Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Infrastructure Planning Commission
FOLLOW UP
TO IPC ORAL
EVIDENCE ON
THE ENERGY
SUITE NPS
Thank you for inviting the Infrastructure Planning
Commission to give evidence to the Committee on 3rd February.
We undertook to write to the Committee on one question which we
were not able to answer at the time. It might also be helpful
if we took this opportunity to clarify two other matters which
were covered in our oral evidence.
CCR AT GAS-FIRED
POWER STATIONS—ECONOMIC
VIABILITY REQUIREMENT
At the Select Committee, the subject of carbon
capture and storage for fossil fuel power stations was raised
with us and other witnesses. In particular, the Committee asked
for our view on the question of whether the wording of the draft
National Policy Statement requiring promoters of gas-fired power
stations to demonstrate the economic viability of CCS would have
the effect of preventing any successful application for development
consent.
Our general position is, as Dr Lane explained
in oral evidence, that the economic viability of individual proposed
projects is initially primarily a matter for the promoter. We
would welcome any further clarification of the specific issue
which the department is able to provide. In examining any applications
where there was a requirement for applicants to demonstrate the
viability of CCS, we would look both to the latest policy issued
by Government as well as to the evidence of the applicant, statutory
consultees and others to inform our view.
CARBON EMISSIONS
The subject of cumulative carbon emissions from
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) for which
the IPC grants development consent was discussed extensively with
us and with a number of other witnesses. Our position is as we
set it out to you, that we are firmly of the view that the IPC
cannot be responsible for reckoning cumulative carbon emissions
against the carbon budgets, both because there will be carbon-emitting
infrastructure developments which fall outside the IPC's remit
and because the infrastructure planning system is only one part
of the overall picture.
Climate change impacts will nevertheless be
an important aspect of our examination of NSIP applications. We
will expect applicants to address them appropriately, and we will
welcome evidence from statutory consultees and other interested
parties, including the Committee on Climate Change, on this point.
We will also address climate change impacts in our Annual Report
to Parliament.
We have written to Tim Yeo on these matters
in response to a report of the Environmental Audit Committee,
and I enclose a copy of our letter to him.
PROPOSED NUCLEAR
POWER STATIONS
AT LOCATIONS
NOT SPECIFIED
IN EN-6
We indicated to you that the IPC would not consider
applications for proposed nuclear power stations at locations
not specified in EN-6. Were the current draft to be designated
without alteration, the IPC could not determine such an application
but would have a duty to consider it and make a recommendation
to the Secretary of State. It is our view that if the Government
wishes the IPC to effectively consider sites through this process,
it would be beneficial for the NPS to make more explicit to potential
applicants the steps the Government would expect them to have
undertaken before bringing forward any such application. We understand
the Government is considering this matter further.
February 2010
| 
