The UK Government’s ‘new’ idea to try and combat wind farm NIMBYISM is to get wind farm developers to give local communities cash, according to the Times this week.
The reality is however that payments are already being offered to communities by wind energy companies on a voluntary basis. The introduction of a formal system of payments is in itself therefore, unlikely to lead to the desired plethora of delivered renewable energy projects.
Planning problems have been cited as the key constraint holding back British onshore wind energy projects with wind turbine manfucturer Vestas blaming NIMBYS (not in my back yard) for its recent decision to close Britain’s only wind turbine manufacturing plant, on the Isle of Wight. A Vestas spokesperson described Britain’s approach as “like being in Saudi Arabia and not drilling for oil”. In response Ministers are considering whether to establish a “conservation bank” which they say will overcome planning objections to wind farms and other renewable-energy projects.
Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) believe that obligating wind energy developers to buy their planning consents through provision of funds towards “conservation banking” will result in a step change in renewable energy delivery. This is translated as being funds for the community and nature conservation projects and appears to be a knee jerk reaction to media reports surrounding the Vestas desertion announcement. However DEFRA has not looked at current wind industry practice on the ground where environmental enhancements and community benefit packages are already being promised by wind energy developers… with varying levels of success.
Marine and Natural Environment Minister Huw Irranca-Davies said the funds are aimed at offsetting impacts from wind energy projects and could help to fast track renewable projects through the planning system. The word ‘offset’ has been carefully chosen because, as Irranca-Davies fails to point out, wind farms generate very few impacts to offset. Usually the only significant effect of wind turbines is visual impact and this is not something that can be mitigated or even ‘offset’ given the size of wind turbine structures (unless DEFRA are going to ask wind farm developers to move mountains).
Irranca- Davies said “The idea of conservation banking is to give businesses greater clarity and speed up the development of infrastructure projects, such as wind farms, that would otherwise suffer long delays or get rejected”.
Wind energy company representatives say that benefit packages win support for wind farms in less economically thriving communities and in areas where community facilities are valued. However the experience of wind energy developers promoting projects in more affluent areas show that local people shout “bribe” if there is any mention of a community benefit package.
On nature conservation, although wind energy developers have been providing habitat enhancements for years, a formal system via ‘conservation banking’ may help secure ‘buy in’ from organisations such as Natural England and RSPB. Ultimately it is the taxpayer who will pay for these ‘conservation banks’ through higher electricity prices and therefore it is in effect a tax redistribution system paid for by the general public to ‘offset’ impacts from wind farms that will in most cases be unrelated to the conservation projects.
This is however a positive, potentially uncontroversial ’story’ for the government, rather than taking more direct action to try and get more wind farms consented for example reducing the public inquiry timescales to a maximum of 3 months for wind energy projects (rather than 3 years). The ‘conservation banking’ mechanism in effect requires that wind energy developers buy their consents with taxpayers money, sometimes throwing money at communities that do not want or need the money. I’m sure those living in flood risk areas both in the UK and in the 3rd world will be comforted by this thought.
The new Infrastructure Planning Commission being introduced by the UK Government to speed up planning decisions is widely seen in the wind industry as being of restricted value to onshore wind energy projects because it will only be able to decide on projects of 50MW or more (circa 25 wind turbines). As Vestas have pointed out virtually all onshore farms fall below the 50MW threshold so they will not benefit from the new commission.
The introduction of a ‘conservation bank’ is also likely to reduce small scale and community developed renewable energy projects as the costs of development rise further.
