SEAS believes that there are flaws in both the current system of transmission infrastructure/delivery of offshore energy
and the consultation process
LACK OF A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
We are told that there is a robust National Strategy for the production of clean energy. It is based on big energy companies blasting their way through any barriers. What failed to be considered was a National Strategy for the delivery of this power.
Present methodology: The Crown announces its intention to sell off parts of the sea bed; the privately-owned National Grid, without any public consultation, assigns a land connection to the grid as though they have blindly stuck a pin in a map; the private energy companies have to work in competition with each other and without any overall strategic plan on how to get the power to the assigned connection point; the Crown then sells to the energy company with the lowest cost to the customer.
It is therefore no wonder the transmission infrastructure is being implemented in a fragmented, inefficient and damaging way. Without a national framework, none of these private companies are motivated to find the optimum delivery solution for the country as a whole, in terms of economic, environmental and social outcomes, but instead these companies are mainly driven by profit.
As an advanced economy, what value should be placed on these other considerations?Surely, the UK Government should adopt enlightened policies not only relating to the choice of clean energy but also the way in which it is delivered. As the UK Government demonstrated poor judgment on the merits of diesel fuel, what confidence do we have in their judgment regarding the delivery of clean energy?
THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS IS A SHAM
Senior management from SPR and their clean energy consultancies have been ticking all the boxes, carrying out the consultation meetings as required in the due process. Yet, these consultations are a sham.
These executives provide little detail, evade the difficult questions and focus on the superficial and cosmetic aspects of mitigation, notably hedges and tree planting exercises. They have sought to obscure their plans by producing densely worded tomes and refining them in such a way that it takes many man hours to decipher the detailed changes and, in their words, the "refinements" suggesting that the plans are already written in stone and it is simply a question of cosmetics.
They wish us to believe that our cause is already lost and that it is pointless to protest. They have already convinced many that we are wasting our time, efforts and money in challenging their ill-conceived plans. Our voices are not being heard. We have the resolve to fight for better, more responsible solutions.
Many of us have been apathetic over the last few years and now more and more locals are waking up to the scale of the threat to this region. None of us can stand by anymore. We should not rest until we have persuaded whatever Government we have that clean energy production should be DELIVERED CLEANLY and RESPONSIBLY. Future generations deserve better solutions.
Call for The Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP to:
Include EA1N and EA2 in the BEIS Review medium term work-stream; and
Reject this Planning Application in its current form on the grounds that better alternative BROWNFIELD sites are available and the adverse impacts of the onshore connections far outweigh the benefits of these projects.
Use our Fast Track form:
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Send a Letter:
1 Victoria St., London SW1H 0ET
Please state your name and address