One of our supporters recently had an interesting exchange with an ‘Engagement Analyst’ at Ofgem, who replies to some emails on behalf of Ofgem’s CEO Jonathan Brearley. See the exchange below with 1. The original email, 2. The Ofgem reply and then 3. The further challenging of Ofgem’s points.
Ofgem’s initial response is generic and shows how they assume that whatever National Grid claims is correct and not worth challenging. Our supporter does not accept Ofgem’s response and challenges their assumptions.
If any of these arguments resonate for you we encourage you to challenge Ofgem in a similar fashion by emailing ConsumerAffairs@ofgem.gov.uk
Email exchange between SEAS supporter and Ofgem spokesperson:
1. Email to Ofgem
Subject: The appalling and senseless return of the Nautilus Interconnector
To whom it may concern,
Having believed common sense had prevailed when it was decided not to ruin the beautiful Suffolk countryside by relocating the planned Nautilus Interconnecter, I am doubly dismayed to find that this very welcome move has been reversed. I would point out the following:
The costings that are the basis of this dreadful u-turn are based on the assumption that everything will be connected at Friston, but the connection point is still only theoretical and planning consent for it was not sought by National Grid, but by Scottish Power Renewables. It was intended to support the Scottish Power Wind Farms, EA1N and EA2 and at the time, this was the only planning application on the table. It was never intended to support the Sea Link, Nautilus or Lion Link Projects, yet National Grid is making the assumption that it can take control of this virtual connection point without specific planning consent and drive its projects through regardless of due process. This is planning by the back door and National Grid’s disingenuous inverted planning approach must be challenged.
Cost analysis that shows development of Nautilus at East Suffolk being cheaper than at West Grain is predicated on the assumption that the connection point at Friston already exists. This misleading approach to cost analysis that is based on false assumptions must be challenged.
The Ofgem announcement was released during the summer holidays and in the middle of National Grid’s Sea Link Project Update consultation which meant that it passed almost unnoticed. These underhand tactics with a below-the-radar Nautilus project update announcement must be challenged.
I object to these assumptions and resulting plans.
I also object to this development for the following reasons:
East Suffolk is the Wrong Place: The decision to site so much electrical infrastructure in East Suffolk is fundamentally flawed. The decision is being driven by National Grid, a PLC motivated by generating profits for its mainly US and UAE based shareholders that is obligated to find sites for its projects that will be cheapest and easiest for it to develop whilst generating the quickest returns. This is a clear example of when quick profit must not be the only consideration. Coastal brownfield sites in need of generation that are closer to demand must be chosen instead.
Overwhelming Cumulative Impacts: National Grid is not being upfront with its planning process. Despite the overwhelming cumulative impacts that will be caused by developing up to four converter stations at Saxmundham and three substations at Friston with their corresponding landfall sites and cable corridors, National Grid is considering all its projects in isolation. This problem will be further compounded by development of Sizewell C and the 800 new houses at the Saxmundham Garden Neighbourhood Site. Transparency, honesty and a joined-up plan is called for.
Serious Negative Impacts on Tourism and the Local Economy: The loss of income from tourism over 12 to 15 years of such intensive construction could amount to one billion pounds. There will also be totally unacceptable negative socio-economic effects with serious damage to the local economy and businesses.
Flood Risk: There were already significant concerns regarding flood risk when development of the Scottish Power substation at Friston was the only electrical infrastructure project in the pipeline. Now that Nautilus, Sea Link and Lion Link have been added to the proposals, the area covered by up to four converter stations at Saxmundham and three substations at Friston will massively increase run-off in areas that are already at risk from flooding and this poses an alarming flood risk.
Traffic and Transport Issues: The staggering number of extra construction vehicles that will be necessary in order to develop so much infrastructure will cause tremendous problems with traffic congestion, gridlock situations, major safety concerns, environmental pollution on roads that were never intended and have not been built for this.
Pollution: The local population and visiting tourists will be subject to air, noise, vibration and light pollution both during the construction period and then for years to come when so much electrical infrastructure has been built so close to villages.
Environmental and Ecological Destruction: The sensitive biodiverse ecosystems so precious to the Suffolk countryside will be catastrophically impacted by such needlessly destructive construction and many may never recover.
Detrimental Impacts on Mental Health and Wellbeing: The effects of National Grid’s proposals is already impacting on the mental health and wellbeing of local residents and we are still only in the planning stages.
In summary, clearly what should be developed is an offshore grid with onshore conversion at brownfield sites. This can be cheaper, faster and better than the National Grid proposals. In addition, it would put the UK as a key player at the heart of the North Sea corridor allowing effective interaction with our North Sea neighbours who are currently developing their own offshore grids. Indeed, the UK finds itself with a unique opportunity at the moment for Great British Energy to take back control of electrical infrastructure development and create a publicly owned offshore grid utilising all the latest improvements with subsea cable technology.
Yours,
2. Email from Ofgem, Consumer Affairs (ConsumerAffairs@ofgem.gov.uk)
Thank you for contacting our Chief Executive, Jonathan Brearley, regarding Nautilus Interconnector Project. Part of my role is to respond to enquiries received by Jonathan.
