Tuesday 1 January 2019

Carrots and sticks: Public participation & consent in energy planning

The wide adoption of renewables will require public consent and, arguably, new, more open, approaches to planning control. A new study by Richard Cowell from Cardiff University and Patrick Divine-Wright from Exeter University looks at how we have been doing so far and  asks ‘how have decision-making procedures and support measures for energy infrastructure in the UK changed in the period 2008–2017? How have the changes been justified and how have the publics to be engaged been represented? How has the state struck balances between openness and closure around what can be subject to debate, and what does this say about how public engagement intersects with energy transitions?’

The framing of these questions reflects a concern for democratic participation, but recent history seems to show that, in practice, what has emerged has often just been an exercise in winning consents for technology choices already made by the government, usually reflecting private sector commercial aims. So the planning system is adjusted accordingly. In 2011, Eric Pickles, then a Tory planning minister, commented ‘We need a system that always says ‘yes’ to the right sorts of development’.

The official ‘wish list’ clearly includes nuclear power and shale gas fracking, both of which are highly controversial and unpopular, but both of which have been pushed hard by the government- even to the extent of offering cash incentives for accepting fracking or nuclear plants and (especially) nuclear waste repositories. Offshore wind is still on the list, and is getting support, but on shore wind has fallen off the wish list. Indeed, possibly reflecting the views of the allegedly strongly anti-wind view of Tory shires, it has been blocked by tighter planning controls and the withdrawal of access to financial support. The same has happened to some large allegedly invasive solar projects. So, on a simple view, what we are seeing is the promotion of centrally chosen options and resistance to those considered un-desirable.

However, this study suggests that it’s more complicated than that. Clearly, the government has sought to win consent directly for its chosen options (by community bribes/rewards if necessary), but it has also changed the planning system at all levels. Certainly some projects will be widely seen as undesirable and should be blocked – that is what we expect of the planning system. But while there may be specific local issues for some technologies, what we are seeing now is a systemic approach to the planning and policy system, with on one had some generic technologies being blocked while others are heavily pushed, with the local planning system and wider national policy development system both being changed, limiting the range of issues that can be discussed at the local level. So, for example, once established, admittedly after some public consultation, the central governments Nuclear Policy Statement had been set in stone- there can be no debate over the need for nuclear. Similarly for fracking- which is being pushed through the local planning systems hard, almost by edict, despite strong local opposition. Not much democracy there. 

In some cases, however, the government had attempted to bloc options it considered undesirable by, at least ostensibly, strengthening local democratic processes, empowering local anti-wind campaigns via changes in the planning system. A bow to populism. But that hasn’t worked well for the government in the case of nuclear waste- local councils, newly empowered, have resisted repository plans. So local democracy can be a two-edged sword. Although there is still the option of calling in projects for central government oversight, as has happened in the case of some local wind and solar project that somehow got through! It may yet also happen with nuclear waste. It has to go somewhere and with even more soon on the way from the proposed new plants…

At the same time, and a little confusingly, the government has also backed moves to local ownership of wind & PV projects, and to offering of other local benefits and incentives. A mixed bag then, though mostly consistent if the elite power model implicit in the analysis above is used. The academic study by Cowell et al however seeks to go beyond that approach and to explain all this as being part of an attempt to balance democratic ‘openness’ and engagement, which some see as vital part of a successful energy transition, with technocratic ‘closure’, on the basis of a need to reduce planning delays. The authors say ‘we are not endorsing the approach to decision-making of the UK government’, but claim that ‘steering towards any particular energy pathway, and navigating the shifting infrastructure requirements it creates, is likely to entail steps that structure and manage the scope for public engagement, requiring decisions about which issues are open for contestation at which stage in the policy and decision-making process. This may require balances to be struck between different dimensions of justice, in the light of the situations that certain energy infrastructures create’.

This seems a little apologetic. It is true that decisions have to be made, and delays can be economically wasteful, but lack of wide engagement can be a recipe for social unrest which can have economic and political consequences. Attempts to ‘depoliticise’ planning will just push political pressures elsewhere. In a democracy that may ultimately mean that a new government, with more attractive policies and plans, is chosen. But it seems foolish to go to the wire over every issue. Surely planning can be made more responsive?  Or are we  hopelessly fractious, contrarian and ungovernable?

The economics sometimes clears the air, but not always. For example, it’s hard to see, in economic terms, why Hinkley is going ahead, while much cheaper on-shore wind is being blocked.  Environmental factors are also often deployed in odd way- shale gas is backed while zero carbon biogas gets mostly sidelined.  It is reasonable for there to be debates on issues like this, especially when they present themselves locally. Some local objections may of course be frivolous or a refection of minority views, and some decisions may always be unpopular, with views continuing to differ. So some difficult choices do sometimes have to be made, even if based on views that can be challenged. However, ploughing ahead single-mindedly into direct confrontation, backed up by the police and the courts, as for example in the case of some local fracking protests, is not a sign of an efficient planning and policy system, but of one that is failing.  www.tandfonline.com/eprint/TaqH3vgeKHHyuf7V5WMQ/full


Energy security is a key energy system planning issue. Not one that is likely to show up much directly in local contestations, but important nevertheless. As the UKERC argues in a new study, energy efficiency and system flexibility, along with diversity and balancing, are vital for robust and resilient energy systems. However, a tacit awareness of these principles may shape how people respond to specific projects. Though in practice there may be a need for some trade offs! www.ukerc.ac.uk/asset/EA9A39B6%2D3B36%2D4F68%2DA8CA3DA84A48131D/