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/