Ofgem is the regulator for the gas and electricity industries in Great Britain. Ofgem’s role is to issue licences to energy companies and ensure they comply with these. For more information about what Ofgem does, please visit our website.
Please be aware that any information shared in this email is guidance only. It is not intended to be fully comprehensive or provide legal advice on how any legislation should be interpreted or itself to have legal effect. At all times, the onus is on the consumer to seek their own legal advice when needed.
Nautilus Interconnector Project:
For large transmission projects, Ofgem is responsible for ensuring that the TO (Transmission Owner), in this case the National Grid, provides a robust needs case for the project, explaining why the project is required, and that it has completed a thorough assessment of the viable options, with a valid justification for the preferred option that it proposes.
Ofgem sets the funding allowance for transmission projects using different processes according to the value and need for the project. Conventional major projects are reviewed under the Large Onshore Transmission Infrastructure (LOTI) process. Major projects deemed by the Electricity System Operator (ESO) to be essential to achieving the Government’s target of connecting 50GW of offshore wind by 2030, are assessed under the Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment (ASTI) process. Whether it is under LOTI or ASTI, we expect Transmission Owners (TOs) engage with local communities as part of their project development; it is also a vital component of their planning applications, which is outside our remit. Our emphasis as part of our reviews, however, is on the interests of energy consumers as a whole, ensuring that the desired output is delivered for the most reasonable and efficient price achievable.
Ofgem’s principal statutory objective under s.3A of the Electricity Act 1989 is to protect the interests of existing and future consumers. The Electricity Act 1989 goes into some detail as to what these interests are. As a result, there are a number of factors that Ofgem needs to consider when carrying out its functions. These include, for example, the reduction of greenhouse gases, security of supply and promoting effective competition. In addition, we have regard to the achievement of sustainable development, as well as the interests of individuals residing in rural areas and the effect projects have on the environment. When making our decisions, we seek to take all these factors into account and find the right balance for consumers as a whole. We expect transmission operators to make a robust case for proposed projects and provide us with all relevant information to inform our assessments.
Ofgem does not, however, have powers to decide whether the developments proposed are granted the required planning permission and consents. For this reason, we do not accept a request for funding from a project until it has submitted its planning application and there is a high likelihood it will progress to construction. We appreciate that, whilst essential, electricity transmission infrastructure can be controversial to communities that host it, and we advise that anyone with concerns should engage with the planning process and their relevant planning department to make their concerns known.
While not directly within our remit, we continue to raise the issue of how projects will impact local communities with our colleagues in local authorities, transmission system operators and central Government. We have successfully advocated that the Holistic Network Design consider impacts on the environment and local communities for all projects included in it.
We are also working with Government and TOs to implement the recommendations of the Transmission Acceleration Action Plan, which includes ensuring that the communities that host transmission infrastructure benefit from it.
What should TOs do?
For any projects that require planning permission, TOs must apply to and obtain approval from the local authorities. TOs are required to undertake a statutory consultation before they apply for planning permission. They are required to satisfactorily undertake any compulsory environmental or animal surveys. Ofgem does not have a say on whether these applications meet the relevant planning authority’s requirements.
Recommended further engagement:
I encourage you to engage with the consultation processes of the National Grid for this project and raise any concerns you have with the their approach in this regard with the relevant planning authorities.
Ofgem also has an open consultation on the Changes to the Initial Project Assessment of the Nautilus Offshore Hybrid Asset. You can see more information on this consultation and how to submit your feedback here.
For more information about Ofgem’s role and statutory duties in delivering the government’s Net Zero ambitions, please refer to our website.
I hope this information has been helpful, however if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us
Kind Regards
Engagement Analyst
Delivery and Schemes
Commonwealth House
32 Albion Street
Glasgow
G1 1LH
3. Supporter’s further response to Ofgem
Subject: Re: The appalling and senseless return of the Nautilus Interconnector
Firstly, thank you for laying out Ofgem’s role so clearly. I understand Ofgem’s responsibilities and they make sense. It is clearly critical but far from easy to get the balance right. While accepting the difficulties faced I would just like to point to the responsibility you mention to regarding ’the interests of individuals residing in rural areas and the effect projects have on the environment.’ In this case I am unable to see that Ofgem is doing all it could.
In fact by not approving the location of the Nautilus interconnecter on the brownfield site in Kent, Ofgem has acted against the interests of local individuals and the rural environment. This has been done in the interests of taxpaying consumers as it is presumed that any additional cost will be passed on by National Grid. I fail to see why this need be the case. Ofgem holds a key card in approving public funding contribution and I cannot see why Ofgem cannot approve the use of a brownfield site and at the same time ensure no additional cost is passed on to consumers.
Ofgem is a private concern. It wants the business and it wants to tap into public funding. Being able to do so should be contingent on the project going ahead with the least possible environmental damage. Ofgem can make sure this happens. Instead Ofgem seems to be allowing a private company to dictate where the interconnection is located by pointing to additional costs which (a) are disputed and, (b) do NOT have to be passed onto the consumer. Put simply, if there are any additional costs, National Grid can swallow them and trim its profit slightly. Ofgem can make this happen, acting in the public interest not the interest of National Grid, by making the brownfield site a condition of funding.
Kind regards