Ramblers’ Association Calls For Renewables Rethink
[18 September 2006]
The Ramblers’ Association today called for an urgent reform
of the subsidy which supports renewable energy developments on
the UK, including a massive reduction in the funding given to
large scale land based windfarms. The call comes after the RA’s
Chief Executive, Christine Elliott, examined the impact of new
windfarm developments in the Scottish Highlands.
Christine Elliott said: “Across large swathes of upland Britain
our world famous landscapes are under assault. From the
Cairngorms to the Welsh moorlands to the hills of Devon and
Cornwall, giant wind turbines are on the march. This is entirely
due to a government scheme, the Renewables Obligation [1], which
pays huge financial rewards to large scale windfarm developers.
This scheme is the direct responsibility of UK Energy Ministers.
They must be persuaded, as a matter of urgency, to agree to its
radical reform.”
“The real obligation lies with the UK Government to pay less
attention to the commercial aspirations of multinational energy
companies and far more to the real energy needs of local
communities, local industries and local people. UK Ministers
need to wake up to the reality that tourism, outdoor recreation,
farming and forestry are the cornerstones of life in the uplands
– not industrial power stations planted in the middle of peat
bogs. The carbon benefit is questionable and the only clear
dividend is to investors.”
Christine Elliott was speaking after visiting the Cairngorms and
other hill ranges affected by developments and meeting with
senior figures in voluntary and government organisations. She
expressed her dismay at the landscape transformations under way:
“I do not think most Ministers in the UK Government have any
idea of the impact of the Renewables Obligation on our
landscapes and our communities.”
“To walk the high ground of the Cairngorms and see giant
turbines sprouting on distant hills is to experience a failure
of government energy policy. No country that is proud of its
land and its people should permit such scars on world heritage
quality landscape.”
“To stand on the battlements of Doune Castle, near Stirling, and
to see the local village, nestling in the fold of hill and wood,
now dominated by 100 metre (300 ft) turbines [2] on the nearby
hills, is to witness a government policy which shows scant
respect for people and place. Add to this the sight of
construction roads being driven through peat bogs and it is
obvious that the government has lost its way. Has nobody told
them that the peat bogs of Britain are a vital, living,
breathing resource that is capturing and storing carbon – our
equivalent of the tropical rain forest, a precious resource to
be protected and nurtured, not ravaged by the mighty machines of
the energy industry?”
“Inhabitants and visitors in Glen Devon can see how Scottish
Power is about to release bulldozers onto the Ochil hill range,
as they start their Green Knowes windfarm development. The
reason that a company like Scottish Power is so desperate to
preserve the financial largesse that comes their way through the
Renewables Obligation is because for them it is like winning the
Lottery, every year.”
“Why the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, both a Scots MP and guardian
of the public purse, allows this publicly funded desecration of
our environmental heritage defies belief. Where is his
conscience and sense of stewardship, both financial and moral?
With the Renewables Obligation under severe attack by the
National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Welsh
Affairs Committee and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, [3] we are
left wondering how many more reports from expert bodies are
needed before the Chancellor takes action.”
Christine Elliott did, however, emphasise the importance of
public funding support for renewable energy development:
“Climate change is the most crucial issue facing the world
today. The Prime Minister has to be congratulated for the
efforts he has made to raise awareness of climate change
problems amongst world leaders. The rhetoric has been excellent,
the solutions inadequate.”
“We do support the extensive use of wind turbines in making a
significant contribution to renewable energy development. But we
need a New Renewables Obligation which drives the monster 300 ft
turbines to offshore locations while giving much more support to
small scale developments on farms, crofts and near to local
communities. Every home owner should be encouraged to examine
their renewable energy options, from small wind turbines and
solar panels to ground-source heat and biomass.”
Christine Elliott also emphasised that a New Renewables
Obligation should spread financial benefit much more widely and
equitably:
“The present scheme delivers vast financial rewards to a few
large commercial operations and landowners along with a minority
of local people. Everyone else has to suffer the impact of large
turbines, their associated huge transmission lines and
installation infrastructure. We need to move rapidly to a
financial support regime that is geared to local generation,
thereby helping to reduce electricity demand on the national
grid. Then we will be helping everyone, not just a favoured few,
to benefit from the new way that we generate and use energy.
Such an approach is entirely in line with the conclusions of the
UK Government’s own Sustainable Development Commission. Earlier
this year the Commission emphasised that reducing demand on the
grid was the most cost effective way for the government to meet
its climate change obligations.[4]”
Noting that the Sustainable Development Commission also decided
that it was not in favour of further nuclear power development
in the UK, Christine Elliott said that the RA also had
reservations about nuclear power development:
“In our response to the Government’s Energy Review we said that
nuclear power should be considered as one of a range of possible
energy supply options, but we had a number of concerns including
waste management and storage and radioactive contamination [5].
