Memorandum submitted by RWE npower
1. RWE npower supports and welcomes the
draft National Policy Statements (NPSs) and believes they will
provide a coherent and practical framework within which the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) can assess future planning applications
for energy infrastructure.
2. The NPSs, as currently drafted, provide a
robust and stable policy framework which will help to give energy
developers greater confidence to invest, balanced with an appropriate
level of detail to enable the IPC and all stakeholders to assess
both the compliance with national policy and the genuine issues
that could affect a local community.
INTRODUCTION
3. RWE npower ("RWE") welcomes the
opportunity to submit evidence to the above Inquiry. RWE npower
plc, part of the German-based RWE multi-utilities group, is a
leading UK integrated electricity generating and electricity and
gas supply company, which owns and operates several major coal-fired,
oil-fired and combined cycle gas turbine electricity generating
stations in England and Wales. It has also formed a joint venture
(Horizon Nuclear Power) with E.ON UK plc for the possible development
of nuclear power stations at two sites in England and Wales. In
addition, it has an interest in two further sites potentially
suitable for new nuclear power stations. RWE Innogy is a major
and developing renewables energy business which operates in the
UK under the name of "npower renewables". Its activities
include offshore and onshore wind power development and operation,
together with the development of wave, tidal and hydro energy
schemes. Our evidence to the Committee presents the view of all
RWE's interests in the UK.
4. RWE is supportive of the Planning Act 2008 and
views it as an integral part of the solution to the challenge
of meeting the Government's energy policy goals of addressing
climate change through a move towards a low carbon economy, whilst
ensuring the continued security of the UK's energy supplies. RWE
is particularly mindful of the Government's Low Carbon Transition
Programme and the Renewable Energy Strategy, as well as the statutory
target under the Climate Change Act 2008 of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by 80% by 2050, together with the target of achieving
15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020 in accordance
with the EU Renewable Energy Directive.
5. In order to help meet these targets and to
seek to avoid the anticipated "energy gap" towards the
end of the next decade, RWE is currently intending to invest around
£1 billion per annum over 10 years from 2008-18 in lower
carbon energy sources. Further investments in nuclear power will
cost several billions more. Such levels of investment are only
feasible against the background of a stable long-term policy framework
and a planning regime that is timely, certain and effective—a
regime which RWE believes the Planning Act 2008 reforms are capable
of delivering.
NATIONAL POLICY
STATEMENTS—GENERAL
6. RWE therefore welcomes the publication of
the draft National Policy Statement (NPS) documentation. The NPSs
are central to the Planning Act and are crucial to the success
of meeting the Government's energy policy goals. However, NPS's
will not, on their own, resolve the delays associated with the
current system of planning for new infrastructure projects—the
effective and successful operation of the Infrastructure Planning
Commission will also be crucial.
7. A particular strength of the NPSs is the recognition
of a national need for new low carbon generating capacity and
the associated need for investment in the associated electricity
and gas networks. RWE is firmly of the view that all available
low carbon technologies will be required if the UK is to meet
its energy policy objectives of achieving environmentally sustainable,
secure and affordable supplies of electricity. Once designated,
the NPSs will help avoid each application having to justify the
strategic need for each individual project and enable all parties
to focus on assessing the local impacts of a proposal and whether
these can be satisfactorily resolved or mitigated.
8. RWE welcomes the scrutiny of the NPSs by
this Committee, together with the ongoing public consultation,
and believes this will lead to greater efficacy and legitimacy
in the consideration of and status for the designated NPSs. This
is extremely important as the NPSs need to provide clarity and
robustness on potential impacts and how they should be addressed,
so as to enable the IPC to undertake timely and effective assessment
of individual applications.
OVERARCHING NPS—EN-I
9. This NPS sets out the Government's energy
policy priorities, together with the need case for each technology
and RWE is supportive both of the need for a very substantial
amount of new capacity and the view that a wide range of energy
technologies is necessary for the foreseeable future. We are of
the view that given potential major concerns surrounding security
of supply and the need to greatly increase generation from low
carbon sources, the need case for new energy infrastructure should
be given more emphasis both generally and also in terms of the
weighting which the IPC is to grant "need"—this
appears to vary from need having been demonstrated (3.1) to the
IPC "taking need into account" (4.1.1(iii)). It is our
view that need, having been demonstrated in accordance with the
NPSs, should then be accorded very substantial weight in any decisions
made by the IPC.
