Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Chris Banks RES

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Chris Banks RES
Date advice given
6 October 2014
Enquiry type
Email

Correspondence dated 23 September 2014:

It has been proposed that the solar PV farm and the wind farm located at the former Woolfox Lodge airfield in Rutland could be considered as a single power station because of the co-location of the two proposed power stations on the airfield site. RES has considered this proposal against industry documentation which provides guidance on the definition of a power station and believes that the two farms differ sufficiently in terms of generating plant, fuel and independence of operating arrangements for them to be considered as two power stations.

In an email from Kathryn Powell of The Planning Inspectorate to Nick Thrower (RCC) on 27 August it was noted that there does not appear to be any relevant case law related to this matter as it is a fairly new approach and she recommends Ofgem’s Renewables Obligation: Guidance for Generators (April 2014) as helpful in determining this matter. RES agrees with Ms Powell in both respects, in that:

  1. There is no direct equivalent of this situation that we know of, but there are several comparable occurrences from which we would like to draw parallels.

  2. After considering to what extent other grid documents define a power station we have found them to either be irrelevant or inconclusive leaving the Ofgem Guidance for Generators note as the most suitable guidance in this matter. The alternative documents considered include the Electricity Act 1989, the GB Grid Code and typical terms found in DNO Connection Agreements. Whilst there is no clear definition of a power station arising from statute, regulatory code and policy guidance, Appendix 1 to the Ofgem guidance does set out criteria by which a power station might be defined. Of those criteria listed in paragraph 1.15 of the appendix, the most salient to the Woolfox scenario are those below:

  3. Renewable Source (point 5): The renewable fuel sources are separate and, if ‘driver’ (point 6) means prime mover, then the drivers and primary equipment for generating electricity are entirely distinct and separate from one another. Both power stations will be subject to their own dedicated control systems that would be entirely independent of one another.

  4. Grid Connection & Metering (point 9): At the time of writing it is proposed that the two power stations will connect to the distribution connection under their own separate agreements. However, even if that was not the connection strategy that RES ultimately pursued and it was decided to connect both power stations via a single grid connection agreement with WPD (the local DNO),the output from each power station would have to be separately metered in order for it to be traceable to the source of renewable generation (point 10). In Great Britain, there are many examples of separate power stations located on adjacent parcels of land using common grid connections. One such example is Lynemouth power station and Lynemouth wind farm, both located adjacent to the now shut down Lynemouth aluminium smelter and both of which use common grid connection assets.

  5. Support contract (point 7): Whilst the two power station projects would be eligible for the Contract for Difference (CfD) support mechanism instead of the Renewables Obligation (with which this document is concerned) each would nonetheless be the subject of its own separate applications for CfD contract. This would mandate the use of dedicated metering for Solar PV farm and also for the wind farm. Use of a CfD contract would also mandate the use of a separate Balancing Mechanism Unit (BMU) for each installation for the purposes of registration under the Balancing and Settlement Code (point 11).

  6. Planning Permission (point 8): It is RES’ intention to submit the solar PV farm and the wind farm as separate applications and therefore the two power stations will be subject to separate approvals and sets of planning conditions. Whilst this point refers back to the planning concern which this note has been created to help address, RES is of the opinion that the nature of the two proposed developments in the landscape is intrinsically different and that the approval of power station should be considered against its own respective set of planning guidance.

In conclusion, the solar PV and wind installations would:

  • be subject to separate support mechanism contracting arrangements, requiring separate metering arrangements for each power station
  • use different fuel sources
  • use entirely different and separate plant and equipment for generating electricity
  • be controlled by separate and individual control systems that will be independent of one another. It is for these key reasons that RES considers that each should be classified as separate power stations with respect to the accreditation guidance issued by Ofgem. This is RES’ opinion but expect that it is one which will be shared by Ofgem.

Correspondence dated 1st October 2014:

Capacity The wind farm application is for 9 turbines. Due the ever changing nature of wind turbine technology the most appropriate turbine for this site can only be decided nearer the point of construction. The wind application is for turbines which are no more than 130m tip height and 80m height hub but this could cover a range of turbines between 1.8MW and 3MW capacity. Therefore the installed capacity range of the wind turbines could be between 16.2MW or 27MW.

For the solar farm, the installed capacity of the panels is currently around 36.74MW however the capacity of the inverters, and therefore the export connection, would be around 26MW (pending detailed design).

We discussed earlier whether the rating of capacity would be taken from the solar panels or the export potential, is this something which is more firmly accepted in planning terms?

