The proposals for national policy statements on energy - Energy and Climate Change Contents


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.







 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 23 March 2010