ENTSO-E POSITION PAPER ON PERMITTING PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE

Transcription

1 ENTSO-E POSITION PAPER ON PERMITTING PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE FINAL 1

2 Content 1. Introduction Main Problems Transmission Lines Legal framework for the permitting procedures Duration of permitting procedures Costs of permitting procedures and of compensation measures Social acceptance of projects Balancing environmental and other public interests Additional costs due to delayed construction Substations Proposed Improvements Legal recognition of the importance of priority electricity infrastructure projects Adopt a legal framework which ensures efficient authorization procedures Infrastructure corridors Resources for authorization procedures Present best practices Labeling projects of European relevance Conclusion

3 1. Introduction The aim of the report is to identify the main problems for (TSOs) with regard to authorization procedures for the construction of high voltage transmission lines (110 kv and higher) and substations and to propose tangible recommendations for improving the existing framework at both national and European level. These recommendations are intended to provide better and more effective authorization procedures which, at the same time, guarantee the important environmental and social objectives pursued by these procedures. As pointed out by the European Commission in its Green Paper issued in November 2008, effective electricity infrastructure is fundamental for guaranteeing EU security of energy supply. Ensuring the development of the grid is necessary to permit the achievement of the EU s renewable energy and climate change objectives and for completing the internal market. The issue of securing electricity supplies and integrating renewable energy production into the electricity network are challenges for the governments of all member states. As a consequence, the European Commission has identified numerous high-priority electricity infrastructure projects of European and National interest and looks for additional funding for these projects. The development of electricity infrastructure is thus of crucial national and European importance. Yet, many electricity infrastructure projects face severe obstacles during the authorization phase. The complexity, duration and ineffectiveness of some authorization procedures are the main reasons for delays in completing high-priority electricity infrastructure projects across Europe. It is not uncommon that such projects take 5-10 years to pass the hurdle of authorization procedures required by national law. It is usually a mixture of inappropriate legal frameworks for authorization procedures, opposition from local groups, and administrative practice relating to the conduct of these authorization procedures, which constitute the main obstacles for their timely and effective completion. 2. Main Problems An examination of the legal, administrative and practical framework for authorization procedures has revealed many often similar problems for TSOs in different European countries. For the most part, these problems arise irrespective of whether the developments are domestic or crossborder lines. However, the fact that cross-border lines are often perceived by the public as mere transit lines or commercial lines (and therefore without any further public benefit) can serve as an additional argument against these lines. These lines are primarily understood by objectors to be infrastructure projects answering the single purpose of yielding profit to the concerned electrical utilities. In addressing this issue, one has to distinguish between the responsibilities of TSO s on the one hand and electricity generators and traders on the other hand. The main problems with regard to authorization procedures include the following: 2.1. Transmission Lines Legal framework for the permitting procedures The legal procedures used in different countries are generally comparable with respect to environmental assessment, requests for permission at national and local levels, public debates, 3

4 etc., but the main phase (the planning application process) is usually implemented using different procedures in different countries. So there are different laws in different countries and even different laws in different regions within the same country. In some countries parallel permitting proceedings are used by different authorities. The project development process can be shown as following: Identification Phase l Permitting phase Construction phase Identify Network Problems Technical Studies Identification of Preferred Reinforcement Scheme Preparation of files for the application Made by the TSO- Processing of the permitting process made by the relevant authorities Construction Phase Manage Landowner Access Energisation Negotiation for getting wayleave 6 18 months 1-7 Years 1 3 years Transmission Network Planning identify Network Problem Technical Screening Studies Initial Environmental assessment Detailed Technical Analysis Economic Constraints Analysis Preferred reinforcement scheme Project requirements identified Submission of permitting Appoint lead consultant application to Permitting Identify Key constraints / Area Authority of Study Public Hearing Identification of Route Securing all necessary Alternatives kind of permits Public consultation throughout the process Identification of Preferred route Outline design and EIA Construction Phase Detailed design review Manage Landowner Access Client Engineer role ensuring construction meets standards Energise The questions are: What kinds of permitting procedure are required? Which are the relevant authorities (local or national)? According to the existing legal frameworks of most EU countries, TSOs have to take into account all relevant technical, economic, security and environmental aspects for decisions on whether to build overhead lines or underground cables. In some countries different permitting procedures apply for different technologies (OHL, cables) especially in respect of environmental impact issues. For example till now there is no necessity for compensation measures in case of cables in some countries. When developing the grid TSO s should examine the option of optimizing000 the network by either upgrading the existing circuits using higher capacity conductors or by increasing the voltage. Simpler permitting procedures should be allowed when an existing high voltage line is replaced by line of a higher voltage within the same corridor. 4

