This month’s government decision to scrap Navitus Bay prioritised the preservation of sea views over the decarbonisation of power supply, setting a precedent which has major implications for the future of UK energy and climate policy. The timing is hugely significant, as 2015 could be make-or-break year for the climate, and for the future of life on our planet – the UN conference in Paris this December may be the last opportunity for several years to reach international agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Without an effective legally-binding agreement, it is extremely unlikely that the already agreed aim of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels can be achieved. Breaching the 2C limit would result in unprecedented damage for all of us, particularly in coastal communities, over the coming decades.
2015 is also the year a majority Conservative government was returned, for the first time this century. This government claims to be committed to the 2008 Climate Change Act (which requires UK governments to work towards an 80% cut in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2050), and to agreeing an ambitious global deal to mitigate climate change in Paris. But in its first 3 months it has fast-tracked a supposed “national priority” for shale gas development, and removed support for the most cost effective renewable energies, onshore wind and solar farms, and for improving energy efficiency in homes.
Moving offshore
Amber Rudd, the new Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), made it clear, in the Commons debate on removal of the onshore wind subsidy, that she was relying on offshore wind to fill the gap created by cutbacks inland. She implied that the offshore subsidy, reflecting higher construction and maintenance costs, was a price worth paying for the reduced visual impacts out at sea. But the Treasury’s Levy Control Framework (LCF) places a cap on the total amount of subsidy that can be paid by consumers in any year. Having to rely on higher cost sources of low carbon energy, while maintaining an inflexible LCF cap, inevitably means that fewer carbon reductions can be achieved for a given level of subsidy. It also means that there is no guarantee that all offshore wind farms that achieve planning consent will be able to benefit from the guaranteed prices that would make them financially viable.
The problems are compounded by the new subsidy regime for large scale low carbon projects – Contracts for Difference (CfD). Under CfD generators are paid the difference between a guaranteed price and the current wholesale price of electricity. One consequence is that when the wholesale price falls, as in recent months (partly as a result of increased penetration by low marginal cost renewables), the subsidy portion of renewable generation revenues increases, so again fewer carbon reductions can be achieved before the LCF cap kicks in. And investor confidence, shaken by recent abrupt changes to the supposedly long-term framework of financial support for low carbon energy, has been further damaged by the government’s reluctance to indicate what the LCF cap will be in years beyond 2020/21.
The Planning Inspectorate Examination of Navitus Bay
Navitus Bay would have played an important role in both expanding offshore capacity and in encouraging further development of the domestic supply chain (essential to bring down the costs of offshore wind, and therefore to reduce the need for subsidy). Importantly, there would have been additional advantages specific to its South Coast location. Navitus Bay would have widened the geographical spread of offshore wind, lessening output variabilty and improving predictability for the system as a whole, and that would have lessened the balancing challenge that the wind energy sector poses for the National Grid (gas turbine backup is needed to meet demand when wind speeds are low, and its efficiency varies with the predictability of the change in demand). A wider distribution of offshore wind is no substitute for the innovation in energy storage and demand management that are needed in the long term, but it would be a useful stopgap. Supplying electricity direct to a National Grid zone that is currently a net importer of electricity would also have been beneficial, as this would have reduced the transmission losses and the need for new transmission infrastructure which are downsides of alternative projects in the North Sea. No account was taken of these location-specific benefits of Navitus Bay, either by the Planning Inspectors in their Report recommending scrapping of the project, or by the Secretary of State in her response. What was focussed on instead was the “important and special qualities” of the coastline.
Navitus Bay generated massive controversy locally. Public opposition on the Isle of Wight was muted, tempered by a realisation that the project’s supply chain requirements would create job opportunities for the fragile island economy. Indeed, MHI Vestas, who manufacture turbine blades on the island, were chosen as the preferred turbine supplier back in May. Opposition on the mainland, however, was vehement, particularly in Dorset. Here support for Navitus Bay was hampered by the occasionally inept approach to community engagement taken by the developer (a joint venture of EDF and Eneco), and opposition was fanned by the incessant distortion of its likely impact by two protest groups (Challenge Navitus and the Poole and Christchurch Bays Association) that I described in a previous Dorset Eye article (Trouble Ahead, September 15).
Many of the Representations to the Planning Inspectorate’s Examination of the project focussed on the ‘special’ nature of the sea views that would be affected, and how the wellbeing of residents and the tourist industry might be harmed. Bournemouth Council’s were an extreme example. They grossly exaggerated likely damage to tourism, and discounted as irrelevant evidence from other resorts (that visitor numbers are not affected by the presence of a wind farm offshore). The Local Impact Report they submitted to the Examination claimed that: “(Bournemouth’s) success is more heavily reliant on natural beauty than the majority of other resorts where wind farms have been developed. Rhyl, Clacton, Blackpool and Great Yarmouth have built their reputations on man-made, exciting mechanical attractions on land rather than the natural beauty of the coastline.” (Understandably, the council neglected to mention their own success in re-branding Bournemouth as Britain’s prime destination for hen and stag weekends, or their promotion of a deafening Air Show along the seafront for 4 consecutive days every August and an annual 3 day Wheels Festival featuring ‘non-stop, high speed action’ and ‘monster metal crushing madness’).
