Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit No 32: summary of consultation responses

Updated 23 February 2026

1. Introduction

Decarbonisation readiness (DR)

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has expanded the scope of the current Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR) requirements through the Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This added Schedule 25C to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR). The new requirements are called DR.

From 28 February 2026, operators applying for environmental permits will need to include a DR report for certain new or substantially refurbished electricity generating combustion power plant. Operators will also need to maintain and review these reports.

This consultation included proposed new conditions which will be added to some standard rules to reflect the new DR requirements. We sought your views on these conditions.

Anaerobic digestion (AD)

Some AD activities can currently be undertaken in accordance with standard rules permits. These standard rules do not allow upgrading to biomethane involving carbon capture and temporary storage for utilisation. A bespoke permit is required for this.

This consultation included proposed new conditions which will be added to existing AD standard rules in the future. Where operators can meet these, they will be able to undertake carbon capture, upgrade and storage for use.

This consultation also included a proposal to withdraw standard rules SR2009 No 4: combustion of biogas in engines at a sewage treatment works as we are of the opinion that it is no longer required. 

Who was interested in this consultation

This consultation was of interest to:

• operators of in scope electricity generators and others that have an interest in decarbonisation – this will include operators and other businesses, trade associations, national and local government, non-governmental organisations, other regulators, academic institutions, individuals and community groups with an interest in decarbonisation
• existing or new operators of permitted AD plant who currently or would like to capture, upgrade and store carbon dioxide

2. How we ran the consultation

We ran the consultation for 8 weeks from 23 October 2025 to 18 December 2025.

We invited views via our Citizen Space online platform and offered a PDF response form by email for organisations preferring this method. We also promoted the consultation through our existing mailing lists, stakeholder networks (including operators, trade associations and public bodies) and published an announcement on GOV.UK.

We received 13 responses in total, all of which were submitted on behalf of organisations.

Of the 13 responses we received:

• 9 were from operators or businesses
• 4 were from trade bodies or professional institutes
• 0 were from community groups or members of the public

3. Summary of key findings and actions we will take

Each section of this document summarises the feedback received on the relevant part of the consultation. We have grouped similar or duplicate comments together and provided a consolidated summary of the themes raised. For each question, we set out:

• a summary of the in-scope comments received, grouped where respondents raised similar points
• our response to those comments, explaining how we have interpreted the feedback and how it relates to the existing legislative framework
• any changes we have made to the proposed standard rules conditions or supporting guidance, where consultation feedback has identified areas that require clarification or refinement

4. Decarbonisation readiness responses

This section relates to how the existing DR legislative requirements are reflected in the proposed standard rules permit conditions.

Where respondents raised issues about the clarity, proportionality or practicality of the condition wording, these have been treated as in scope.

Comments related to the policy basis, scope or burden of the DR requirements arise from legislation and supporting guidance, not from the wording of the proposed conditions. For this reason, they are outside the scope of this consultation.

Q1. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed conditions?

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposed conditions:

• yes: 61.5%
• no: 23.1%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘Do not know’): 15.4%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• several respondents considered the proposed conditions sensible, workable and aligned with the DR guidance, and noted that they help operators plan for compliance
• some respondents emphasised the need for proportionality and flexibility when assessing feasibility, noting that site specific context can vary
• some respondents raised concerns about administrative burden, including the effort involved in preparing and reviewing DR reports and the resource implications for smaller or less established sites
• some respondents asked for clearer expectations for DR reports and biennial reviews, including the scope and level of detail required

Comments relating to the following have been moved to the consolidated out of scope section:

• exemptions for AD or biogas
• claims that DR should not apply to certain sectors
• criticism of incentives
• concerns about legislation timing or budget cycles
• statements that DR is counterproductive for certain business models

Our response

On the overall suitability of the proposed conditions

We note respondents’ feedback that the conditions are workable, consistent with the published DR guidance, and provide operators with a clear framework for planning compliance.

On proportionality and flexibility in feasibility assessments

Schedule 25C already requires feasibility assessments to be undertaken on a proportionate basis. Assessments should reflect the scale and complexity of the plant and the nature of the proposed decarbonisation route. The proposed conditions do not change this requirement.

On administrative burden and implementation timing

The requirement to prepare and periodically review a DR report is a statutory duty established in 2025 through Schedule 25C. The purpose of the standard rules conditions is to reflect those duties without introducing new ones.

We acknowledge that respondents raised concerns about associated effort and timing. However, the regulations were made in 2025, allowing operators to incorporate DR considerations into business and budget planning cycles for 2026.

