Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I welcome Mr Patrick McClughan, Mr Michael Gordon and Ms Meabh Cormacain. We have one more person.

Mr Patrick McClughan (Northern Ireland Renewables Industry Group): I will introduce as I go round, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. That is fine. We are very tight for time. Can you give us just five minutes, rather than going through a long presentation? We have probably all read your paper, and there will probably be a lot of questions to ask you.

Mr McClughan: OK. Chair and members, thank you for offering us the opportunity to brief the Committee again. The Northern Ireland Renewables Industry Group (NIRIG) is the voice of the Irish Wind Energy Association and Renewable UK in Northern Ireland. We certainly appreciate your interest in the renewable technology that delivers such a high proportion of our clean electricity in Northern Ireland. I would like to introduce myself as chair of NIRIG; Meabh Cormacain, policy and communications coordinator; Dr Michael Gordon, vice chair; and Dr Matthew Cassidy, member and noise specialist. We intend to make a short presentation today, and we are happy to take questions afterwards.

We strongly believe that we have the opportunity to develop a clean, low-carbon future for Northern Ireland. This Committee has a crucial role to play in committing to the vision and strategies that will deliver a more sustainable energy future, now and in the coming 12 months. It is widely accepted that our members' projects leave a legacy of benefit, and we look forward to continuing to develop and deliver benefits locally.

I will hand over to Meabh for the presentation.

Ms Meabh Cormacain (Northern Ireland Renewables Industry Group): Thank you, again, Chair and Committee. I will briefly discuss a few issues. I am aware that they are not, perhaps, within the remit of the inquiry, but they are of crucial importance to the sector at this time. We are really looking forward to 2015, which is an extremely important year for a number of reasons, amongst which is the fact that we will have a new single planning policy statement (SPPS). We have seen a few areas of concern within the draft SPPS. The SPPS in its draft form — and, I assume, in its final form — emphasises sustainable development. That is a golden thread which we believe is of fundamental importance. We believe that it is, therefore, vital that renewable energy is a particularly core element of our sustainable future, and there should continue to be a presumption in favour of renewable energy in the final version of the SPPS.

There is one particular notable absence in the SPPS which we would like to bring to the attention of the Committee. The local councils will be developing their own development plans going forward. There is no reference to the strategic energy framework anywhere in the draft SPPS. We see that as a major gap. Our understanding, therefore, is that councils could potentially draft development plans that do not take into account our Executive-agreed strategic energy framework. We think that that is a fundamental problem that should be addressed.

The renewable sector, particularly the wind industry, is highlighted in the draft SPPS in terms of community benefit and engagement. We think that the industry is a leader in both those regards. We have an objection to being singled out, given that we are a leader and we have produced protocols and the best practice guidance for the industry.

My colleague Michael will raise a couple of other issues.

Mr Michael Gordon (Northern Ireland Renewables Industry Group): In the five months — 20-odd weeks — to local government reform, we are keen to focus on transitional arrangements. We believe that it is important that planning applications that are currently in the system with the strategic projects team stay there, get closed out and stay with DOE.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Are they article 31s?

Mr Gordon: Some of them are article 31s, and others are strategic but not article 31. In relation to new applications in the system after 1 April next year, the threshold for wind projects should be 5 MW. Projects above that threshold should stay with the DOE and not sit with local government. Appropriate call-in measures and facilities also need to be available to allow the Department to call in wind projects where their determination is important for Executive priorities and the strategic energy framework (SEF).

Ms Cormacain: There is one other issues, just before I hand over to Patrick to conclude. We mentioned it in our briefing paper that we submitted last week. To give the Committee an update, we had raised concerns about resourcing, particularly in the NIEA, and the time lines for the turnaround of projects. Subsequently, we had a productive meeting with the Environment Agency, and we received a letter from it stating that we would seek solutions together. Our issue in our paper was major delays in applications, plus compliance. We are hoping that they can be resolved. That updates the Committee on what was in our papers.

Mr McClughan: As the Committee will be aware, other significant policies are being developed or amended for the renewable energy sector in 2014-17. They include two fundamental changes in our energy markets by 2017. That means a sustained effort on the part of the developers to make sure that projects are operational by this date. The urgency of an efficient planning system is, therefore, compounded.

