Memorandum submitted by EDF Energy
KEY POINTS
— EDF Energy welcomes the draft National
Policy Statements (NPSs) as a means of providing guidance on the
Government's policy for the delivery of major energy infrastructure
in a clear and transparent manner. — We wish to see the
draft NPSs designated as soon as possible following public consultation
and parliamentary scrutiny.
— EDF Energy agrees with the Government's
conclusion on the need for new low-carbon generation by 2025,
a significant proportion of which is expected to be filled by
nuclear power.
— We support the principle of a diverse
energy mix and all of the draft NPSs as a means of developing
the relevant individual technologies.
— Explicit reference should be made to
the UK's legally binding climate change objectives out to 2050
to reinforce the policy context for new low-carbon investment.
— At this stage, Dungeness should be included
as a potentially suitable site for new nuclear build.
INTRODUCTION
1. EDF Energy is one of the UK's largest
energy companies with activities throughout the energy chain.
Our interests include nuclear, renewables, coal and gas-fired
electricity generation, combined heat and power, electricity networks
and energy supply to end users. We have over five million electricity
and gas customer accounts in the UK, including both residential
and business users.
2. EDF Energy believes that, as well as
concerted efforts to improve energy efficiency, large scale investment
in electricity infrastructure is urgently required to replace
existing plants and meet our climate change targets. It is important
that the transition to a low carbon economy is progressed efficiently
to ensure that the competitiveness of UK energy supplies is maintained
while also ensuring the stability and affordability of energy
prices. It is essential that the right decisions are made now
to secure investment in large-scale low-carbon electricity generation
and promote the transition to a low carbon economy incorporating
a diverse energy mix.
3. EDF Energy has supported the reform of
the planning system, including the majority of the Planning Act
2008 provisions, as a means of delivering an efficient and effective
system that is conducive to supporting large-scale investment
in major infrastructure developments in the UK, including energy
infrastructure projects. Without prompt implementation of this
reform, there is a serious risk that the UK will not be able to
meet its energy supply and climate change objectives owing to
continued planning uncertainties and delays.
4. We therefore believe that the NPSs, as
a fundamental part of the package of planning reforms, are a very
welcome step forward in ensuring that the UK meets its challenging
long-term goals. The NPSs, as currently drafted, will help establish
a clear policy framework for nationally significant infrastructure
projects (NSIPs) and help ensure more timely and transparent decision-making.
Where a project is of national importance, its benefits may be
largely national in nature but its impact may be local. It is
appropriate that such projects are judged against their fit with
national policy objectives but with proper scrutiny of these benefits
against any local impact. This approach will allow for a co-ordinated
process for delivering environmental, economic, and social objectives
and sustainable development for the UK as a whole. By separating
the assessment of national need from the assessment of local impact,
this will remove a major source of delay from planning inquiries.
5. The last nuclear power station built
in the UK, Sizewell B, was granted consent under the provisions
of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, and under Section
40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The public inquiry
for Sizewell B lasted for almost three years, and it took over
six years from planning application to consent. The delays and
uncertainty caused by the planning system are not restricted to
nuclear projects alone. For example, EDF Energy is developing
an offshore wind farm near Teesside and this project took 41 months
to gain its original consent. Similarly, the time taken to fully
consent the North Yorkshire grid upgrade took 77 months. It is
essential that Government policy is clear, and that the consenting
process is predictable, timely and transparent to allow the private
sector to come forward with confidence to invest in very large
infrastructure projects and reduce the risk of any projected capacity
shortages.
NATIONAL POLICY
STATEMENTS
6. We welcome the draft Overarching National
Policy Statement for Energy, together with the technology-specific
draft NPSs, as they clearly set out in one place the Government's
policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure, including
new power generation facilities and the necessary transmission
and distribution infrastructure. They provide sufficient detail
for all affected parties and stakeholders in terms of the implications
of a proposed development and as a means of providing a comprehensive
list of issues that they might wish to understand further. This
can help facilitate the stakeholder pre-application consultations
that developers are committed to delivering as part of the new
system.
7. The statements represent a significant
step forward in this regard and we recommend that the Government
should finalise the draft NPSs as soon as practicable, following
proper consideration of views expressed during the public consultation
and recommendations from the Energy and Climate Change Committee.
This will provide clarity to the Infrastructure Planning Commission
(IPC) and limit the scope for re-examination of policy issues,
which are properly determined by the Government. We believe that
the NPSs should be accorded a very strong presumptive weight by
the IPC that can only be displaced by evidence of compelling adverse
local consequences that cannot be suitably mitigated by the developer.