On expectations for DR reports and biennial reviews

The conditions are not intended to prescribe the detailed structure or content of DR reports. These matters are set out in DR guidance, which we will keep under review.

In response to feedback on clarity and operability, we have refined the condition wording. This is to clarify what the Environment Agency may request and when, and to ensure that material changes to technical assessments are notified in a timely and proportionate way.

Where we have changed the conditions

We have clarified the information the operator needs to provide when requested by the Environment Agency. In addition to the full DR report, we have included an option to request the findings of a review. This gives an option for reducing the need for submission of the full DR report.

We have added a requirement to notify the Environment Agency where the type of technical assessment in the DR report changes, for example from carbon capture conversion readiness (CCR) to hydrogen conversion readiness (HCR) or the reverse. This is so we are aware of material changes that may affect compliance.

Q2. Do you agree that the proposed conditions are clear for operators?

The majority of respondents agreed that the proposed conditions are clear for operators:

• yes: 53.8%
• no: 30.8%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘Do not know’): 15.4%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• one respondent found the wording of the opening clause unclear and suggested a simpler alternative
• some respondents sought clarity on what needs to be included in DR reports, including who should prepare or verify CCR or HCR technical assessments
• several respondents asked for clearer expectations on the scope and level of detail required for the biennial review, including what information is submitted and when
• some respondents highlighted that proportionality wording feels subjective and requested examples or further guidance on what a proportionate DR assessment looks like
• one respondent raised questions about permit outcomes where no feasible decarbonisation option currently exists, and how economic feasibility or infrastructure availability is interpreted over time
• some respondents asked for improved interpretation through clearer signposting to guidance

Comments relating to specific technology choices, feasibility, policy, hydrogen or infrastructure, or wider implementation issues are addressed in the consolidated out-of-scope section.

Our response

On the clarity of the opening clause

We have refined the opening wording of the condition to make it clearer that the requirement applies where an application includes a statement that the CCR or HCR conditions are met. The underlying requirement is unchanged.

On what must be included in DR reports and who may prepare them

The conditions do not prescribe who must prepare or “certify” CCR or HCR technical assessments. For standard rules permit applications, a self-certification statement is acceptable. For bespoke permits, the adequacy of DR reports is assessed by permitting officers with reference to the guidance rather than a formal accreditation process. We will consider whether additional clarification in guidance would assist operators.

On expectations for the biennial review

The statutory requirement to review and update DR reports at least every 2 years is set out in Schedule 25C. In response to feedback, the revised drafting clarifies that:

• the Environment Agency may request either the findings of a review or the full report
• operators must notify the EA when the type of technical assessment changes

This provides clarity on what may be requested without implying routine submission of full reports.

On proportionality and consistency

The DR legislation and guidance for operators already allow assessments to be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the plant. We acknowledge that operators would welcome further clarity or examples illustrating what “proportionate” looks like in practice. We will consider whether future updates to the supporting guidance could provide this.

On permit outcomes where no feasible decarbonisation option exists

These matters are determined by the statutory requirements in Schedule 25C, which set out when a permit may be issued. If an operator cannot demonstrate that the DR requirements are met, the Environment Agency cannot grant the permit. The conditions do not require operators to forecast long term market or infrastructure developments. Feasibility assessments should reflect current evidence and reasonable expectations. We will consider whether further guidance could help explain how feasibility and infrastructure availability are interpreted.

On clearer signposting to guidance

We recognise that additional signposting may help operators understand how the conditions interact with DR guidance, including identifying which plant is in scope and what a proportionate assessment looks like. We will consider how this can be strengthened in future guidance updates.

Where we have changed the conditions

We have removed references to CCR or HCR technical assessments and referred instead to applications that include a statement that the CCR or HCR conditions are met. This reflects the mechanism used in Schedule 25C and does not alter the underlying requirement.

We have clarified the biennial review wording so it is clear that the Environment Agency may request either the findings of a review or the full DR report.

We have added a requirement to notify the Environment Agency where the type of technical assessment in the DR report changes, for example from CCR to HCR or the reverse. This is so that we are aware of material changes that may affect compliance.

Q3. Are there any additional conditions you think should be included?