In conclusion, the renewables industry has delivered lower-carbon electricity, hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds of local investment in Northern Ireland. That is a direct success of a clear government vision, strategy and political will. Targets work, but they need full political commitment. We ask the Committee to take an active interest in the strategic energy framework review, the single planning policy statement and all other renewables-related policies to ensure that the long-term future of our environment remains a government priority. We urge that all such policy is based on robust, credible, consistent and peer-reviewed evidence.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Thank you very much. I think you were here when the previous group, Windwatch, talked to us.

Ms Cormacain: We were outside.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Were you able to listen to some of their comments?

Ms Cormacain: The last couple of minutes.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): They mentioned a lot of issues about legality and whether the EU directive or the UK renewable energy action plan are valid, so maybe we should talk to the Department. They mention a lot about noise level, distance and whether the ETSU guidelines are up to date. They are talking about whether 2 kilometres set-back distance should be the right distance. There are a lot of issues, mostly about noise, flicker distance, shadow flicker, low-frequency noise, not complying with methods, and whether people's claims of carbon reductions and community benefits are being tested. Can you respond to those questions? I am just going to ask one large lot of questions, and then you can answer.

Mr McClughan: There are no statutory limits in relation to separation distance, but I will let Dr Cassidy fill you in on the 2 kilometre Scottish indicator that you illustrated. He will give some information around the three different levels.

Dr Matthew Cassidy (Northern Ireland Renewables Industry Group): In relation to separation distance, noise is a separate issue because it is not really relevant. Noise itself is based on nuisance. You are talking about 500 metres in PPS 18 and 2 kilometres in the Scotland guidance. The 2 kilometres in the Scotland guidance comes about with spatial awareness. In that framework, it categorises three different categories. There are places where you cannot build wind farms, and also places where you can build wind farms. The 2 kilometres issue comes in where there are areas of significant interest, and you cannot build wind farms within 2 kilometres of villages and towns and things like that. That is not in relation to noise; that is in relation to landscape and visual purposes. In relation to noise, it is really about the level of noise that is permitted to not cause disturbance. That is where limits come in.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That guideline seemed to be out of date. Do you agree that that needs to be reviewed?

Dr Cassidy: The fundamental principles of the ETSU-R-97 guidelines that you referred to are still as valid today as they have always been, because they are based on a set of limits. The issues with ETSU that have been identified over the years have been addressed in the good practice guide, which I am sure you have heard about previously. The good practice guide defines a methodology to predict the level of noise, which was not in ETSU itself, but the principles of ETSU in respect of actual levels and limits that are permissible — there has to be a reasonable balance between protecting residential amenity and not unreasonably restricting development. So those two documents go hand in hand at providing a robust assessment and protecting residential amenity.

Ms Cormacain: I am assuming that it was based on actual carbon emission reductions. We included a figure in our briefing notes, which was 628,000 tons of CO2 savings in Northern Ireland in 2013-14. The calculation behind that includes the number of megawatts of renewable energy installed, multiplied by the average capacity factor. It includes the average savings of CO2 per megawatt, which is based on a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) figure. I can send through the exact calculation afterwards. I may not have included it, but I can send that through.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That would be useful.

Ms Cormacain: It is a standard figure that is used throughout the UK, and it is based on calculations that we have taken primarily from DECC as well as installed capacity.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You also said that almost one fifth of Northern Ireland's electricity from April 2013 to March 2014 came from renewable sources.

Ms Cormacain: It did. You will be very aware that the targets contained in the Programme for Government are 20% of our electricity consumed from renewable resources by 2015, which is next year. We have hit 19·5%, which we think is a great success. Of that, almost 94% came from onshore wind. We obviously have our 2020 targets, which we recommend that we do not lose sight of at this point, particular given that —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It is 35%. Is that right?

Ms Cormacain: It is 35% reduction in greenhouse gases, but there is a 40% renewables target. A cost/benefit analysis is being carried out at the minute by DETI in preparation for a mid-term review of the SEF next year. We really encourage the Committee to take an active interest in the strategic energy framework review, because we believe that the 40% targets are absolutely achievable by 2020 with the right commitment in place. Any watering down of those targets would be a really bad signal for investment and for Northern Ireland generally. That is a bit of a plea on our side in terms of the Committee and the strategic energy framework.

