Science & Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the EDF Energy (Risk 12)

About EDF Energy

1. EDF Energy is one of the UK’s largest energy companies with activities throughout the energy chain. We provide 50% of the UK’s low carbon generation. Our interests include nuclear, coal and gas-fired electricity generation, renewables, combined heat and power plants, 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. Following the events in Japan in March this year, EDF Energy understands the attention that is being given to the risks surrounding energy infrastructure, in particular nuclear power. We fully support the conclusions and recommendations of the Weightman Report, which reaffirmed that UK nuclear facilities have no fundamental safety weaknesses and praised the openness and transparency of the industry. We are committed to ensuring that this continues in the future, and will implement the report’s recommendations in full.

3. EDF Energy has further enhanced this approach under a four-pillared programme to inspire our company’s leaders: to engage on nuclear; involve the people at our power stations who best embody our safety culture in building public trust; impact by listening to stakeholders’ and customers’ concerns; and integrate others who can contribute to a better understanding of the achievements and challenges of our industry.

EDF Energy’s Response to Your Questions

Q1. What are the key factors influencing public risk perception and tolerability of energy infrastructure facilities and projects?

4. Given the events in Japan in March this year, it is understandable why the committee has chosen to focus on nuclear power. In October 2011, the HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, Dr Mike Weightman, published his Final Report on “Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry”.1 This examined the lessons to be learnt for the UK nuclear industry from the events and found no fundamental safety weaknesses at UK nuclear facilities. The report did make a number of recommendations for Government, regulators and industry. EDF Energy is committed to addressing these, and in doing so will continue to work with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

5. It is important to remember, however, that all forms of energy infrastructure have some element of risk (or perceived risk), whether related to safety, security of supply, affordability, sustainability, visual impact or environmental impacts arising from emissions to air, land or sea. The UK will need to use diverse technologies to meet its energy policy objectives, namely decarbonisation of electricity generation, security of supply and affordability. Technologies will need to include nuclear, renewables and fossil fuels (with carbon capture and storage if it can be proven) as well as improving energy efficiency. This serves to highlight the need for all of these forms of low carbon energy. It also provides both Government and the energy industry with a fundamental challenge: how to communicate this difficult balance between differing energy sources and different risks to the public.

6. It is important to distinguish objective scientific risk assessment methodologies from risk perception, based on an individual’s subjective assessment of the probability of an event, and the perceived consequences of a negative outcome. It is therefore possible for the same risk to be interpreted differently by different groups.

7. Although the energy industry has a strong track record in terms of safety, the risk is that assessments may be based on emotion rather than hard evidence, which may then in turn derail legitimate energy projects. EDF Energy believes that it is imperative that the concerns of the public are adequately addressed through open and transparent communication between policy makers, operators and the general public. This is necessary as part of the ongoing initiatives to inform the public of the need for new safe, secure and affordable low-carbon energy infrastructure, and will help promote greater transparency and build trust between the different stakeholders involved.

8. Although the public’s interest and understanding of energy issues is growing, it is still relatively low and so any initiatives that improve this should be encouraged. We believe that it is important to highlight to the public the connection between power station operation, transmission lines, and the universal availability of electricity in the home, which over time has simply been taken for granted. This is one of the main reasons that EDF Energy launched its Energy Future website2 in order to engage the public in discussion around where we get energy from and what the UK’s future energy mix should be.

9. We believe that there are a number of factors that can influence public risk perception of energy infrastructure projects. These include where people live, educational background, personal experiences and values or prejudices, as well as an incomplete understanding of the nature of the risk. In some instances there is likely to be an element of distrust/scepticism of the institutions involved in the process, including the infrastructure operators and the Government and regulators, which can only be eliminated by all parties continuing to act in an open and transparent manner. Risk perception is likely to differ between the national and local level, with the latter forming views based on local knowledge—which may be either positive or negative.

10. Another key factor is the role of the media (in all its forms) and the attention it gives to an event. While media reporting can be objective, coverage tends to focus on events rather than analysis which can make it more difficult to have a genuine and productive debate of issues. Recent events (eg Deepwater Horizon, Fukushima) have demonstrated that concerns over events in other parts of the world can have an impact on public opinion of the energy industry in the UK.

Q2. How are public risk perceptions taken into account in the planning process for energy infrastructure?

11. Public perception of risk from any potential development is shaped through consultation, both formal and informal, between the developer and consultees. These consultees will vary from statutory consultees as laid down by legislation to any individual or group with an interest in the development.

