE63 9NW, EP Lynemouth Power Limited, EPR/FP3137CG/V013
I am writing to you on behalf of Newbiggin Environment Network, Climate Action Newcastle and Biofuelwatch.
Although the consultation period for the recent IED derogation request submitted by EP Lynemouth Power Ltd (“Lynemouth Power”) has officially passed, we urge you to take the arguments and information below into account before determining this permitting request. As shown below, we believe that arguments made by Lynemouth Power in support of a further derogation from the standard Emission Value Levels (ELVs) for NOx and dust are misleading and that the power station does not meet the requirements for such a derogation.
Under Article 15(4) of the Industrial Emissions Directive, which remains part of UK legislation, a derogation from standard ELVs (BAT-AELs) is only possible if
“an assessment shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.”
Lynemouth Power claims that meeting BAT-AELs would be disproportionally more expensive due to the technical characteristics of the power station, including the general investment cycle for such plants.
We believe that the company has provided no credible evidence for this claim and that the costs of installing adequate mitigations would be no greater than it has been for other plant operators that do comply with the BAT-AEL limits.
Investment cycle:
When Lynemouth Power submitted its first derogation request, back in 2018, they argued that it would be unfair to expect them to make further upgrades to the flue gas cleaning equipment because they had made major investments in converting the power station from burning coal to burning biomass in 2016/17. They said that they had made those investments just before the stricter BAT-AEL limits were introduced in 2017. However, by the time any new derogation would come into force, in 2027, it will have been ten years since those new ELVs became law and slightly longer since the most recent upgrades to the power plant.
Now, Lynemouth Power is putting two new claims forward:
- Firstly, they say: “To continue to operate after the expiry of the current derogation, a new derogation is required to cover the period of operation under the new Low Carbon Dispatchable CfD”. Lynemouth Power has now been granted a new CfD for the period 1.4.2027 to 31.3.2031. This means that Lynemouth Power is contractually obligated to continue operating the plant at a capacity of 27% of the maximum annual load until 31.3.2031, regardless of whether or not they get a derogation. This also means that they can shut down one or two of their units temporarily for necessary upgrades to install new mitigation equipment.
- Secondly, Lynemouth Power claims: “The derogation is sought until 31 December 2034, aligning with the anticipated commissioning of the pBECCS facility. At that point, Lynemouth Power Station will be reconfigured to achieve BAT-AEL compliance as part of the carbon capture integration.” There are two fundamental problems with this claim:
a) Low levels of dust and NOx in flue gases are essential for post-combustion carbon capture to work because such pollutants interact with the amines needed for carbon capture and stop the process from working properly. We can see no reason why requiring Lynemouth Power to invest in the necessary mitigation measures now would prejudice any future investment in carbon capture. Biofuelwatch was an interested party during the Planning Inquiry related to Drax’s development consent application for installing carbon capture. Drax uses SNCR to reduce NOx emissions and has Electrostatic Precipitators capable of reducing dust emissions enough to comply with the BAT-AEL levels that Lynemouth Power claims they cannot realistically achieve. There was never any suggestion that Drax would need to remove or replace its SNCR or Electrostatic Precipitators in order to build a carbon capture unit.
b) We can see no basis for Lynemouth Power’s claims around carbon capture from 2034. The government has repeatedly stated support for CCUS clusters. Several such CCUS clusters are currently proposed, including the East Coast Cluster. Lynemouth Power Station is not part of any proposed CCUS cluster. This means that there is no proposed CO2 pipeline that would connect to this power station. Lynemouth Power was not chosen for Track 1 support. Furthermore, Lynemouth Power has not announced any FEED study nor has the company undertaken any basic carbon capture testing. Therefore, we can see no reason why carbon capture from Lynemouth Power Station can be “anticipated” during the 2030s.
Power plant configuration and constraints
Lynemouth Power claims: “As a biomass conversion of an existing coal-fired installation, significant space and plant performance related constraints restrict applicability of BAT techniques. SNCR would have low NOx reduction efficiency at the Lynemouth Power Station and would not achieve the BAT-AEL.”
Drax is operating its converted coal power stations with SNCR, with better Electrostatic Precipitators and without any derogation of BAT-AEL limits. Drax Power Station has the same age and the same basic technology (sub-critical pulverised fuel combustion) as Lynemouth Power Station. So it is clearly not true that there are inherent reasons why such converted power plants cannot meet the BAT-AEL limits.
Lynemouth Power’s claims regarding problems stemming from the “variability in biomass fuel sources” are also not credible because the power station burns wood pellets, and there is highly effective certification of wood pellets with regards to combustion properties and quality standards, such as EnPlus.
The arguments put forward by Lynemouth Power against installing SNCR for NOx reductions are that this leads to a reduction in plant efficiency (and thereby greater operating costs), that there is ammonia slip that would have an adverse effect on nearby sensitive ecosystems and that there is a risk of boiler corrosion. In fact, SNCR is a standard technology and BAT for large combustion plants. Other operators are able to use this technology without boiler corrosion. According to this application, the efficiency loss is 0.25 – 0.5% – it is no higher and no costlier than for any other power plant operator applying this technology in order to meet BAT-AEL limits. As for the sensitive ecological sites, we have looked at the information on apis.ac.uk . Ammonia is currently well below the critical load for the most sensitive species found nearby, which are lichens and bryophytes. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that ammonia slip from SNCR would push levels above this minimum critical load and thereby cause potential harm to any species. On the other hand, SNCR reduces NOx levels by 30-50%, which would make a significant difference to the level of air pollution to which both humans and ecosystems are exposed.
As for installing new Electrostatic Precipitators, the 2018 assessment by AECOM shows that this would be perfectly possible using “installation of Collection Plate in Maintenance Access Space”, although outages of several months would be needed. Outages would not be a problem under the new CfD, provided unit upgrades are staggered, because that CfD only supports Lynemouth Power operating at 27% of the full annual load.
That same assessment also shows that it would be perfectly possible to use more effective “additional field)s installation of collection plate in maintenance access space” for two of the units. For the remaining unit, the other method, mentioned above, would still be an option, and this combination would significantly reduce dust emissions.
In conclusion, we can see no credible argument for a derogation from BAT-AEL limits for Lynemouth Power station. We strongly hope that the application will be rejected.
Yours faithfully,
Jane Small (on behalf of Newbiggin Environment Network)
Olwyn Hocking (on behalf of Climate Action Newcastle)
Almuth Ernsting (on behalf of Biofuelwatch)