Before I left the office today, I did a quick check, and 29% of our electricity is coming from wind today. It was 32% yesterday, and the day before, all-island — because we are in an all-island system — it was 44%. You may have seen something in the UK press on Tuesday. They were very pleased with themselves that 24% of their electricity was coming from renewables. We are regularly hitting 30% and 40% in Northern Ireland. So it is working, and it is a substantial part of our electricity mix at the moment.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): What about the accusation that we are all subsidising wind energy? As they said, we have not seen a decrease in electricity prices in the last 10 years?

Ms Cormacain: There is a support system in place to encourage low-carbon generation. That is effectively to try to get generation into place before it becomes too late. The support system up until now has been called the renewables obligation. It is changing throughout the UK, and Northern Ireland will see that change to a different support system in 2017.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Is it the ROCs?

Ms Cormacain: The ROCs will change to a contract for difference, which we are calling a CFD. There are costs, but to give some alternative figures, in 2011 and 2012, Ofgem estimated that the cost of low carbon per household was 3·2p per day, which works out at about £12 a year. Those are figures from a few years ago. We have done our own research that says that there will be a cost of about £7 per year per consumer bill to reach Northern Ireland's 2020 targets . We would also like to point out that between 2004 and 2011 — this is a DECC figure — average household energy bills doubled. Some 85% of that was the rise in the cost of gas. So there is a cost, but it is a very minimal cost based on the benefits.

You also mentioned the legality. I was assuming that was the Aarhus convention. There were two cases. There was an Irish case and then a UK ruling which upheld, more or less, the Irish judgement. They both more or less say the same thing, which is, effectively, that the future national renewable energy action plans (NREAP) should be consulted on in such a way to comply with the convention. It did not affect the current one. The ruling also specifically noted that the NREAP is not a planning document, and the committee rejected a number of challenges made against relevant UK and Scottish Government policy documents. It also rejected a specific claim on a wind farm application. So all the relevant material, policies and processes were shown to be compliant with the directive, and the recommendations that came out would affect future rulings. Again, I am not a legal expert, but if you want more information on that, I will be happy to send some more through.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That would be useful. We took legal advice on that. Mr McMullan raised that issue with us. What was the legal advice? That the UK Government have not breached anything?

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

Mr McElduff: I draw your attention to guidance protocols developed by local government authorities in my part of the world. Omagh, Strabane and Fermanagh councils have developed guidance proposals on community benefits from wind energy for host communities. Does NIRIG have a clear understanding of what those guidance protocols and suggestions are? Might NIRIG review its policy on community benefits to reflect the protocol proposals coming from Omagh, Strabane and Fermanagh councils?

Ms Cormacain: I was aware that there had been draft protocols from two council areas. The Committee will know that, last January, we published a community commitment protocol. It was based on the situation at the time. We reviewed that this year, and produced best practice guidance. We did not want to focus specifically and solely on community benefits, because there is a lot more to communities than a community benefit scheme. There is an awful lot that needs to be done in respect of engagement, talking, early consultation and all of those other issues. So the good practice guidance covered a range of issues and included recommendations on early engagement and how to engage.

As I said before, I think the wind industry leads by good example, particularly when it comes to engagement. Our recommendations on community benefit reiterated our previous recommendation, which is that there should be a minimum threshold. We then went further and recommended higher levels of community benefits, where possible. It is something that we have always said, and will continue to say: no two projects are the same and no two communities are the same. So we did not feel it was appropriate to have a flat rate for every project. Also, there are very significant rates increases coming down the line. At the minute, the rateable level for wind farms is £4,000 a megawatt, but we are expecting that to increase by up to 800% on 1 April next year. So there is going to be a significant financial difference in the local authority income from wind farms and individual wind turbines as of April.

Mr McClughan: That June guidance document that Meabh is referring to also recommends that our member developers provide the opportunity for interested communities to discuss with said developers the joint ownership, or potential for joint ownership, of wind farm schemes. My day job is at Gaelectric, in the member's area. We have two wind farms that are currently under construction, and we are rolling out two very good community benefit funds in the area. So you can see it on the ground, and it is fantastic to watch communities benefit from something that is spinning away in the background, generating electricity and providing that much-needed support to local communities, especially in these austere times.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We had lunch with members of that group. We heard about the community benefit and the community centre. They certainly get benefit out of it.