12. The new planning regime, brought about by the Planning Act 2008, has placed a duty on developers to consult ahead of submitting a planning application. However, in reality good developers would always aim to build a constructive relationship with consultees, particularly the most immediate community around the development, ahead of a planning application being submitted. Engaging communities during the development of proposals helps to improve people’s understanding of the infrastructure, its impacts and any mitigation measures required, as well as fostering a sense of trust. Building constructive relationships with neighbours/key stakeholders throughout the planning process also helps to ensure constructive relationships later during operation and beyond.

13. As an example, prior to submitting its application for development consent for Hinkley Point C new nuclear development project, EDF Energy undertook four formal stages of consultation over a three year period. This involved engagement with some 6,500 consultees resulting in around 2,000 responses. Beyond this, we also had many informal meetings with representative groups, statutory bodies and others. All of this enabled us to identify specific issues, and develop our plans in order to mitigate, or compensate for, those issues. Much of this mitigation and compensation will be reflected in the planning conditions and obligations which will be agreed should we get development consent to construct Hinkley Point C.

14. It is important to note that the majority of issues raised during these four stages of consultation were not specific to the risk from an operating nuclear power station but were related to the impacts during construction, particularly from transport, visual impacts, and the migration of temporary workers into the area and the pressure this could bring upon housing and accommodation.

Q3. How effectively does local and central Government communicate risk and could it be improved?

15. We believe that both local and central Government have a number of responsibilities in relation to the public understanding of risk:

consulting on and defining national policy;

ensuring that the public has access to clear and reliable information;

providing resources for world class research and for authoritative independent agencies; and

ensuring that the school curriculum equips young people with the mathematics and science skills to help them make informed choices.

Q4. To what extent can public perceptions be changed by improving risk communication? (please provide examples)

16. Locally, all of EDF Energy’s power stations (both nuclear and non-nuclear) are in regular contact with key stakeholders in the community, including councillors, media and the local population. We believe that it is important we maintain the trust of local communities. We operate openly and transparently, informing the local population of our operational issues through regular Site Stakeholder Group meetings, and receive feedback on what we can do better. We produce newsletters, host visits, engage in community-based activities and give talks in schools.

17. However, we recognise that after the events in Fukushima we must go further. One of the key recommendations of the Weightman report was that the industry should be more open and transparent, particularly with those further from our sites.

18. We are doing more:

We now have an open reporting website, updated daily, giving information on the operational status of our nuclear plants.3

We have hosted focus groups to ensure we are well positioned to respond to public concerns about our industry, and have worked with an independent panel of experts to advise us on our approach to transparency.

We are working to reopen Visitor Centres to allow people to see what we do, and we have incorporated the design of new visitor centres into our new nuclear build plans.

As stated above, our Energy Future website helps explain to people what choices we need to make about how we generate our energy and does so with information on the benefits and disadvantages of each technology choice.

19. Polling has shown that despite Fukushima, 61% of the public4 believe nuclear should be part of the energy mix. In fact, the results show that support for nuclear new build has broadly held up, with 47% supporting new nuclear power stations to replace ones that are being retired (and 28% against). This compares with 52% a year ago, and 46% in March this year. We believe that such consistency of support can at be attributed in part to better risk communication and an appreciation by the public of the benefits of nuclear power as part of a diverse, low carbon energy mix.

Q5. How does and should the Government work with the private sector to understand public perceptions of risk and address them?

20. The role of the Government’s regulatory bodies and other agencies, including the Health and Safety Executive, Health Protection Agency and the Environment Agency is particularly important. The public expects such bodies to undertake independent and robust scrutiny of operators of energy infrastructure on its behalf, and to provide accurate scientific information. In order to reassure the public that they are fulfilling this duty, regulators need to provide clear advice and information on operators’ ability to mitigate and deal with risks, and so it is important that they communicate the reasoning and the evidence behind any action they may take.

Q6. How do risk perceptions and communication issues in the UK compare to those of other countries?

21. The fundamentals of risk perception and communication are not likely to change significantly from country to country. However, differences do occur in terms of risk perception according to differences in the political, geographical and cultural make up of different regions, and the historical background. As a result, we have seen very different responses to the events at Fukushima, in terms of nuclear power policy, in different countries of the European Union, and worldwide.

22. It should be noted that in the European Union there are more Member States either maintaining or increasing their nuclear capacity than those that are not. We suggest that this demonstrates that the need for low carbon energy sources to help achieve climate change targets is considered to outweigh the risks from using nuclear power.

14 December 2011