A clear majority of respondents did not think that any additional conditions were needed:

• yes: 7.7%
• no: 69.2%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘Do not know’): 23.1%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• some respondents agreed that the proposed approach is robust, workable and does not require additional conditions
• some respondents proposed introducing additional conditions to allow negotiated alternatives where DR is considered not feasible in practice
• one respondent suggested that smaller or biogas-fuelled plant should be subject to reduced DR requirements, or potentially be exempt, reflecting their lower environmental impact
• some respondents proposed greater standardisation of DR reporting, such as clearer methodology, format or templates
• one respondent suggested that improving clarity around biennial reviews should be prioritised before adding any further conditions

Comments relating to the following are addressed in the consolidated out of scope section:

• exemptions for particular technologies or sectors
• incentives
• cost burdens
• asset management plan 8 (AMP8) planning cycles
• the wider DR policy framework

Our response

On whether additional conditions are needed

We welcome the feedback supporting the proposed approach. Based on the responses received, we do not consider that additional permit conditions are required beyond those consulted on. The proposed conditions provide a practical basis for implementing statutory requirements of Schedule 25C.

On suggestions for negotiated alternatives where DR is not feasible

The permit conditions must reflect the statutory requirements in Schedule 25C of the EPR. Under the legislation, DR requirements must be met for a permit to be granted. The permit conditions cannot create alternative routes or negotiated exemptions where statutory tests are not satisfied. Any changes to the underlying policy or legislative requirements would need to be considered by government.

On proposals for a threshold or reduced scope for some plant

The DR legislation and guidance for operators already incorporate proportionality through its defined scope, including lower capacity thresholds set out in legislation. The Environment Agency cannot introduce additional exemptions or differentiated requirements through permit conditions where these are not provided for in Schedule 25C. Proportionality in assessing feasibility is addressed through the DR guidance rather than through additional conditions.

On requests for standardised reporting approaches

The conditions are not intended to prescribe a fixed methodology or format for DR reports. These matters are set out in the supporting guidance, which already allows assessments to be undertaken on a proportionate basis. We recognise that some respondents would value greater clarity or examples, and we will consider whether future guidance updates could offer further support for consistent implementation.

On suggestions to prioritise clarification of biennial review expectations

We note the view that greater clarity on the scope and detail required for biennial reviews would be beneficial. Our focus remains on supporting clear and proportionate implementation of existing DR requirements through updates to guidance where this would provide additional value, rather than adding further conditions at this stage.

Where we have not changed the conditions

No changes were made to the proposed DR conditions as a result of responses to Question 3. The comments received related to the scope of the legislative framework, proportionality or guidance matters, none of which require amendments to the permit conditions.

Q4. Do you think we need to be clearer which generators decarbonisation readiness is relevant to?

A small majority of respondents agreed that greater clarity is needed on which generators DR is relevant to:

• yes: 53.8%
• no: 46.2%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘Do not know’): 0%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• most respondents said it is already clear which generators DR applies to, based on legislation and the accompanying guidance
• some respondents noted that additional clarification would be helpful in borderline cases, particularly for plant that is being partially upgraded or where only some elements of a combustion plant are replaced
• some respondents highlighted uncertainty regarding the definition of “substantially refurbished” and suggested that clearer explanation or examples would support consistent application
• some respondents noted that determining whether DR applies can be challenging, particularly where operators already need to assess applicability under other regulatory regimes, such as the Medium Combustion Plant (MCP) Directive – respondents explained that navigating several regimes with different scope criteria can make it harder to understand where DR sits and suggested that clearer signposting or tools could support operator understanding

Comments relating to exclusions for biogas or AD, incentives, legislative timing or calls for special treatment of particular sectors have been moved to the consolidated out of scope section.

Our response

On whether further clarity is needed about which generators DR applies to

The scope of DR, including which generators are required to demonstrate DR, is defined in Schedule 25C of EPR. DR applies to newly installed or substantially refurbished relevant generators from 28 February 2026.

We recognise that the technical nature of the legislative definitions may make interpretation challenging in some cases. We will consider whether clearer signposting or nonmandatory examples in future guidance could help operators determine applicability more easily.

On clarity for “substantially refurbished” generators

The legislative definition states that a plant is “substantially refurbished” when the cost of refurbishing the combustion plant exceeds 50% of the investment cost of comparable new plant, excluding abatement equipment. We acknowledge that respondents would welcome additional clarity, particularly where refurbishment affects only parts of a plant. We will consider whether further guidance could help operators apply this definition consistently.

On complexity when navigating several regulatory regimes

We acknowledge that some respondents highlighted the complexity of identifying applicability where multiple regulatory regimes apply, and that standard rules may involve a range of generator types. We will consider whether clearer signposting or optional illustrative examples in guidance could support consistent interpretation without extending permit requirements.