Mr McElduff: I am interested in the figures. We have this figure of £1,000 a megawatt, but it has been suggested to me some companies offer £5,000 a megawatt. I do not know whether this is right, Patrick, but it says that over the 25-year lifespan of the Dunbeg project, you are really just talking about £567 a megawatt, which is below the NIRIG best practice guidelines.

Mr McClughan: It is maybe not up to date. The Dunbeg project is about to be commissioned. It is a 42 MW scheme, and it is a fantastic opportunity for us as a company. It will offer over £1 million a year; it is at £1,000 a megawatt.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your presentation. You are welcome back, Meabh. I have a few questions about Tullyneill wind farm. Can anybody answer questions on that, please? Obviously, it is down my way, and I am liaising with the community. I am interested in this because I have heard a few wee things on the grapevine, and I seek clarity. It is in relation to the community benefit issue.

Obviously, in the process, you will comply with the 500-metre limit in terms of the SPPS by-law. NIE takes out a way leave on ground. Can you talk me through your process? Have you talked to any landowners yet or offered any contracts or agreements? You do not have to give me the details, but tell me whether any contracts have been signed with people in that area inside the 500 metre distance?

Mr McClughan: With respect to the Tullyneill application, there are landowners who own land within the 500 metres, and perhaps own land even 1 metre from the turbine, because, obviously, a turbine will be located on their land, so that is a fact.

Mr Boylan: Have they signed contracts with you already?

Mr McClughan: Yes. They are in a financial agreement with us.

Mr Boylan: An advance agreement through —

Mr McClughan: Even before we submit a planning application, we have all those financial agreements in place.

Mr Boylan: Obviously, that is confidential.

Mr McClughan: Yes.

Mr Boylan: I ask that because the people are happy enough, but it does fly in the face of the policy. Do you know what I mean? It is within 500 metres of a wind farm. Is that correct?

Mr McClughan: There is no set separation distance.

Mr Boylan: That is the whole point. Chair, we are at this now long enough. There is no point in having the PPS 18 policy if companies are going to do that. We will be looking at that for the report. I am trying to tease it out.

I have read your marketing strategy, and I have heard genuine concerns from people there about deflation of house prices and so on. Your marketing strategy states that falling house prices is not an issue. Have you the specific —

Mr McClughan: We have been asked that a number of times by the same individual at Tullyneill. All the academic research published, even abroad, states that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that wind farms have a devaluing effect on house prices.

Mr Boylan: Let me follow that up, Patrick. It is a serious issue, and it is a local issue for me; I have been asked these questions. I do not imagine that people would buy a house if they knew that six wind turbines would be built nearby. Is that the right number of turbines?

Mr McClughan: Yes, hopefully.

Mr Boylan: Your brochure states that all the research shows that it will not impact house prices. However, no one would go to an estate agent and buy a house near a wind turbine unless they were offered a house for £1,000. I am trying to tease it out.

Mr McClughan: Tullyneill, in particular, is a great example. The literature that we circulated on the first day that we went to the community to seek its opinion — at the community consultation event — was reviewed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and it gave our publication a clean bill of health. Last year, a claim was made by an anti-wind farm group that there was a direct impact on the price of houses in proximity to wind farms, and that proximity caused prices to fall. However, the ASA ruled that that was misleading and could not be substantiated.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I recall reading something about house prices dropping and that some country has a policy of asking developers to compensate for that drop in prices. Do you know anything about that?

Mr McClughan: I am a chartered surveyor, and you have to take so much into context: the housing market, the condition of the house, its desirability, proximity to schools and education and all that. A myriad of issues has to be considered.

Mr Boylan: You outlined some general points. I want to tease this out with you. In my experience, 99% of the population would not buy a house near a wind farm.

Ms Cormacain: Fair enough. However, a study was carried out earlier this year in the States, and it is the most recent research that I have access to. I know that you are talking about what you think 99% of your constituents would do. However, 51,000 houses and households were surveyed in America in this study, and they were closer to wind turbines than in any previous study. I will quote directly:

I can send the link to that report to you. It is important to base it on the statistical research that has been done and that is out there.

Mr Boylan: Meabh, I could argue the point that America is not here — let us be honest — but I will not get into that.

Ms Cormacain: There have also been UK studies.