5 2.1.2 Duration of permitting procedures Many electricity infrastructure projects face severe obstacles during the authorization phase. It is not uncommon that projects take 5 10 years to pass the hurdle of authorization procedures required by law. Some projects can be completely paralyzed for a longer time and, in some cases, have to be abandoned by the TSO s. There is a generally lack of reasonable and concrete time limits for the duration of permitting procedures for transmission lines. One of the reasons for the long duration also can be the lack of sufficient and specialized manpower within authorities to deal with infrastructure project in an effective and timely manner. Another reason is the complexity of dealing with electricity infrastructure projects, the lack of understanding of the benefits that such infrastructure brings to local communities and the resultant opposition to the projects that is mobilized. Permitting authorities can be nervous in dealing with contentious projects aware that there may be legal actions taken against them. Many difficulties that arise are due to the delays in the adoption of binding acts provided for in the permitting procedures, such as 1) environmental conditions imposed by Environment Ministries and/or Regional Environment Offices and 2) Regional agreement for the project. The authorities often fail to respect the legal deadline for responding to queries concerning the project Costs of permitting procedures and of compensation measures There can be a substantial increase in costs in the permitting stage of the project because of requirements for increased environmental assessment and consequent longer duration of the permitting procedures. Compensation measures imposed by permitting authorities to minimise project impacts can also substantially increase project costs. These costs can be up to 50% or more of the investment costs for a new overhead line (OHL) and in some countries they have to be approved by the regulatory authorities Social acceptance of projects Electricity infrastructure projects are neither considered as being necessary nor are their benefits understood by the general public. The result is considerable objections by numerous individuals and groups against a project at regional planning procedure stage and at project approval stage. The main reasons why people object are as follows: doubts about the necessity for the project, visual impact, environmental impact, EMF (alleged adverse health effects for both humans and animals), property devaluation, and the belief alternative solutions such as that a mix of demand side management (DSM) and renewable energy resources (RES) are able to avoid the need for a new line. TSOs rarely get support from stakeholders for the development and implementation of electricity infrastructure projects. Currently, the public interest and need for electricity infrastructure is usually only advocated by TSOs during the authorisation procedures. Greater stakeholder engagement and support is required from business, political, community and industry stakeholders. 5

6 2.1.5 Balancing environmental and other public interests European Network of There is an inadequate balancing between environmental and other public interests in the process of determining the importance of a certain grid project. Extensive statements and surveys regarding the diverse environmental impacts have to be submitted to the permitting authorities, while the need and the benefit to the public of transmission line projects is advocated only by TSOs. The number of agencies in charge of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is very high and different agencies have different goals/interests Additional costs due to delayed construction The construction of transmission lines lags behind market developments because permits for the erection of power plants (especially renewable energy) can be obtained significantly faster than those for transmission lines. But also changes in the dynamic market, which often result in gridcongestions, presently cannot be resolved by building transmission lines because of lengthy authorization procedures. The result is additional costs for expensive congestion management measures. 2.2 Substations The permitting procedure for a substation is less complicated and shorter than for a transmission line. The number of participants involved in this procedure is lower and the legal framework usually clearer. In some countries (e.g. in Italy) it is common to integrate the permitting process for the substation in the permitting process for the transmission lines linked to the substation. In other countries, often the building permit for the substation is granted without the right of way (purchase) and the right of way (purchase) needs to be negotiated separately. Besides, there is a statutory time line/limit for the granting of a permit for a substation by the authorities (e.g. in Germany 6 months). That is why permitting difficulties can arise in relation with land use when the land owner has not agreed to the sale of the land and an expropriation (compulsory purchase?) procedure is needed. 3. Proposed Improvements 3.1. Legal recognition of the importance of priority electricity infrastructure projects The public interest of important electricity infrastructure projects shall be stated in law The need for the development of these projects shall be stated objectively (e.g. in a list of high priority projects) and therefore the justification does not always need to be argued by TSOs during the proceedings. An example of this is the German Law Energieleitungsausbaugesetz that came in force in August An annex is attached to this law with a list of high priority projects that will be regularly updated. There should be clear and explicit linkage between TEN-E projects and national law (recognition of TEN-E projects in national law). The public interest of TEN-E projects should a priori be recognised by their definition. 6

7 3.2. Adopt a legal framework which ensures efficient authorization procedures Authorisation procedures for strategic infrastructure projects should be centralised at one (national) level; The number of permits required should be reduced by creating an integrated procedure for infrastructure projects or for projects subject to an environmental impact assessment including the connection to substations with the same requirements in all regions of the country; The result of the procedure for transmission lines and for substations should be a building permit with the right of way that allows construction to start immediately; There should be simplified procedures with a shorter duration for the upgrading of existing lines (e.g. to a higher voltage); There should be effective and compulsory time limits to grant the TSOs legal certainty as regards the timely completion of permitting procedures (including the closing-off of submissions of allegedly new statements and evidence opposing the construction of an infrastructure project); There should be a clear definition of what documents are needed during the authorisation procedures (e.g. during EIA); Effective consultation mechanisms are vital especially at the very beginning of a project. Duplication of such time-consuming mechanisms shall be avoided if their purpose can be achieved through only one single consultation, otherwise there must be a coordination between different consultations (e.g. between the Environmental Evaluation for the whole Grid Plan and the Environmental Evaluation for the single project of the Grid Plan); A Region should not have the right to stop strategic national and cross border infrastructure: it should be stated that the final permitting decision should remain with the National Authorities; It should still be possible to build necessary infrastructure projects in protected areas (e.g. Natura 2000) if the environmental effects of these projects can be mitigated and compensation measures are taken; There should be a simplified procedure for the assessment of the effects on the environment of certain Plans approved on annual basis (e.g. Grid Transmission Plans) Infrastructure corridors It should be possible to reserve so-called infrastructure corridors for high priority infrastructure projects; Common agreement with involved parties concerning corridors and in particular common dedicated corridors for different types of infrastructure (pipelines, highways, railways, high voltage lines, etc.) would be desirable; Definition of new infrastructure corridors for high priority infrastructure projects by the relevant authorities; 7

