Generation on brownfield sites tipped to cut constraint costs

The government has been urged to open up brownfield sites for electricity generation infrastructure.

MPs were told that using brownfield sites – which are closer to centres of demand – would cut network constraint costs, during a House of Commons energy security and net zero committee meeting.

Fiona Gilmore, founder of Suffolk Energy Action Solution (SEAS) said using “centralised strategic planning on brownfield sites […] wherever possible for major energy hubs” should be “absolutely central” for winning over local communities to new renewables.

Plans for new transmission lines have encountered widespread opposition across East Anglia while new offshore wind farms have been mired in court challenges, largely due to the grid infrastructure they will require.

As one example for using brownfield sites, SEAS backs a proposed major new substation at Sizewell, next to EDF’s nuclear power station.

Using previously developed sites closer to demand could maximise such new developments’ energy efficiency, Gilmore said: “You can have a reduction in constraint costs and you can go more efficiently using HVDC.”

She said the UK has an “extraordinary reluctance” to use brownfield land for energy but while such sites are much more expensive to upgrade than “unspoiled” countryside, those costs are “insignificant” in the context of delivering the government’s wider 50GW offshore wind target.

Gilmore described the government’s proposed package of community benefits, also announced in the autumn statement, as a “gimmick or a stunt”, which had made people “quite angry”.

The government has mooted up to £10,000 in energy bill discounts to individuals living close to new grid infrastructure and £200,000 for affected communities.

A “much more sophisticated tool” is required that would address the economic impact of projects, she said.

Jo Wall, senior strategy director at council support body Local Partnerships, told the committee that communities feel current levels of community payments offered by solar developers are “taking the mick”.

Estimating that solar farm owners are offering as little as one per cent of their operating costs to communities, when their developments are earning “tens of millions”, she said: “What is on offer is not proportionate.”

Wall backed community benefits being counted as material planning considerations when weighing up applications because it would give communities more “leverage” when negotiating with renewables developers.