Mr Boylan: I could argue that some parts of the UK are not here either. Patrick, you outlined some of your terms of reference, but, realistically, I do not know anyone who would buy a house between 1 metre and 10 metres away from a wind farm. I would like some other member to argue this point with me.

Mr McClughan: I will give you some context. Our Carn Hill wind farm, which has six wind turbines, is on the outskirts of Belfast and is very visible to people who are flying in and out etc. About two months after it was commissioned, a house at the very bottom of the lane on the site, which has full sight of at least four of the turbines, sold for a higher price than it was being marketed at. That is my direct experience. I have no more to give you, unfortunately.

Mr Boylan: That is grand, but it certainly does not instil confidence in the communities. Let us be realistic. It is up to the company — you have signed contracts already — but the guidelines under PPS 18 that houses cannot be any less than 500 metres from a wind farm are not worth the paper that they are written on.

Ms Cormacain: Cathal, we want to make sure that the policies are based on robust, credible, peer-reviewed evidence. All we can do is provide you with the evidence that we find.

Mr Boylan: I am not arguing —

Ms Cormacain: We are keen to have policies that are based on those.

Mr Boylan: I am mindful of your opening comment about the SPPS, Meabh. You are looking at the policy and feel that, because of local area plans, there may not be room, strategically, for that kind of development. I am also mindful of the fact that we are using PPS 18, but nobody is adhering to it. That is underlined by the fact that contracts have been signed.

You have answered one of my questions. I have another question for Patrick. You are familiar with Gaelectric. Are you aware of any families that have left any of the sites that you are working on anywhere on the island?

Mr McClughan: Yes. Mr and Mrs Keane decided to leave their property close to our Skrine wind farm, which is a two-turbine site in County Roscommon. That was played out to the extreme in the Southern media. Our offer to Mr and Mrs Keane still stands, but, unfortunately, they have decided not to take us up on that and to move out of their property, which, incidentally, is more than 700 metres from the nearest turbine.

Mr Boylan: I am asking those questions because we will publish a report. We have heard from both sides, and I am caught in the middle. Sinn Féin supports renewable energy — we stick by that — but there are concerns about whether the 40% target is realistic and achievable.

Ms Cormacain: Absolutely.

Mr Boylan: I have a final question about the ETSU-R-97. We took evidence from an acoustics expert on that. I am sorry, but I did not pick up what you said about that. Did you say that it is being reviewed or that it needs to be reviewed?

Dr Cassidy: During previous Committee evidence sessions, representatives from environmental health said that it should be reviewed, and I think that your acoustics expert also said that it should be reviewed.

The basic principles of ETSU-R-97 are a set of limits, which are still applicable and are based on legislation and guidance. ETSU-R-97 has been endorsed by all the regions of the UK, as has the good practice guide. From our perspective, it does not need to be reviewed.

Wind farms go to appeal and public inquiries, and ETSU-R-97 is reviewed at those all the time and is open to question. That is why we have the good practice guide to help with that. As I said, issues have been identified about how you predict noise from wind farms and deal with other characteristics of noise. That is why things such as the good practice guide have come about.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): They argued that the level that has been set is far too low. Do you agree with that?

Dr Cassidy: As regards the actual noise levels, that is the opinion of environmental health and others. From our perspective, the actual levels are designed for disturbance, nuisance and sleep deprivation. The figures have come about based on that. Another way to look at this is to do with reasonableness and restricting development. It is designed for the general population, but some people are more sensitive to noise than others. There has to be a balance in that context.

Mr A Maginness: I will be very brief. I have a couple of questions, one of which relates to the 178 MW per annum or thereabouts between 2015 and 2020. Do you think that that is achievable?

Ms Cormacain: I think that it is definitely sustainable because the alternative is not to build them and to continue to be more and more reliant on fossil fuels. That is the calculation that we need to get us to 2020. The system operator has said that the range of factors, including what demand will look like in 2020, will affect the 40%. It will be between 1,350 MW and 1,650 MW of installed capacity of renewable energy. So, the figure of 178 MW is taking the time that is left and the distance that we have to go.

Mr A Maginness: Is it right that, this year, you have installed over 200 MW?

Ms Cormacain: No. I think that I included that —

Mr A Maginness: Your paper states that 172 MW of large-scale renewable energy is expected to connect during 2014 and that 41 MW of large-scale renewable energy generation has been connected to date.

