Response to our consultation on National Grid Electricity Transmission’s proposed Visual Impact Provision policy
Decision
Publication date
Industry sector
Transmission Network
Dear Colleagues,
As part of the current transmission price control, RIIO-T1, we introduced a policy that would allow the electricity transmission owners to reduce the visual impact of existing infrastructure in national parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Scenic Areas. Under this initiative, a transmission owner can ask for funding for projects to reduce the visual impact of transmission infrastructure in protected areas. However, before a transmission owner, in this case National Grid, can ask us to approve funding for a specific project, it must have a policy on how it will work with stakeholders to identify and prioritise projects that would yield the greatest visual improvements.
National Grid submitted its proposed visual impact provision (VIP) policy to us in December 2013. We assessed this against the requirements set out in its electricity transmission licence and in February 2014 consulted stakeholders on our assessment. We’ve reviewed the responses, and do not think they raise any major issues with National Grid’s policy.
Having considered the responses to the consultation, we think National Grid’s VIP policy fulfils its purpose and includes the required elements set out in Special Condition 6G (“Mitigating the impact of Pre-existing Transmission Infrastructure on the visual amenity of Designated Areas”) of the electricity transmission licence. As a result, we support National Grid’s implementation of its VIP policy, and aren’t making any changes.
Responses to the consultation
We received six responses to the consultation. We have reviewed these and considered the issues raised with National Grid’s policy in the context of the requirements set out in the electricity transmission licence. We have decided not to make any changes to the policy for the issues that were raised because we don’t think this would best achieve the requirements set out in the licence. Some issues are not significant enough to justify changing the proposed policy. In addition, some of the other issues raised are not, in our view, well-founded. And for some issues we don’t think it would be desirable or appropriate to change the policy as this could restrict the ability of the Stakeholder Advisory Group to further refine some aspects of the process that would better achieve the requirements of the licence.
We have summarised the issues with National Grid’s policy raised in responses, along with our responses, in Appendix 1 of our full letter at the link below.
One stakeholder raised a couple of issues relating to the general policy for this funding provision in the price control. As these are not directly relevant to our decision on the suitability of National Grid’s proposed policy we don’t cover these in this letter or Appendix 1. We will follow up separately to provide clarification on the areas raised in relation to the general policy at a later date.
Yours faithfully,
Kersti Berge
Partner, Electricity Transmission