Examination of Witnesses (Questions 68-79)
Mr Matt Thomas
31 MARCH 2008
Q68Chairman: Mr Thomas, thank you very much
indeed for coming.
Mr Thomas: My pleasure.
Q69 Chairman: It would be helpful
if you could, for the record, just tell us a bit about your background,
and then perhaps you would like to guide us with any opening comments
that you have, and then my colleagues around the Committee will
ask you questions.
Mr Thomas: Of course. Well, as I say,
my name is Matt Thomas, I work for Ecotricity as the head of projects.
I have been in the renewables industry for around about eight
years, working on both the retail supply side and also the project
development side, which is where most of my work is concerned
at the moment. I think in general, we at Ecotricity are happy
to see these targets in place. Clearly, it is generally good news
for our business. Overall, as I say, we are happy with that. We
are also very concerned at the moment with the Government's lack
of what we see as a coherent energy policy, certainly one that
incorporates renewables at its core. We are also very worried
at the mentions that we see at the moment around new nuclear build,
so really we would like to see as a company a very coherent energy
strategy and policy put in place for the forthcoming 10-15 years
at an absolute minimum.
Q70 Chairman: Could you tell us something
about the organisation?
Mr Thomas: Yes, of course. Ecotricity
is a company that is about eleven years old now, it started off
really as one man, the current owner, who put together a single
wind turbine in the Gloucestershire countryside, and from that,
has developed a business that is based on not only generation
of renewable energy but also the sale of renewable energy to business
and domestic customers.
Q71 Chairman: And order of magnitude
of size?
Mr Thomas: Around about 60 megawatts
installed of onshore wind power, and around 35,000 retail customers,
the bulk of those are domestic.
Q72 Chairman: Sorry, I did not catch
the number of domestic customers.
Mr Thomas: Around about 35,000. We have
35,000 customers in all, most of those will be domestic, probably
34,000.
Q73 Chairman: If I could start, and
just ask your present opinion about the targets that the UK may
accept when the Council of Ministers comes to a conclusion later
this year, which is that 15% of our energy generation should come
from renewable sources, whereas at the present time we are about
somewhere between one and 2%: first of all, your judgment as to
whether these targets are attainable; and secondly, what role
companies or organisations like Ecotricity can play.
Mr Thomas: I think overall, the targets
are extremely challenging, given that we are at this sort of late
stage in the process. That is not to say that they are unachievable.
Broadly speaking, the renewables industry is held up by serious
regulatory constraints in the planning system, and to a slightly
lesser degree, hold-ups in the grid connection side of the business.
Like I said, I do think that if the Government decided to pull
out all the stops, and rapid changes to the planning system were
implemented, then those targets are just about achievable, but
we are running very short of time. Certainly insofar as the UK
15% target by 2015 is concerned, that is looking increasingly
unlikely, given the slow rate of change certainly in the planning
system, and I can elaborate on that if you like.
Q74 Chairman: Well, if you just cover
those three areas, planning, access to the grid, and also the
technical problems in terms of—I think we are going to have
to adjourn for ten minutes, but can I just give you those three
questions again, which my colleagues may wish to amplify? The
planning system, the grid system, and the tariffs, what regulation
Government might offer to provide an incentive. We will resume
again in 10 minutes' time.
The Committee suspended from 5.10 pm to
5.20 pm for a division in the House
Q75Chairman: I apologise for the fact that some
members have either left because of other business or will be
rushing to other business, but of course, the purpose of this
session is for the record, so when we come to draft our report,
we can rely on the wisdom of your evidence. So I think for the
record, if you could just deal with those three issues? It might
be helpful if I remind colleagues on the Committee, if you could
just dwell on the problems that smaller operators like yourselves
have encountered and are likely, in your judgment, to encounter
in the future on planning, on connection to the grid, and treatment
by the Government, the regulator, in terms of incentives.
Mr Thomas: If I start with planning,
we have a huge issue with planning at the moment. I talk obviously
of wind farms mainly, but we are looking at all renewable developments:
anything under 50 MW goes through to decisions made by local planning
authorities, and quite often, the problem with that is whilst
it is within the democratic process, and we would not seek to
remove planning from the democratic process, it is essentially
planning by appeal, because probably in 95% of cases, a planning
application is lodged, and the authority then has 16 weeks in
order to make a decision, and quite often, it is our opinion that
the people sat on the planning committee of that local authority
do not have the requisite skills to make that judgment on that
application. What they probably do not have is really a full understanding
of the strategic importance of the developments that are being
proposed. Now I do not wish to sound overly critical of local
authority planning committees, but essentially, they would be
the same people who would be granting consent for your conservatory,
for example, in your back garden, who are also looking at what
we believe are issues of national strategic importance, when it
comes to energy supply and security. Quite often, as I say, 95%
of the time, those applications are turned down, the application
then goes to appeal to be judged by a planning inspector, so it
is completely removed from the democratic process. Essentially,
we believe that the local authority planning committee really
abdicates its responsibility and pushes that responsibility to
the planning inspectorate, and then it is down to one person to
decide whether or not that application is successful or not. That
has clearly caused us a huge problem, it is not just us, that
is the renewables industry in Britain as a whole. I cannot remember
off the top of my head, but it is hundreds if not thousands of
megawatts that are currently lodged in the planning system, I
think it is just shy of 2,000 MW currently lodged in the planning
system awaiting decisions, and clearly that is a huge barrier
to achieving these targets.
Q76 Chairman: Could you just clarify,
does that relate to water, wind?
Mr Thomas: That is onshore wind. I think
it is just shy of about 2,000 MW.
Q77 Lord Walpole: Do you have trouble
with the MoD as well?
Mr Thomas: That is a problem, from our
own perspective, we do have MoD issues. They are significant (though
not so much as the planning system), and there is evidence that
the MoD is starting to soften in its approach slightly. We have
just put an application in for three 2 MW turbines in Norfolk,
and initially, the project was turned down at the local authority
level, and the MoD had raised some issues. The MoD have now withdrawn
those objections. That does not mean that the application will
get the go-ahead, but in this instance the MoD have softened their
approach. What we propose, and we have proposed it in a number
of papers, is that by way of planning system reform, the planning
decision is pushed away from the local authority to the county
level, and we feel that that is a good workable compromise, because
the decision still rests with those who are accountable to the
electorate, so it is still within the democratic process, but
the decision will be taken, we think, by people who have a much
stronger strategic view on that development. At the moment, the
county level planning function really is removed from that process,
it goes straight from local level to inspectorate, and we would
like to see a mid level where we think it would just be more representative
as a whole; still within the democratic process, but more strategic.
Q78 Chairman: And then with an appeal.
Mr Thomas: Potentially, if need be, beyond
that, but I think there would be a much higher quality discussion
at a county level planning meeting than there would at a local
level, because quite often with the local level—you can
see why it happens, the local planning committee, say for a small
village, is quite often made up of village members, and they are
going to be lobbied by fellow residents who do not want that development
to go ahead. So quite often, it is an emotional response that
is given by the planning committee, not necessarily a strategic
one, or one that even falls within planning legislation. So we
feel that if it is removed from the very local level to a county
level, we would bypass some of those problems while still keeping
the democratic process alive in the decision.
Chairman: Can we move on to connections
to the grid?
Q79 Lord Bradshaw: Yes, if I could
just ask you about that last point: if the process of application
went to a County Council, and I have been for a long time a member
of a County Council, it would seem to me that it is essential
to give guidance, because actually, the members are not really
expert almost on anything, if I might say, but they are not expert
people.
Mr Thomas: I would agree with that.
|