Ms Cormacain: Yes. We included that figure as an illustration of some of the other challenges that are beyond the remit of the Committee and the inquiry. There is a major problem with connecting large and small renewable developments to the grid. That applies to wind, solar and others.

Mr A Maginness: So, that explains —

Ms Cormacain: The discrepancy.

Mr A Maginness: — the apparent shortfall.

Ms Cormacain: Yes. As we said, 2017 is a very important year for market changes. There is a real push to get connected before 2017. The grid is one of our challenges.

Mr A Maginness: I have one final point that relates to local government reform, which has been central to the Committee's work. You said that you believe that any live wind farm applications at the time of transition should be concluded by the strategic projects team at DOE headquarters. In other words, applications that are in the system should be completed by the strategic team. What about later applications that are outside that time? Are you saying that they should remain?

Mr Gordon: Ideally, yes. After 1 April, everything above the 5 megawatt threshold would be —

Mr A Maginness: Let me paraphrase what you are saying. "This is very important, and we have to get it right. The strategic team has the expertise etc. It would not be efficient to go to local councils because they have to relearn everything. It is better to keep these applications with the strategic team at headquarters". Is that right?

Mr Gordon: That is correct.

Mr McClughan: That will be the thrust of our consultation response on the draft SPPS.

Lord Morrow: Thank you for your presentation. I will be very brief because some of the issues have already been touched on. We have been shown maps today that show the density of saturation right around Northern Ireland. I see that you have 19 applications, and you are still waiting for a decision on 17 of them. What way have they been dispersed?

Ms Cormacain: I assume that you have seen the small-scale wind turbine map and the large wind farm development map. I am happy for colleagues to jump in to answer. DETI has implemented a good support programme for single turbines. It is generous and based on diversifying rural incomes. There has been a real upswing in the number of single turbine applications. I do not think that any of my colleagues who work in that area would question me when I say that I do not think that they will all be built out. Grid connection costs for single turbines have increased rapidly. That is one of the big challenges. So, I would not assume that all or even a major part of those single turbines will be built. As for large-scale developments generally, there is a whole range of —

Lord Morrow: The 19 applications — the wind farms —

Ms Cormacain: They are large-scale wind farms.

Lord Morrow: Will you comment on that?

Ms Cormacain: A whole series of constraints affect where a wind farm can be built. There are a huge number of factors, ranging from the obvious wind speed to whether a location is in an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) or within a certain distance of an overhead line. The list of factors goes on and on. The policy states that those constraints will be taken into account.

The wind farm applications have been made for sites in areas where the policy states that it is possible to build them. The figures of 17 and19 are a reference to the fact that an awful lot of the applications that have been submitted in the last 18 months have not been turned around within the six-month target that we understand is in the Programme for Government. I am not sure whether any of my colleagues want to come in on that point.

Mr Gordon: With the dispersal of the 17 wind farms, there are some new sites, but it is fair to say that some are applications for extensions to existing sites. You mentioned saturation, and I think that you are probably referring to the landscape and visual impact in particular.

Lord Morrow: I am thinking about County Tyrone and places like that?

Mr Gordon: Challenging planning judgements need to be made there. There are two sides to the argument: that there has been saturation; and that it is about consolidation. They are two sides of the same coin.

Lord Morrow: It is a glass half-empty or half-full situation.

Mr Gordon: Yes. Meabh mentioned the obvious point that applications are submitted for locations where the wind speed is highest, and there is an obvious coincidence between the highest wind speeds and the highest landscapes. We work within constraints, but planning judgements need to be made.

It is worth recording that there is no free-for-all in planning. It is not easy to get planning permission for a wind farm. It is quite challenging, which is why it takes quite a long time. I am sure that, in your discussions with the Department, that has also been the feedback. The policy is operated in such a way that judgements are made. Applications that should not be approved are not approved, and there are examples of refusals and of applications being withdrawn when it has looked as if they would be refused. It is not a free-for-all, and not every submitted application is approved.

Lord Morrow: Would you like to comment on the economics of the issue? It has all been sold on the premise that we will have cheaper energy costs, but households have not seen that coming through.