Onsite connection We are intending to bring both the wind and the solar connections together onsite to export the power from the same point, as it obviously makes sense that the DNO should be able to connect the assets at the same location. The location of the substation will be near the access point, marked with the arrow near on Nick’s original screen grab.

The application will show that should both projects be consented the connections could be accommodated in the same substation compound and control building. However both of these can be suitability subdivided, both physically and commercially, so that the substation equipment can be segregated and the control building can be subdivided so that access to various rooms is only permitted to either the solar or wind parties. If required the control building, substation and DNO connection can be designed to suit a planning regime which demands absolute separation but this would increase the overall cost of generation at a time when we are all working to bring the cost of renewables down.

Connection to the network As stated in the in my previous position paper, both the solar and the wind would be contracting to the DNO under separate agreements. Physically this would mean that each would have their own separately accessible meter in the control building but still leaving the DNO open to design a connection which be most cost effective to connect the level of generation output. We understand from our discussions with the DNO that the generation from both facilities could potentially fit down a single cable circuit and this might be the cost effective solution for a set level of export, alternatively they could be separate cable or overhead line circuits. But again this would come down to cost based design solution.

In terms of the routes to the network, we would be heading toward the substation at Cherryholt Road in Stamford, approximately 9km (direct) to the south east. The route to the substation would more than likely be along or alongside roads, so there are a number of options; either following the A1 and approaching Stamford via Great Casterton or using the country roads and going up to Pickworth and then either down through Great Casterton or Ryhall.

In essence the design of the connection could be increased to more or less of a degree to make obvious the separation of the two power stations; however this would only serve to increase costs and we would not feel that this affects the basic distinctions between the two projects that were highlighted in my previous email.

Advice given

In the RES memorandum it is stated that RES ‘believes that the two farms differ sufficiently in terms of generating plant, fuel and independence of operating arrangements for them to be considered as two power stations’ and that it is RES’s intention to submit separate planning applications.

In relation to onshore generating stations, section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (‘PA 2008’) states that the construction or extension of a generating station is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project if the generating station is, or when constructed or extended, is expected to be located in England or Wales and its capacity is more than 50MW.

In the absence of any statutory definition or applicable case law, we consider that the term ‘capacity’ within section 15 of the PA 2008 refers to the ‘Total Installed Capacity’ which is defined in the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 (SI 2009/785) as follows:

‘Total Installed Capacity’ in relation to a generating station, means the maximum capacity at which the station could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it (assuming the source of power used by it to generate electricity was available to it without interruption).

We therefore do not consider the capacity of the inverters and the export connection to be a relevant factor in determining if a proposal is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and we note that the combined capacity of the solar and wind farm is over 50MW.

In the absence of any statutory definition of what constitutes one generating station, we consider the Ofgem ‘Renewables Obligation: Guidance for Generators 2014’ to be relevant. This document recognises that there is no definition for a generating station, aside from a definition of a hydro generating station, however it clearly identifies two presumptions:

  1. In paragraph 1.12 it states ‘If a generating station comprises several sets of equipment for generating electricity which are grouped together in a way which would ordinarily be seen as one generating station, then the generator of this generating station will need to point to something particular to justify these sets of equipment for generating electricity being seen as more than one generating station’. It is also made clear at paragraph 1.10 that ‘A generating station can include several sets of equipment for generating electricity eg boilers, turbines, engines, photovoltaic panels’.

  2. Secondly, paragraph 1.13 states that ‘sets of equipment for generating electricity are ordinarily one generating station if they are on the same premises and where they are owned and or operated by the same or connected or associated or related persons’.

RES is advised to consider the above paragraphs of the Ofgem guidance in relation to the proposed. On the information provided, it is not clear that these two presumptions have been rebutted.

Paragraph 1.15 lists other factors when determining what sets of equipment for generating electricity taken together constitute a generating station. Whilst the RES Memorandum and subsequent email does refer to some of the factors, we consider it does not refer to each of the relevant factors and would therefore advise RES to further consider all points in paragraph 1.15, including:

Points 1 and 2 regarding ownership of the premises and operation.

Point 5 regarding a mix of solar and onshore wind, however it is not clear whether or not this will be a factor considered to be in favour or against deciding if the development is one generating station.

Point 10 in reference to metering states ‘separate metering is a prerequisite for separate generating stations but it is not sufficient in itself for the sets of equipment for generating electricity to be treated as separate generating stations’. Point 11 also refers to registering the metering but is not conclusive on what the outcome would be.

RES should also consider section 160 of the PA 2008 which states that it is an offence if a person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development. The point at which the offence is committed is once development has begun.

We hope the above information is helpful and we remind RES that the Planning Inspectorate is not able to provide legal advice upon which applicants, and others, can rely.