10. EN-1, together with the other NPSs does not appear
to consider the period post-2020 (for renewables and gas) and
post-2025 (for nuclear and coal). Given the nature, scale and
timescales of the investments required, the NPSs need to recognise
that investment will be required beyond these timescales, as confirmed
by the Climate Change Committee report which considers potential
investment in the period 2030 to 2050.
11. Although the Planning Act aims to create
an holistic planning regime, with the purpose of enabling the
cumulative effect of different elements of the same project to
be considered together, it is important that EN-1 recognises that
flexibility may be required in respect of the planning approach
to different aspects or components of a project, particularly
where different aspects of a project may, in themselves, be a
nationally significant infrastructure project. In such cases,
these different aspects may be undertaken by different legal entities
with different regulatory and commercial backgrounds. We therefore
welcome the wording in 4.9.1-4.9.3, but it should be noted that
the need for separate applications may apply in some cases to
other components than the grid connection.
12. RWE supports the approach to Alternatives
set out in EN-1 (at section 4.4) on the basis that it understands
this section to be stating that no assessment of alternatives
should be required by the IPC, other than as required by the requirements
of the Habitats Regulations or the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations. Any consideration of alternatives should be set in
the context of the scale and urgency of the UK's need for energy
infrastructure.
13. With regard to the relationship between
the IPC and pollution control and other environmental consenting
regimes, RWE is pleased to note that EN-1 directs the IPC to work
on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will
be properly applied and enforced. It is not normally possible
to apply for permits or consents under other regimes, such as
pollution control, prior to a Development Consent Order being
granted and any attempt by a planning regime to await determination
of such permit or consent will only exacerbate the delays which
the new planning regime is seeking to mitigate.
FOSSIL FUEL
ELECTRICITY GENERATING
INFRASTRUCTURE—EN-2
14. RWE supports the content of EN-2 and particularly
welcomes the recognition that site selection should be left to
applicants and not the Government.
15. Whilst we appreciate that the draft NPS merely
reflects current Government policy on CCR and does not introduce
any new requirements we are concerned about the application of
the policy which, given the state of CCS development, could easily
lead to inappropriate requirements for new generating stations.
16. We fully accept that all new fossil-fuelled
power plants should be CCR but it is important that application
of the CCR policy does not place unnecessary additional costs
or risks onto projects in anticipation of future developments
that may or may not be realised. The Government's intended light
touch approach, in that developers should demonstrate no barriers
exist to an eventual CCS retrofit, must be retained and requirements
must reflect the early stage of CCS technology development.
17. We remain sceptical that the coal-fired
CCS policy of demonstration, mandatory retrofit and/or unspecified
operation constraints will actually encourage early demonstration
of the emerging technology and, in contrast to CCR, it is difficult
to see how a light touch approach can be applied. However, we
would advocate that developers are given adequate time to develop
CCS technologies to commercial scale and that maximum advantage
is taken of what flexibility there is in the Government's CCS
policy to allow this to happen. Care will be needed to ensure
that decisions taken with regard to the expected pace of development
by 2020 or 2025 enhance, rather than reduce, the chances of coal
playing an important part in the future UK energy mix.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE—EN-3
18. RWE broadly welcomes and supports EN-3 although
it will be making some detailed comments in the formal NPS consultation
process.
19. RWE supports and endorses the statements in 2.1.2
of EN-3 to the effect that (other than in relation to offshore
wind) site selection is a matter for the applicant and that each
proposal should be considered on its merits against the criteria
and considerations set out in the NPSs.
20. One key issue is the role of the NPS under
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In order
to meet the Government's renewable energy target many renewable
schemes will need to be brought forward which, although not nationally
significant infrastructure projects within the Planning Act 2008,
share the same characteristics and impacts of developments covered
by EN-3. EN-3 (para 1.2.4) currently states that it "may"
be a material consideration in decision making on an application
under the TCPA. RWE is firmly of the view that this should be
strengthened and that the NPS should be applied to such applications.