Where we have not changed the conditions

No changes were made to the proposed conditions in response to Question 4.
Comments received related to interpretation of legislation and guidance, rather than to the drafting of the conditions.

Thematic summary of out-of-scope comments received

Across the first four questions, a number of respondents raised comments that relate to the wider policy, scope and implementation of DR rather than to the wording or operation of the proposed permit conditions. These included:

• feasibility and proportionality of DR requirements – including what should happen where no suitable decarbonisation option is currently available, concerns about cost or budget impacts, or the perceived burden of DR reporting
• policy scope of DR – such as whether particular technologies, processes or sectors (for example AD or biogas operators, water industry plant or specific generator types) should be exempt, treated differently or subject to reduced requirements
• requests for standardised methodologies or reporting formats – including templates, sector specific approaches or clarification of who should undertake or certify CCR or HCR technical assessments.
• comments on interactions with other regulatory regimes – including MCP and Specified Generator requirements, permit variation processes, reporting obligations and whether DR sits appropriately alongside wider permitting frameworks
• broader implementation and transition issues – including incentives, hydrogen and CCR, infrastructure availability, planning cycle constraints (for example AMP8) and suggestions for additional tools, examples or operator support mechanisms (such as self-check tools or seminars)

Our response to out-of-scope comments received

Comments suggesting differentiated treatment for particular sectors or technologies (for example AD, biogas or water industry plant) related to legislative scope rather than permit drafting. These cannot be addressed through standard rules conditions.

The proposed conditions accurately reflect the statutory requirements set out in Schedule 25C. They do not change the legislative scope of DR or introduce new obligations beyond those required under the regulations. Relevant feedback will be shared with colleagues responsible for wider DR policy, guidance and implementation for consideration in future updates to guidance or supporting materials where appropriate.

5. Anaerobic digestion proposals

Q5. Do you agree with the inclusion of carbon capture and upgrading into the standard rules?

Most respondents agreed with the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques in the standard rules:

• yes: 53.8%
• no: 7.7%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘do not know’): 38.4%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• most respondents supported the inclusion of carbon capture and upgrading (CCU) activities within the AD standard rules – several noted that carbon capture is already commonly used in the AD sector and that the requirement to obtain bespoke permits had previously acted as a barrier to deployment
• a number of respondents commented that allowing CCU under standard rules could reduce costs, delays and uncertainty associated with bespoke permitting and could encourage wider uptake of carbon capture at AD facilities
• some respondents sought flexibility in how captured biogenic carbon dioxide can be used, particularly where achieving food-grade CO₂ standards may not be feasible – they suggested that alternative industrial uses should be acceptable where risks are appropriately managed
• one respondent noted that it was difficult to comment fully on the proposals without sight of the generic risk assessment (GRA) that normally accompanies standard rules permit sets
• a small number of respondents indicated that they were unable to comment in detail on the proposals due to limited direct experience with the relevant standard rules permits

Our response

The proposed changes are intended to allow CCU activities associated with biogas upgrading at AD sites regulated under standard rules permits, rather than requiring bespoke permits. This formalises flexibility that has previously been provided through regulatory position statement (RPS) 255 and reflects current regulatory practice for lower-risk CCU activities.

Including CCU within the AD standard rules is intended to reduce unnecessary cost, delay and complexity associated with bespoke permitting, while maintaining appropriate environmental protection. The proposed conditions do not alter the underlying regulatory requirements for managing risks associated with CCU.

The conditions are not intended to mandate the use of carbon capture from upgrading biogas or to prescribe specific technology choices. They provide a framework for permitting CCU activities as set out in the standard rules, without extending the scope of activities beyond those proposed.

The proposed conditions include requirements for the handling and use of captured biogenic carbon dioxide to ensure it protects the environment and in accordance with the permit.

For all five standard rules AD sets, we have revised the GRA accident section to reference the risks from loss of inventory from CO₂ storage. Accident management plans must assess the risks from venting and loss of containment scenarios and impact on human health in line with relevant standards. Accident management plans shall be adopted in line with the following relevant Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance:

• Major hazard potential of CCS
• General hazards of Carbon Dioxide

We consider the reference to food grade standards of CO₂ to already be flexible for operators as we do not specify individual food standards. The proposed conditions also refer to relevant industrial standards where food grade CO₂ is not the aim of the operator capturing and treating the biogenic CO₂.

Based on the responses received, we consider that the proposed inclusion of CCU activities within the AD standard rules is appropriate. No changes to the proposed conditions are being made in response to these comments.

