2 Background
The Government response to the
previous Committee's recommendations
11. Our predecessor committee proposed a number of
improvements in thirty recommendations and conclusions, which
are summarised below with the Government's response. The Government's
response to our predecessor's Report and its commentary on the
revised NPSs set out changes that had been made as a result of
the initial consultation, and also the Government's reasoning
where recommendations were not accepted. The most heavily revised
documents were the Appraisals of Sustainability for EN-1 to EN-5.
These are examined in detail in part three of this report.
EN-1
12. The Government accepted most of the previous
Committee's recommendations relating to the over-arching Energy
NPS, EN-1, which was substantially revised to take into account
concerns raised by Parliament and the consultation. However, the
Government disagreed with our predecessors' conclusions on the
Government's low carbon objectives and the recommendations for
the NPS applicants to conduct full life-cycle carbon assessments
and for the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to be a statutory
consultee for individual planning applications.[12]
The Government argued that there was no need for full life-cycle
carbon emissions assessment of proposed new plants because the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive already required applicants
to provide an environmental statement which sets out impacts on
the climate. The CCC was a statutory consultee for the NPSs but
the Government asserted that, it need not have a role in assessing
each application.[13]
The Government also disagreed with our predecessors' recommendation
that it produce a hierarchy of preferred generation technologies,[14]
as it claimed that "a broad mix" of energy technologies
was needed and that the development of new energy structure should
be a "market-led process".[15]
Thirdly, the Government rejected our predecessors' recommendation
that the IPC could continue to receive evidence on the overarching
case for need—the Government wished the IPC to avoid having
to make decisions on these kind of preliminary questions.[16]
The changes made to EN-1 are examined in detail in part five
of this Report.
EN-2
13. Our predecessors recommended that the Government
provide greater clarity on how it expected the IPC to assess applications
against requirements for carbon capture readiness and storage.
They also recommended that the NPS should include provisions for
a pipeline network for the transmission of carbon dioxide in order
to support the development of carbon capture and storage.[17]
The Government accepted the need for greater clarity and amended
EN-2 accordingly. It also committed to develop another NPS to
deal with carbon dioxide pipelines. However, it stated that it
is currently "scoping a CCS roadmap which will consider how
we build the right infrastructure for CCS". Until this is
completed, it does not propose to bring forward an NPS on this
topic and will rely on EN-4 on oil and gas pipelines to provide
a steer to the IPC on generic pipeline issues to be considered.[18]
The changes made to EN-2, and the reaction from organisations,
are examined in detail in part five of this Report.
EN-3
14. Our predecessors recommended that the draft NPS
on renewable energy be revised to require applicants for biomass
power stations to make a full assessment of the sustainability
of their fuel sources. They also recommended that Government guidance
be reassessed to ensure that only waste that cannot otherwise
be economically recycled or reused is used as feedstock for energy
from waste production.[19]
The Government rejected these recommendations but revised the
NPS to take account of the latest position on the Renewables Obligations
Certificates for biomass sustainability as it believed sustainability
controls were better introduced under an incentive regime rather
than through planning.[20]
15. Our predecessors also recommended that the draft
NPS on renewables should set out how technologies such as wave
and tidal energy generation will be dealt with in the future.
The Government agreed and revised EN-3 to explain that some technologies
were not yet covered by the NPSs as they are not yet commercially
viable. When such technologies become commercially viable, either
a new NPS will be drafted or EN-3 would be revised to include
them.[21]
EN-6
16. The Government accepted our predecessors' recommendations
for the NPS on nuclear power generation. This included the recommendation
that the NPS should contain more detail on what "interim
storage" would entail as, under the original draft NPS, highly-radioactive
waste could be stored on-site for up to 160 years. They also expressed
concern over progress towards identifying a geological disposal
facility underground for waste and recommended that the Government
set milestones on the path to achieving this.[22]
The Government revised EN-6 as it does not expect interim storage
to be required as long as 160 years—instead it estimates
that a long-term storage facility will be available from around
2130 (50 years after the likely end of electricity generation
for a new nuclear power station which would begin operations in
2018 and end 60 years later). This would mean that interim storage
could still be required for 110 years.[23]
The Government has set up a high-level implementation board to
identify a site for long-term storage. This board will publish
an annual report which will include progress towards meeting milestones.[24]
17. The Government also accepted our predecessors'
recommendations on providing clarity on the role of the IPC, the
role of nuclear regulators and the interaction between the regulatory
and planning regimes.[25]
In addition, the independence of the IPC—and its ability
to refuse consent for any of the 10 nuclear sites described by
the Government as necessary—has been revised to be more
clearly expressed, as has the Government's opinion on Imperative
Reasons of Overriding Public Interest.[26]
The changes made to EN-6 and the evidence taken by us are examined
in detail in part five of this Report.
HOW THE NPSS FIT INTO THE EXISTING
PLANNING REGIMES
18. The previous Committee made several recommendations
relating specifically to planning issues. They proposed that NPSs
should take greater account of spatial issues and that the Government
should provide clarity on how NPSs fit into the planning system
as the position was "at best ambiguous".[27]
The Government confirmed that it was taking forward its work on
a consolidated national planning framework, but that this was
unlikely to be produced until after the NPSs were ratified.[28]
Similarly, the Government decided to discuss the issue with interested
organisations before making a decision on whether it was necessary
to produce more sector specific guidance on good design.[29]
We return to the revisions made to the NPSs to clarify the role
of the NPSs in the wider planning system in part four of this
Report.
12 HC (2009-10) 231, paras 36, 37 Back
13
Department of Energy and Climate Change, The Government's response
to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the draft National Policy Statements
for Energy Infrastructure, October 2010, paras 4.33-4.43 Back
14
HC (2009-10) 231, para 38 Back
15
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.44-4.47 Back
16
HC (2009-10) 231, para 42 and The Government's response to
Parliamentary Scrutiny of the draft National Policy Statements
for Energy Infrastructure, paras 4.48-4.51 Back
17
HC (2009-10) 231, paras 48 and 51 Back
18
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.57-4.60 Back
19
HC (2009-10) 231, para 55 Back
20
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.61-4.67 Back
21
Ev 35 Back
22
HC (2009-10) 231, paras 70-72 Back
23
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.75-4.81 Back
24
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.82-4.87 Back
25
HC (2009-10) 231, para 74, The Government's response to Parliamentary
Scrutiny of the draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.88-4.89 Back
26
HC (2009-10) 231, para 83, The Government's response to Parliamentary
Scrutiny of the draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.93-4.95 Back
27
HC (2009-10) 231, paras 83, 90, 92, 101, 106 Back
28
The Government's response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
paras 4.98 Back
29
HC (2009-10) 231, para 128, The Government's response to Parliamentary
Scrutiny of the draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure,
para 4.126 Back
| 