8. EDF Energy supports the need for flexibility
concerning the submission of different elements of a project,
with the option for each in their own right to be submitted as
a separate NSIP. This is particularly relevant in the context
of maintaining the option for separate power station and grid
connection applications, as it may be necessary to consider applications
for nuclear development in advance of any applications for related
network reinforcement because of the long lead time for nuclear
power plant construction, and the fact that network reinforcements
are often related to more than one project or that these reinforcements
provide wider benefits in terms of system security.
9. However, even though EDF Energy is keen
for the draft NPSs to be finalised as soon as possible, we believe
that they should be subject to a thorough form of parliamentary
scrutiny. The designation of the draft NPSs after a rigorous parliamentary
examination will, in our opinion, enhance the authority of the
statements, ensuring both the integrity of the process as well
as securing greater confidence in their actual content.
NEED FOR
INVESTMENT IN
NEW NUCLEAR
POWER STATIONS
10. EDF Energy welcomes the fact that Government
made a clear policy statement in its White Paper on Nuclear Power[60]
that it is in the public interest that new nuclear power stations
should have a role to play in the future electricity generating
mix for the UK alongside other low carbon sources.
11. The draft National Policy Statement
for Nuclear Power Generation elaborates on this policy, and provides
an essential quantification of the need for new nuclear investment,
both in terms of scale and urgency. Such an explicit statement
of need is of great importance, as it means that for the first
time the Government has clearly outlined its specific vision for
nuclear power. This is now more consistent with the approach for
renewables (with its own dedicated support mechanism) and to a
lesser extent Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
12. EDF Energy strongly supports the Government's
analysis that there is a need for around 60GW of new electricity
generation capacity by 2025, of which as much as possible should
be low carbon. We also endorse the Government's conclusion that
the UK's need for additional supplies of low carbon electricity
should be based on a diverse mix including both renewable and
low carbon thermal (ie nuclear or, possibly, CCS) generation.
13. The Government has assessed that the
generation "gap" that new, non-renewable generation
will need to fill in 2025 is around 25GW, based on analysis forecasting
that 35GW (of the 60GW) could be provided from renewable sources.
We believe that the 35GW figure is ambitious and represents the
top end of what is likely to be delivered from renewable sources.
As a result there is a significant probability that by 2025 the
UK's need for new non-renewable generation could turn out in practice
to be significantly greater than 25GW. It is therefore important
as part of the Nuclear NPS to contemplate what actions could be
necessary were this renewable contribution not to be met, and
that the "gap" to be filled by non-renewable generation
turned out to be larger than currently expected.
14. However, despite this strong statement
of need, we remain concerned that in its current form, the draft
still does not fully inform the IPC of the Government's climate
change policy objectives and the role that low carbon generation
has to play in achieving these objectives. We believe it would
be useful to reinforce the policy context by making an explicit
reference to the UK's legally binding target to deliver an 80%
reduction in carbon emissions, which was established in the 2008
Climate Change Act. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), in
providing its first report to Parliament in October 2009, confirmed
that delivering this target will require the power sector to be
almost, if not completely, decarbonised by 2050. In fact the CCC,
along with other stakeholders, believes that an early reduction
in carbon emissions from the electricity generating sector (to
be almost entirely complete by 2030) is key to achieving this.
The rationale supporting this assertion is:
— Unlike many other sectors, the electricity
sector already has a number of low carbon technologies such as
nuclear power and wind farms that are capable of being deployed.
— Low and zero carbon electricity will
make a significant contribution to the decarbonisation of other
sectors, such as heat and transport. Early decarbonisation of
electricity may therefore support a more rapid uptake of these
technologies.
— Moving to a carbon free electricity sector
will not be easy. It will require a number of developments, including
many years of investment in the skills and supply chain needed
to support the delivery of these technologies, and probably large
changes to the way in which the electricity market operates to
ensure that there is sufficient incentive for investment.
— If we make these changes now, and use
the upcoming capacity gap as an opportunity to switch to low carbon
sources, then the UK will be in a very strong position to deliver
its 2050 ambitions. The alternative is to delay change and invest
in another generation of unabated fossil fuel generation. Due
to the long lived nature of these assets this alternative pathway
would delay decarbonisation by many years and even decades, thus
threatening the ability of the UK to `gear up' in time to achieve
its 2050 ambitions.