Q6. Do you agree with the technologies specified within the proposed conditions?

Responses were mixed on whether respondents agreed with the technologies specified within the proposed conditions:

• yes: 38.5%
• no: 15.4%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘do not know’): 46.1%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• some respondents agreed that the technologies specified within the proposed conditions are appropriate and reflect established physical treatment techniques for separating and capturing carbon dioxide from biogas upgrading
• several respondents requested changes or additions to the technologies listed, including suggestions to include alternative or emerging technologies, or to allow greater flexibility to accommodate future innovation
• some respondents raised concerns about specific operational parameters within the proposed conditions – including limits on carbon dioxide storage capacity, minimum capture rates, and restrictions on venting stored carbon dioxide
• a number of respondents sought greater clarity and consistency in the terminology used within the conditions – noting that terms such as “upgrading”, “scrubbing”, “treatment” and “separation” are used interchangeably and could make it difficult for operators to match their activities to the descriptions provided
• a small number of respondents indicated that they were unable to comment on the technologies specified or did not consider the question relevant to their operations

Our response

The technologies specified within the proposed conditions are intended to define a clear and consistent set of activities that can be permitted under AD standard rules. These technologies reflect established physical treatment techniques for biogas upgrading and carbon dioxide separation where the environmental risks are well understood and can be managed within a standard rules framework. No additional emissions are expected from the physical treatment techniques.

Standard rules permits rely on clearly defined activities and conditions. For this reason, the technologies included in the proposed conditions are deliberately specified and are not intended to provide open-ended flexibility or discretionary inclusion of alternative technologies. Where proposed activities fall outside the technologies listed, operators would need to apply for a bespoke permit.

We have reviewed feedback on the clarity and operability of the proposed conditions. Where appropriate, the wording has been refined to improve consistency and clarity of terminology and to address specific operational issues. This includes the non-routine venting of stored carbon dioxide and capture rates. We will also revise storage restrictions to improve operational feasibility on the basis that increased storage will not pose an increase in risk. We have increased the storage capacity limit of CO₂ to 250 tonnes as requested in the consultation. This is the total volume of the tanks, not the total amount of CO₂ stored, as the useable capacity will mean lower tonnages of actual CO₂ stored. No further changes to the technologies specified within the conditions are proposed in response to these comments.

While increased tonnages have been accepted under this consultation, the risk from accidental release of CO₂ from CCS is regulated by the HSE. At present, there are no set separation distances stipulated by the HSE. It is an operator’s responsibility to be aware of any changes which introduce separation distances of stored CO₂ and sensitive human receptors (for example homes or businesses). Operators should determine appropriate safe distances in line with HSE guidance.

Overall, we consider that the technologies specified within the proposed conditions remain appropriate for inclusion within the AD standard rules and provide a suitable basis for permitting these activities.

Q7. Do you think we need to include other carbon capture and upgrading technologies into the standard rules which we have not specified?

Responses were unsure if other CCU technologies should be included within the proposed conditions:

• yes: 30.7%
• no: 7.7%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’ or ‘Do not know’): 61.5%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• some respondents stated that they did not consider it necessary to include additional CCU technologies beyond those specified in the proposed conditions or did not identify any omissions
• several respondents indicated uncertainty or felt unable to comment on whether additional technologies should be included, noting a lack of familiarity with the range or complexity of available techniques
• a small number of respondents suggested that specific additional technologies should be included, most notably thermal plasma electrolysis, or that the conditions should allow flexibility to accommodate future technological developments
• some respondents emphasised the importance of monitoring uptake of the standard rules and reviewing the specified technologies over time to ensure the rules remain relevant as technologies evolve

Our response

The proposed conditions specify a defined set of CCU technologies that are considered suitable for inclusion within AD standard rules. As set out above, standard rules permits rely on clearly defined and objective conditions and are not intended to provide open-ended or discretionary approval of additional technologies.

Where operators wish to use technologies that are not specified in the standard rules, a bespoke permit would be required. We recognise that CCU technologies are an evolving area, and the Environment Agency will keep uptake of the standard rules and developments within the sector under review. Where appropriate, the standard rules may be reviewed or amended in future to reflect changes in technology.

One respondent proposed an alternative technology, thermal plasma electrolysis. This would likely be a production of inorganic chemical activity. Under the EPR, this would be a listed installation activity. Standard rules sets for AD cannot cover the complexities of additional installation activities which likely require bespoke permits.

