|
Memorandum submitted by EDF Energy (NPS 89)
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[1] 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 (i.e. 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[2] 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 ten 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 [1] A White Paper on Nuclear Power, CM 7296, January 2008 [2] 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. |