15. We believe that the IPC should be made
explicitly aware of this essential long term requirement for low
carbon generation in the UK. This will help provide a much needed
longer term context to its decision making. Reaching the generation
figure quoted in the NPS for 2025 is not the end goal in itself
and is simply a milestone on the path towards longer term climate
change mitigation objectives. Further investment in low carbon
technology such as nuclear power will be needed beyond this date
and this will depend on a number of factors including electricity
demand growth assumptions, plant asset life and fossil fuel price
volatility. With this mind, it is more than likely that all the
sites listed in the draft Nuclear NPS will be needed in the future,
including Dungeness. This is especially true given that, as the
draft Nuclear NPS points out, it is possible that not all of the
sites listed will see projects emerge and that some may be rejected
by the IPC following the examination of local and/or technical
issues.
16. EDF Energy also agrees with the Government's
conclusion that effective arrangements will exist to manage and
dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power
stations. There are no unsolved fundamental technical difficulties
associated with long term management and disposal of radioactive
waste, and worldwide experience is accumulating. The Government
White Paper on radioactive waste[61]
provides a pathway for implementing geological disposal, based
on gaining public confidence for a safe, secure and environmentally
acceptable solution. It is important that steady and consistent
progress is made along this pathway.
SITES
17. The requirements for the siting of a
nuclear power station are complex. The sites already in use for
nuclear power generation (including decommissioning sites) were
chosen for good reasons and have a proven track record in demonstrating
their ability to successfully accommodate nuclear power. Both
historic studies and more recent work have confirmed that the
availability of such suitable sites in the UK is limited and it
therefore makes sense to continue to make use of these locations
for new development. This will reduce the need for new supporting
infrastructure such as transmission lines. The communities around
existing sites are familiar with nuclear power, and value the
economic contribution and employment opportunities provided by
the power station.
18. Industry nominated a total of eleven
sites for assessment, and the draft Nuclear NPS proposes that
ten of these are suitable, at a strategic level, for new nuclear
development, and that all ten are needed. However, as the draft
Nuclear NPS points out, it cannot be guaranteed that projects
will come forward for every one of these sites. For example, it
is possible that some proposals are rejected by the IPC following
examination of local issues, or are found to be unsuitable for
technical reasons. Some, but not all, of the sites may be capable
of accommodating more than one modern reactor.
19. The Government's stated aim is to ensure
that as much as possible of the 25GW of thermal generation required
by 2025 is filled by low carbon technologies to meet its climate
change and energy security goals. For this to happen there is
a need to maximise the contribution of nuclear as soon as possible
as a proven low-carbon technology and to make a contribution to
the delivery of even more ambitious climate change objectives
for 2050.
20. Given the considerations outlined in
paragraph 18, it is quite possible that ten sites would not be
enough to meet this policy aim by 2025. Therefore, if nuclear
power is to "be free to contribute as much as possible"
towards meeting this new capacity, then further sites are likely
to be needed in the Nuclear NPS and this has relevance to the
status of Dungeness as explained below.
21. EDF Energy welcomes the listing of the
five sites within the draft Nuclear NPS, where it owns potential
development land, as suitable at a strategic level, for deployment
of new nuclear power stations. These sites are at Bradwell, Hartlepool,
Hinkley Point, Heysham and Sizewell. EDF Energy also owns potential
development land at Wylfa, which has been sold (subject to contract).
It is helpful that the NPS identifies the issues that the IPC
should have regard to at each site, based on the strategic level
assessment, although the more detailed project level environmental
assessment should consider these issues in any event.
DUNGENESS
22. EDF Energy nominated land at Dungeness
in Kent, adjacent to the existing nuclear power stations, for
the Government's strategic siting assessment (SSA) process. Having
assessed Dungeness, the Government has said it is not satisfied
that Dungeness is potentially suitable for the deployment of a
new nuclear power station by 2025, and has therefore not included
the site in the draft Nuclear NPS. We believe this is not an appropriate
conclusion to be drawn at this stage.
23. The Government concluded in its draft
Nuclear NPS that nuclear development at Dungeness could deliver
power on the 2025 timescale. So, on this criterion, Dungeness
is clearly in no different position from the other 10 sites that
were included in the draft Nuclear NPS as "potentially suitable".
Nor is it suggested that new nuclear development at the Dungeness
site would be any different in terms of the scale of benefits
provided through the supply of much needed additional, low carbon
electricity.
24. Therefore, if the national need is to
"maximise the contribution of nuclear as soon as possible"
and Dungeness is a site that could, if developed, make a valuable
contribution, we find it difficult to understand why the overriding
public interest arguments that the Government advances for the
ten sites should not equally apply to Dungeness. The case for
including Dungeness within the Imperative Reasons of Overriding
Public Interest (IROPI) statement in the draft NPS is made even
stronger by the arguments above. These suggest that it is probable
that the "gap" for nuclear to fill could by 2025 turn
out to be even larger than estimated and that ten sites could
well prove insufficient for the Government's low carbon energy
needs to be met. We believe there is no valid and objective reason
why the Dungeness site should be excluded at this stage.