This remains our position today but will given further
consideration at a Board of Trustees meeting in mid October when
we will decide if a further response is needed to the
Government’s energy policy.”
Finally, Christine Elliott said:
“I will be writing to the Minister for Trade and Industry,
Alistair Darling, to ask him to start work on the New Renewables
Obligation immediately. Waiting until 2010, as suggested in the
Government’s conclusions to its Energy Review [6], is hopeless –
the damage will all have been done by then. I will invite him to
spare some time from his Ministerial desk, or his Edinburgh
constituency office, and join with me on a visit to see how
current energy policy is damaging our world famous landscape.
With politicians now busy apologising for past mistakes, it
would be unfortunate if the Renewables Obligation became the
Labour Government’s Poll Tax.”
Notes for Editors
[1] What is the Renewables Obligation?
The Renewables Obligation is a financial support policy
introduced by the Government to stimulate demand for renewable
energy.
This Government Regulation obliges electricity suppliers to
demonstrate that they have supplied a set percentage of
electricity from renewable sources. The eligible renewable
technologies are defined by the DTI. The set percentage of the
Obligation rises annually, reaching approximately 15% by 2015.
How does it work?
Electricity supply companies buy electricity from generating
companies who produce it from a renewable source. They then also
have to buy Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) from the
generators for each megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity
purchased. These ROCs prove that they have used electricity from
renewable energy sources, and are put toward meeting their
obligation targets. The electricity goes straight into the
National Grid from the generator.
If the supply company fail to meet their Renewables Obligation
percentage commitment, they can pay a forfeit on the shortfall,
currently valued at around £30 per MWh. This is known as the
Buy-Out Price and is collected by Ofgem and put in a ring-fenced
fund. Alternatively, they can opt out of purchasing electricity
from renewable sources altogether and pay the full Buy-out Price
for their Obligation percentage.
This fund is then redistributed back to the electricity supply
companies in proportion to the number of ROCs they produce. The
extra costs incurred in meeting the obligation are transferred
to consumers through their bills.
What’s the problem?
The Renewables Obligation has set a payment level for
electricity from renewable sources and doesn’t recognise the
different stages of development that renewable technologies are
at, nor the inherent differences in the way they generate
electricity.
In the drive to keep construction and operation costs low,
developers are going for a market-ready technology that pays
back quickly to cover the capital costs, which happens to be
on-shore wind turbines.
The consequence of the Obligation is driving the market toward
more on-shore windfarms. Investment in less well-developed
technologies is lagging behind – commercial interest in other
renewable technologies is not greatly encouraged by a policy
driver which doesn’t differentiate the costs of electricity
production from different technologies.
A recent National Audit Office report stated that “the
Renewables Obligation represents an expensive means by which to
reduce CO2 emissions.” when compared to energy efficiency or
other emissions reductions schemes.
The report also highlighted that level of financial support
provided by the Renewables Obligation to some onshore wind
projects is in excess of what is necessary. If left unchanged,
around a third of the total public support provided could be
more than that needed to meet the cost of generating electricity
from on-shore wind sites.
[2] Wind turbines currently operating on land are around 50 –
100m to the vertical blade tip, while more recent consented
proposals are around 100 m, but with other proposals currently
within the planning system involving turbines up to 135m to the
vertical blade tip. See
www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp for a full list of wind turbine
projects.
[3] Reports from National Audit Office, Public Accounts
Committee , Royal Society of Edinburgh and Welsh Affairs
Committee, among others, point out that the Renewables
Obligation is not working the way it should, is the most
expensive means available to Government of reducing carbon
dioxide emissions, and is in need of reform:
National Audit Office 2005: Department of Trade and Industry –
Renewable Energy
Public Accounts Committee 2005: Department of Trade and Industry
– Renewable Energy; Report of Session 2005-06
Royal Society of Edinburgh 2006: Inquiry into Energy Issues for
Scotland
Welsh Affairs Committee 2006: Energy in Wales
[4] Sustainable Development Commission May 2005: “Wind Power –
your questions answered” (page 6): “Reducing the nation’s demand
on the national grid – through energy saving, and changing our
everyday behaviour – is not an optional extra in the drive to
tackle climate change effectively. It’s essential, and it
represents perhaps the most cost-effective way of meeting our
obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=235
The Sustainable Development Commission have also conducted an
investigation into nuclear energy: “The role of nuclear power in
a low carbon economy” (2005) and concluded that “there is no
justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power
programme, at this time, and that any such proposal would be
incompatible with the Government’s own Sustainable Development
Strategy.”
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344
[5} RA response to UK Government
Energy Review
[6] DTI Report on Our Energy Challenge (July 2006) page 101
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/page31995.html. The
Report indicates that the Government intends to introduce a
“banded” structure to the Renewables Obligation by 2010. This
would be useful if the effect of banding was to give more
support to small scale wind turbine development and less to
large scale land based developments. Such banding needs to be
introduced immediately, not by 2010.