Indeed, we believe that all the NPSs should be afforded an equivalent
level of consideration in the TCPA regime.
21. Paragraph 2.1 states that the need for renewable
energy has been demonstrated but the NPS then fails to state what
weight should be attached to that need when making decisions.
We would propose the IPC should accord very substantial weight
to the need for new renewable energy development.
ELECTRICITY NETWORKING
INFRASTRUCTURE—EN-5
22. RWE supports the broad content of EN-5,
although it has a concern that where an application for such infrastructure
is submitted separately to a related project, then EN-5 does not
emphasize the need case in a manner consistent with the emphasis
it is given in EN-1.
NUCLEAR POWER
GENERATION—EN-6
23. RWE welcomes the contents of EN-6 and Annex
A ("Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest")
which support EN-6 in identifying the urgent national need for
new low carbon electricity generating capacity including nuclear.
RWE believes that the appropriate specific criteria that the IPC
should take into account for new nuclear power stations is laid
down in EN-1 and EN-6.
24. We welcome the identification of specific sites
that are potentially suitable for deployment by 2025 and support
the detailed sustainability and ecological assessments (ie., the
Appraisals of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations Assessments)
which underpin the NPS and its site specific sections.
25. We consider the Government's preliminary
conclusion on the sites in which RWE is interested, both in its
own name (Braystones and Kirksanton) and through its interest
in Horizon Nuclear Power (Wylfa and Oldbury) to be valid. We feel
the potential positive and negative impacts of developing at these
sites have been set out in clear terms in EN-6 and its accompanying
documentation, along with the potential for dealing with those
impacts appropriately.
26. We have no specific site-related comments
with regards to the suitability of the other potential sites included
in the draft Nuclear NPS. However, we do welcome the preliminary
conclusion that a number of sites may be potentially suitable
for the development of new nuclear power stations. As the Government
recognises in the draft NPS, it is by no means certain that every
candidate site would eventually achieve development consent. We
therefore agree it is appropriate that sufficient sites are included
in the designated Nuclear NPS to enable new nuclear to fulfil
its potential role as a major contributor to carbon emissions
abatement and to the security of electricity supplies.
27. At an overarching level, we feel that the
draft Nuclear NPS overstates the distinction between Greenfield
sites and others; to the possible detriment of the Greenfield
sites. We would point out that all development (even when in close
proximity to an existing site) will take place on land which is
currently undeveloped. In some cases (eg Heysham) that land is
not even in the ownership of the nominating developer, and its
characteristics are probably less understood than the Greenfield
sites which have been nominated. RWE therefore encourages assessment
of each site on its technical merits rather than on an artificial
distinction between Greenfield and others.
28. We have no specific comments to offer on
the Government's considerations of alternative sites. We do however
have confidence that the NPS process to date, including the SSA
process and rigorous sustainability and habitats regulations assessments,
has led to the identification of a list of suitable potential
sites deployable by 2025. As noted earlier, and building on the
need case set out in EN-1, EN-6 is also further underpinned by
Annex A, which sets out the Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public
Interest (IROPI), for concluding that the sites identified as
potentially suitable should be available for development according
to IROPI.
29. Consistent with paragraph 11 above, it is
important that a clear division between the regimes for planning
and regulation of the nuclear industry is maintained. We would
also emphasise that the IPC should not review or revisit any regulatory
decision that has already been made in relation to the proposed
development and that it need not consider matters which are within
the remit of the nuclear regulators.
CONCLUSION
30. RWE supports and welcomes the designation
of the draft NPSs and believes they will provide a coherent and
practical framework within which the IPC can assess future planning
applications for energy infrastructure. As currently drafted they
provide a robust and stable policy framework (particularly given
the emphasis attached to the Statements of Need) which will help
to give energy developers greater confidence to invest, balanced
with the appropriate level of detail to enable the IPC and all
stakeholders to assess both compliance with national policy and
the genuine issues that could affect a local community.
January 2010
| 