25. The only criterion within the Government's
Strategic Siting Assessment process which the Dungeness site does
not meet criteria is D6—"Internationally designated
sites of ecological importance". This is a "discretionary"
criterion, which means that the Government can include the site
even where the criterion is not met. EDF Energy believes that
there is no basis for the Government using its discretion to exclude
Dungeness at the strategic assessment stage on the basis of criterion
D6, and it is premature to rule out Dungeness as a potential site
based on the evidence available, and in advance of any project-specific
proposal. The test of whether compensation is or is not needed
and, if it is, whether it is possible on the scale required, is
a matter that the IPC should be allowed to consider at the project
development stage—just as they will for all other sites.
It will be for the promoter to satisfy the requirements of European
law, and there is no current sound evidential basis to conclude
that this would be impossible. These difficulties, which a promoter
of the site would have to address, are not a logical basis for
saying that the site is not needed, or could not fall within the
IROPI test.
26. Coastal protection is also identified
as an area of concern, but the Government has concluded, on the
basis of advice from the Environment Agency, that there is potential
to protect the site from the risk of flooding and the impact of
coastal processes. The impact of coastal protection measures on
European designated habitats would be the subject of detailed
work at the project level.
27. The risk of planning blight is cited
in the draft NPS as a factor to justify limiting the number of
sites to ten, and therefore for excluding Dungeness but without
any more detailed explanation. However, there has been nuclear
power at Dungeness since the 1960s and for at least 25 years the
site has been included within lists of locations where future
nuclear development might take place. There is a high level of
local support for nuclear power operations at Dungeness, and the
potential economic benefits of development more than offset any
issues of blight caused by uncertainty over whether development
would proceed.
MITIGATING POTENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION REQUIREMENTS
28. A number of conventional power stations
(fossil fuel and nuclear) are likely to be proposed for coastal
or estuarine sites, and we agree that applicants should in particular
set out how the proposal would be resilient to:
— coastal changes and increased risk from
storm surge;
— effects of higher temperatures, including
higher temperatures of cooling water; and
— increased risk of drought leading to
a lack of available cooling water.
29. We recognise the importance of climate
change adaptation and support the requirement to consider these
potential effects of climate change during planning. However,
there is currently a high level of uncertainty about the actual
changes that will arise in practice from climate change. Developers
apply business principles when making decisions, based upon risk
assessments, and will need to strike a balance between implementing
additional measures now, increasing project costs, and the probability
that those measures will actually be required.
30. We believe a more effective approach
may be to monitor changes and to ensure that there are no barriers
to implementing additional measures at a later date, if the need
should arise.
31. We consider it important that the IPC
take account of this uncertainty and should be prepared to accept
the option of active monitoring and demonstrable plans for adaptation,
rather than implementing advance measures to deal with uncertain
outcomes. As with the waste issue, the appropriate question in
our view is whether the relevant sites can in principle be protected
over the relevant period, as opposed to how exactly this would
be done, if it proved necessary.
CONCLUSIONS
32. EDF Energy believes that the draft NPSs
represent a significant step forward and we recommend that the
Government should finalise the draft NPSs as soon as practicable,
We believe that these statements provide both the stable policy
framework energy developers need to invest, and the right level
of detail to enable effective assessment of compliance with national
policy. They thereby provide greater opportunity for the IPC,
and all stakeholders during the IPC's examination of applications,
to consider and satisfactorily deal with the real issues that
could affect a local community, in the full knowledge that the
national need for the projects has been established.
33. We believe that the effectiveness of
the NPSs will be further improved by the current consultation
and parliamentary scrutiny. The guidance to the IPC would also
benefit from a more explicit reference to the UK Government's
climate change policy objectives out to 2050 and the context provided
by the reports produced by the CCC, recognising that 2025 is not
an end in itself but a milestone towards longer term policy objectives.
34. The Government should reconsider its
assessment of the site at Dungeness. While it will be challenging
to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive, it is premature
to exclude this site from consideration as a suitable site on
these grounds.
January 2010
60 A White Paper on Nuclear Power, CM 7296, January
2008. Back
61
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely-A framework for implementing
geological disposal, CM 7836, DEFRA, BERR and the Devolved Administrations
for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008. Back
| 