8 For new infrastructure and/or upgrading of the existing infrastructure should be used preferably existing routes Resources for authorization procedures Sufficient and specialized manpower is necessary to deal with infrastructure projects in an effective and timely manner in the TSOs as also external resources (e.g. authorities) Present best practices In this part, ENTSO-E puts forward a collection of best individual practise regarding the permitting process applied in some European countries. These practices could serve as an example for legislation in other member states to speed up the permitting process. The following practices are emphasised: Priority projects legislation e.g. German Law Energieleitungsausbaugesetz (EnLAG), August 2009 that establishes and revises biannually the list with the priority projects. Main legal consequences are that the need for the project as such cannot be challenged in the licensing procedure any more, the procedure itself is slightly shortened and the right to appeal is limited to one instance; The right of expropriation legislation - e.g. German Law Energiewirtschaftsgesetz (EnWG) 45, August 2009 that gives the expropriation right to the TSOs after they obtain the necessary permits. Any appeal against the right to expropriate can only be based on the grounds of insufficient compensation; One stop permitting process e.g. Ireland Law - Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006 that permits the TSOs to apply just in one place for all the necessary permits. Germany introduced a one stop licensing in However, there is in most cases still a need for a separate spatial planning procedure which leads to double debates and the repetition of legal checks. There is also a one-stop procedure in the Netherlands; Clear deadlines for the permitting process - e.g. Ireland Law - Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006, that establishes a non statutory limit of 18 weeks for receiving the permissions required following submission of the application to the permitting authority; Possibility to start the construction of lines very fast e.g. German Law - Energiewirtschaftsgesetz (EnWG), 44b, August 2009 that allows the immediate start of the construction after obtaining the legal permit and before expropriation. (There is however, the risk of stranded investments if there is a successful court appeal against the project. Therefore, in the interest of allowing for faster construction of new grid infrastructure this risk should be covered by the regulator.) Exemption from certain planning/permitting obligations: o no planning obligations for underground cables on public territory e.g. Belgian legislation (Flemish Region) Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen tweede herziening, o no permit necessary for new overhead line on existing towers or for upgrading existing line e.g. Belgian legislation (Flemish Region) Ontwerp-besluit van 2 april 2010 van de Vlaamse Regering tot bepaling van handelingen waarvoor geen stedenbouwkundige vergunning nodig is ; 8

9 Integration of procedures: integration of planning procedure and environmental impact study e.g. Belgian legislation (Flemish Region) Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering van 18 april 2008 betreffende het integratiespoor voor de milieueffectrapportage over een ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan ; Specific funds to accompany OHL projects e.g. French law. These funds proportionate to investments costs are managed by a commission independent from the TSO and allocated to projects proposed by local communities and focusing on sustainable development of the area Labeling projects of European relevance Beside the general requirement for all the transmission projects that are mentioned above, labeling projects explicitly of European interest and then applying special rules to such select projects can be a way to further speed permitting while providing an easily communicated justification for this. A main potential benefit could be to spend less time in the licensing process to justify the if of a project and allow focusing the procedure on the how. When one talks about the European relevance project the following additional actions can be required: The implication of an EU coordinator that can have a mediator role in reaching the common agreement and implementation of the project in a relative short time; Allocation of higher amount of funds for the projects of European relevance; TEN-E - Reallocation of financing percentage from the studies phase (that at the present represent 50%) to the construction (at the moment 10%) and compensation (right of way) phase; Special funding for compensation of the impacts of TSO-infrastructure to the public and nature to increase the acceptance for the different projects (e.g. funding of compensation measures). 4. Conclusion The effective functioning of authorisation procedures is a crucial precondition for the realisation of important electricity infrastructure projects in the public interest according to the objectives of European energy policy. The existing frameworks for authorisation procedures show many similar problems in all EU member states. The solutions proposed in this paper shall be implemented primarily at the national level, but they also require actions at the European level. Only the linkage between national and European level initiatives will make it possible to improve authorisation procedures for electricity infrastructure projects. The overall objective of this process has to be that these procedures can be completed within a reasonable time and do not impose an undue burden on TSOs due to environmental, health or societal interest. 9