Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 325)
WEDNESDAY 20 JANUARY 2010 (morning)
MR NICK
WINSER AND
MR DAVID
SMITH
Q320 Dr Turner:
Do you think the NPS is satisfactory in what it sets out on the
question of overgrounding or undergrounding lines and balancing
the environmental impact of undergrounding against the costs?
Mr Winser: I think the first question
is where this should be dealt with. It seems to me that the way
the NPS is drafted gives the IPC some scope to consider the local
visual impacts and try to balance that in each particular locality
with the very large cost differential and the disturbance and
environmental impact of putting underground cables in, and the
technical issues that follow. It seems to me to be a good articulation
of those things, which then allows us, as applicants, to bring
forward an application looking at those things and trying our
best to balance those off, but very much then letting the IPC
try to help make that decision as to what is the right balance
between those two things. As you know, the cost differential is
very significant.
Mr Smith: We are fully committed
to the principles of the Holford rules that were set out in the
1950s and were reviewed by the grid in the 1990s. As distribution
companies, we have made full use of Ofgem's underground allowances
where appropriate. Again, for distribution networks it can be
ten times the cost for overground to underground. We have to bear
that in mind.
Q321 Dr Turner:
You were going to make some comments about EMFs and the way the
issue was handled in the NPS.
Mr Smith: I just want to say that
we welcome the statement from the Government's policy set out
in the Stakeholder Advisory Group, which I know most of you are
familiar with, which fully took on board the recommendations of
the Sage Group, and which very much reflects the stance taken
by the Health Protection Agency, the International Commission
and the World Health Organisation. We do take these seriously.
We are pleased that the Government has set out what those principles
are and they have identified some quite sensible, low-cost steps
to take; and, as an industry, we have already said that we would
volunteer to implement those as soon as it falls to us. On the
EMFs rule, Sage is there and we are glad it has been reflected.
We now have something there that we all can sign up to.
Q322 Dr Turner:
You have clarity.
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q323 Sir Robert Smith:
Are there any research projects or technical developments that
are going to improve the cost benefits of undergrounding, and
how has that balance evolved over time between the cost of undergrounding
and overgrounding?
Mr Winser: To answer the second
first, it is surprising actually the cost differentials have remained
fairly steady, but over the period there have been significant
changes in the technology available. In particular something called
"voltage source HVDC" has come into play as an option.
It has not yet got up to the power transfer capabilities that
you need for transmission, so we will keep a close eye on that
over time. It is possible that that will make some difference
to this; I certainly hope so. Obviously, superconductivity has
been, through the whole of my career, 20 years off, but we take
a very active interest in that, and the possibility of some of
those types of changes coming through we need to stay right on
top of. I have to say that at the moment there is nothing evident
that is going to change that economic balance in the next five
or ten years; it is pretty clear that you cannot get to these
power transfer requirements with new technology, which is going
to dramatically change those economics in the short term.
Q324 Charles Hendry:
You may be aware there was a debate in the House last night when
a number of MPs expressed concern about your proposals for the
alternative route across Somerset, and the potential routes across
the Stour Valley, Suffolk and Essex. The nature of the concerns
seemed to be about the way in which the consultation process is
being handled by National Grid, and in particular the issue of
the comparative costings between overhead and undergrounding did
not seem to be fully open. It was a public meeting in Somerset
and it was referred to the fact that they were told that it was
not technically possible, and then they were told it was very
expensive. They said: "Either it is technically possible
and therefore expensive, or it is technically impossible and therefore
the costs are not relevant." Can you tell us your approach
as to how you are going to handle consultation on these issues?
The greatest issue here is that people should feel they are in
full command of the facts that are available.
Mr Winser: I absolutely agree
with that, and just to comment on the consultation process, we
started in Somerset and Suffolk. At least anecdotally I would
say that, whilst quite legitimately there have been strong feelings
expressed, we have also had an extraordinary number of comments
about the nature of the process we are running; the openness,
the willingness for National Grid staff to turn up and try calmly
to answer fully everybody's questions on these things. We had
unprecedented numbers of people coming through our public exhibitions
and coming along to our public meetings, and we have been complimented
on our openness. We absolutely will put in the public domain in
each case, and generally, the economics of undergrounding versus
running overhead wires. There is an awful lot of information out
there. One of the things that makes that difficult to communicate—and
that is not me ducking the responsibility to do it, I know we
have to do it—but it is quite difficult because it depends
critically on what sort of environment you are running the various
routes through and the length of them, because once you start
going underground you end up having very different economics,
depending on the length. Just to be able say very, very simply
"each times fifteen"—I am afraid there is not
a simple rule like that. You can absolutely have my assurance
we will give, in a complicated technical and economic situation,
the complete openness you would expect of us on that, and we will
be working very hard. I think we have done that, but it may well
be that we have to work very hard to communicate that complex
technical balance to people who do not have a technical and economic
background in power engineering.
Q325 Charles Hendry:
Would that also take account of any potential reductions in transmission
losses by using HVDC cables, for example?
Mr Winser: Yes, of course. That
would certainly be in there but, as I have said, it is not likely
to suddenly be a silver bullet so we can say, "This is all
fine. It does not cost society a lot to have these things underground."
As far as the eye can see, the differential is very large and
when you look at the bill for some of these schemes, which ultimately
is borne by customers, there are some very real decisions obviously
for politicians and society about where money is spent. Undergrounding
a lot of this stuff will consume an awful lot of funds that could
be spent on other things.
Chairman: Nick and David, thank you very
much for that very positive contribution. We are very grateful.
Thank you.
| 