More sophisticated objectors recognised that stronger arguments would be needed if their sea views were to be preserved, and they focussed on the proximity of Navitus Bay to England’s only natural World Heritage Site, the Dorset and East Devon Jurassic Coast. Conor Burns MP, speaking at a public meeting organised by Bournemouth Council in May 2014 to galvanise public opposition to Navitus Bay, put the case in a nutshell: “To those who say it’s about Not In My Back Yard,” he concluded, “my back yard’s a World Heritage Site.” Yet the Jurassic Coast was designated as a World Heritage Site for its geology, not its sea views. Being able to see a wind farm on the horizon, from just a third of the 95 mile long Coast, would not have harmed the Site’s unique geological features, and it is hard to see how it would have interfered with visitors’ appreciation of them. For most of the objectors, the sea views were all important. And they won an influential ally in the then Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, who took the highly irregular step in February of writing to the Planning Inspectors to request that “full consideration” be given to his concerns about the possible impact of the wind farm on visitors’ experience, and how this might affect tourism revenues. “I’ve been lucky enough to visit the Jurassic Coast and take in its staggering beauty, ” he explained in a letter to Conor Burns. “It would be a tragedy if future generations were denied this experience.”
“Significant adverse impact on the perception of viewers standing on the coastlines” was the key issue for the Secretary of State, accepting the Planning Inspectors’ recommendation that the Navitus Bay project be turned down. Particular attention was given to the ‘setting’ of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. The Inspectors had accepted that what UNESCO terms the ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ of the Coast is its distinctive geology, which would not be affected by the wind farm. Their recommendation rested on an arcane planning debate about the extent to which the wind farm would affect the ‘setting’ of the Site – basically, would the appearance of a wind farm on the horizon affect visitors’ ability to appreciate the geology? Ironically, the Mesozoic era was one of dramatic climate changes, which helped shape the Coast’s distinctive features. An argument made in the Examination, that Navitus Bay’s visibility could enhance the Site’s educational objectives by linking climate change in the distant past to what threatens us in the near future if we don’t curb our addiction to fossil fuels, was recognised in the Inspectors’ Recommendation Report as being based on “measured understanding and reflection”, but it was rejected. Instead, visibility of the turbines was seen not as an opportunity, but as as a threat to “the way that the Site would be experienced or enjoyed in its surroundings.”
Where now for UK energy and climate policy?
While steps are being taken to develop tidal power and Carbon Capture and Storage, their commercial viability is uncertain and their potential scalability is limited. If wishful thinking about new nuclear is discounted, it is clear that DECC relies almost entirely on acceleration of offshore wind development to meet its challenging power sector carbon reduction targets for the 2020s. And those targets must be met if the wider decarbonisation of transport and heating required by the Climate Change Act target of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is to be a realistic possibility.
No doubt the Government will claim that progress with offshore wind, and adherence to its carbon budgets, is not affected by the Navitus Bay decision – that this was a one off, reflecting the exceptional sea views, the proximity of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, and the strength of local opposition. But a precedent has been set, which will bolster opposition to any offshore proposal that is within site of land to which a heritage label can be attached – not just a World Heritage Site or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but a National Park, Heritage Coast, or National Trust property. And developers, already uncertain about the reliability of the long-term support framework, will be even more hesitant about embarking on new projects. If all that can now be developed offshore is a few remaining projects far out in the shallow waters of the North Sea, with their higher construction, operating and grid connection costs, then there is no way the government, given the LCF constraint, can meet its own carbon reduction targets. This would pave the way for repeal of the Climate Change Act to become an issue in the 2020 general election, as it could then be argued that the targets were no longer feasible. Many suspect that this is the long-term aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and possible successor to David Cameron), George Osborne.
As the Paris climate meeting draws near, the UK government’s attacks on renewable energy are not only undermining its claims to be providing leadership on reaching a deal, they are illustrating how targets have no meaning if they do not result in effective action. There’s a stark lesson here for climate campaigners. Mobilizations to encourage governments to push for international agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions are important, as are actions against the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. But if we are to retain any chance of our being able to continue to benefit from a stable climate as well as from electric power, our energy system will have to be rapidly and totally transformed. Achieving this transformation will not be possible without active support for decarbonisation projects. This will need us to engage with the intricacies of the planning system, to question the national mindset which so often makes climate protection take second place to preserving picturesque views, and to challenge the financial short-termism of the Treasury which stifles any innovative infrastructure investment.
Alan Neale