Based on the responses received, we do not consider that additional CCU technologies should be included in the standard rules at this stage. No changes to the proposed conditions are being made in response to these comments.

Thematic summary of out-of-scope comments received

Across Questions 5 to 7, some respondents raised comments that relate to the wider development, deployment or future direction of CCU technologies within the AD sector. They did not relate to the specific wording or operation of the proposed standard rules permit conditions. These included:

• requests to include open-ended flexibility to allow future technologies to be approved on a discretionary basis
• suggestions that the standard rules should be explicitly “future-proofed” through mechanisms such as regulator agreement, technology readiness thresholds, or automatic inclusion of new technologies as they emerge
• comments relating to wider innovation, market development, funding or investment considerations, including references to hydrogen strategy, commercial offtake and AMP cycles
• requests for the Environment Agency to undertake periodic reviews of uptake and technology development, or to introduce change mechanisms to align standard rules with bespoke permit conditions over time

Our response to out-of-scope comments received

These comments relate to broader policy, innovation and future regulatory development considerations rather than to the specific amendments to the AD standard rules consulted on. This consultation focuses on whether the proposed conditions appropriately define a set of activities that can be permitted under standard rules. It does not focus on determining the future scope of technologies or the mechanisms by which new technologies may be approved.

Standard rules permits rely on clearly defined, objective and well-understood activities. As such, they cannot provide for open-ended or discretionary inclusion of additional technologies without further evidence, risk assessment and consultation. Where new or alternative technologies are proposed, these would need to be considered through other regulatory mechanisms such as:

• bespoke permitting
• future amendments to standard rules
• the use of RPSs, where appropriate

References to the AMP periods for water companies are not relevant to the inclusion of these conditions. Standard rules conditions are set for any operator, and the price review process does not require specific scheduling for these conditions.

The Environment Agency will keep developments in CCU technologies under review and will consider whether future changes to guidance or permitting approaches are appropriate, informed by evidence, experience of implementation and risk.

6. Proposed withdrawal

Q8. Do you agree with the withdrawal of SR2009 No 4?

Responses were mixed, with a relatively high proportion of respondents indicating that the question was not applicable to them or that they did not have a definitive view:

• yes: 38.5%
• do not know: 23.1%
• no definitive view (‘N/A’): 38.4%

Thematic summary of in-scope comments received

The in-scope comments received are summarised as follows:

• some respondents agreed with the withdrawal of SR2009 No 4, noting that it is no longer used or that its withdrawal is appropriate where activities are already covered by other standard rules
• several respondents indicated that they did not hold this standard rules permit or did not consider the question relevant to their operations and therefore did not express a view on the proposed withdrawal
• one respondent supported withdrawal but suggested that the standard rules should be repurposed or replaced by alternative schemes relating to biosolids management

Our response

We welcome the feedback supporting the withdrawal of SR2009 No 4. The rule set is no longer in use, and its withdrawal is intended to simplify the standard rules framework and avoid retaining obsolete permitting routes.

Some respondents indicated that they did not hold this standard rules permit or did not consider the question relevant. We recognise that SR2009 No 4 applies to a limited subset of operators and that many respondents were therefore unable to comment.

Comments suggesting that SR2009 No 4 should be repurposed or replaced by alternative schemes relate to wider regulatory or industry assurance arrangements rather than to the proposed withdrawal of this standard rules set. The purpose of this proposal is solely to withdraw an unused standard rules permit and does not introduce new regulatory schemes or requirements.

Based on the responses received, we consider that withdrawal of SR2009 No 4 remains appropriate. No changes to the proposal are being made in response to these comments.

7. Next steps

We will use the feedback received through this consultation to finalise the amendments to the standard rules permit conditions for DR and AD activities, and to confirm the withdrawal of SR2009 No 4. The revised standard rules and the relevant updated GRAs will be prepared for publication ahead of the implementation of the new DR requirements on 28 February 2026.

We will also consider the consultation responses when reviewing and updating both our internal guidance and the external guidance for operators, including clarifying expectations for biennial reviews and the submission of findings. Feedback relating to wider DR policy will be shared with relevant government bodies for consideration in future legislative review.

As set out in our charging proposals, the Environment Agency will keep the new DR related charges under review and will apply the scheduled annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) linked update from April 2027. This means the charge will be adjusted annually in line with inflation. Any further refinements arising from ongoing implementation or additional evidence will be considered through routine Charging Scheme review processes.

If you would like to discuss your consultation response or any of the points set out in this document, please contact the team at decarbonisationreadiness@environment-agency.gov.uk.