Ms Cormacain: I do not know that it is really fair to say that the population has been sold it on the basis of cheaper energy. The argument for sustainable energy goes way beyond prices. It is about a sustainable future.

I mentioned that there are costs to developing a new energy system. Fundamentally, we are in the middle of a major shift in and restructuring of our entire energy system. That happened when we were electrified 100-odd years ago, and it is happening again. We are facing challenges as the grid suddenly has to cope with different demands being made of it. People are also now seeing their sources of energy whereas before, if they did not live near Ballylumford or Kilroot, they did not see where their energy came from, and they switched on the light and that was that. We are in a period of major flux, and there are challenges. We are also unavoidably facing higher fossil fuel prices.

The trend is up, and it has been upwards for a very long time. A study was carried out a few years ago that stated that, if we hit our 2020 targets, the wholesale cost of electricity in the all-island market will fall by 11·5% as a result of renewable energy. In the long term, I do not think that we can afford not to develop these sources of energy, because we will be reliant on fossil fuels that do increase in price.

Lord Morrow: You talk about fossil fuels. Your paper states that you had €1 billion of savings in the past five years.

Ms Cormacain: Yes. That is as a result of renewables. I pulled that figure from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland report, so I do not have equivalent figures for Northern Ireland alone. I am afraid that they are Ireland figures. They are just an example.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We have also heard from Mrs Walsh, our special adviser for the report, that some people may use second-hand reconditioned turbines. Would the industry do that?

Mr McClughan: Generally, on large-scale wind farm sites, there are brand new machines that are specifically designed and constructed for that site. The usage of second-hand reconditioned technology and assets is on small- to medium-scale single turbine sites. They are reconditioned to a very high standard. If they were not, they would not be allowed to connect to the grid, for example. They should be scrutinised from a warranty perspective as any asset would be with regard to technology warranty and availability. So, they should be of good condition generally.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Would they have the benefit of newer technology to reduce noise?

Ms Cormacain: It would depend. A reconditioned turbine does not necessarily mean that it is any better or any worse than a new turbine. If it is properly fitted, it should not be any noisier. If it is noisy, that implies that it has not been fitted properly and is not particularly efficient. There is no real benefit to having a noisy reconditioned turbine. I do not know how many are being used. They are cheaper. I suspect that a number of individuals are probably interested in putting up a turbine on their land and are looking at them as cheaper options.

Mr McClughan: All developments that receive planning permission are subject to post-construction noise monitoring surveys. We all have to undertake noise surveys after a wind farm has been constructed. Generally, the experience is that it is better than what was proposed. Do you want to fill in on that, Michael?

Mr Gordon: From my experience of the noise issue, lots of assumptions are made in the prediction of noise. Often, when the post-commissioning noise surveys are undertaken, it is found that the predictions were overstated. The actual noise is less than what was predicted through the noise impact assessment.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Are you saying that, in 2017, you will see a drop in renewable energy applications because of the change in policies?

Ms Cormacain: Given that it takes so long to get from thinking about a wind farm to having it in the ground — five, seven or 10 years — at this time, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what 2017 looks like. There are wind farms that have planning permission, which investors want to ensure are connected before 2017 so that they know exactly what their returns will be. There are projects that are still in planning that we would like to get through planning and connected to the grid. Obviously, that is dependent on regulatory and NIE work before 2017. By the time that 2017 comes round, we will know — fingers crossed — what the support system and market will look like. Hopefully, by 2017, we will have a very good idea what our 2030 targets need to be. At that point, we will be looking beyond 2020 and into 2030. At this time, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what the level of applications may be. By 2017, we will know something different about the number of applications.

Mr McClughan: Uncertainty is key from an investor's perspective, in the sense that investors want to see what the future looks like and what revenue streams will appear to them to be. They can lend on that basis and price that debt accordingly. When there is uncertainty, a little bit of turbulence or greyness around what may be coming down the line, investors take a step back across all industries. They say, "We will just watch what is happening here". It is up to us as an industry association to get involved and be proactive to get as much information for our members as possible. We are confident that there will be a market for us post 2017. We may not know what that looks like just yet, but we hope to know by early next year. That certainty that, up to 2017, gives us and our investors the confidence that is needed to keep investing.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I presume that you have responded to the consultation on the draft SPPS to raise your points. Thank you very much indeed. It is very nice to meet you all again.