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 first two clusters and then the individual projects it selected as part of Track 1 of the programme. The Department and HM Treasury were also clear that projects would be subject to a fur...

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 first two clusters and then the individual projects it selected as part of Track 1 of the programme. The Department and HM Treasury were also clear that projects would be subject to a further value for money assessment before awarding contracts. As part of this assessment it would consider the cost effectiveness of capturing carbon and wi Type: conclusion | Number: 4 | Response status: accepted Government response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. any future support for BECCS. These criteria will build on existing sustainability criteria for biomass and include associated monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements. The department plans to consul