DPCR5 Stakeholder Engagement

Report of Community Consultation in support of WPD Business Plan 2010-2015

Prepared by Green Issues Communications August 2008 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5 1.1 Stakeholder engagement 5 1.2 WPD methodology 6 1.3 Summary and conclusions 7 1.4 The Business Plan recommendations 8

2. Quality consultation 11 2.1 About Green Issues 11

3. Stakeholder engagement - methodology 12 3.1 WPD’s approach 12 3.1.1 Postal and electronic feedback 13 3.1.2 Political drop-in sessions 13 3.1.3 Stakeholder workshops 13 3.1.4 Timing 13

4. Written feedback 14 4.1 The WPD Business Plan 14 4.2 Feedback 15 4.3 Feedback results 15 4.3.1 Total responses received 16 4.3.2 WPD South West responses 16 4.3.3 WPD South Wales responses 18 4.4 More detailed comments 24 4.5 WPD South West 24 4.5.1 Undergrounding in National Parks and AONBs 24 4.5.2 Other comments 26 4.6 WPD South Wales 27 4.6.1 Undergrounding in National Parks and AONBs 27 4.6.2 Other comments 29 4.7 Analysis 30 4.7.1 WPD South West analysis 30 4.7.2 WPD South Wales analysis 31

5. Consultation with MPs and Assembly Members 33 5.1 Westminster MP ‘drop-in’ session 33 5.2 Welsh Assembly ‘drop-in’ session 33 5.3 Green Issues’ analysis 34

6. Cardiff stakeholder workshop 35

2 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6.1 Logistics 35 6.2 Attendance 35 6.2.1 WPD and Green Issues 35 6.2.2 Stakeholders 36 6.3 Introduction 36 6.4 Format 36 6.4.1 Table plan 37 6.4.2 Feedback mechanisms 37 6.5 Thermometer feedback 38 6.5.1 Procedure 38 6.5.2 Summary of results for improving services 38 6.5.3 Summary of results for new challenges 40 6.6 Roundtable discussions – Options for improving services 2010-2015 41 6.6.1 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing? 41 6.6.2 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 41 6.7 Roundtable discussion – New challenges 2010-2015 45 6.7.1 Do you agree with our assessment of distributed generation? 45 6.7.2 Is there anything we could do or should do to encourage generator connections? 46 6.7.3 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing? 47 6.7.4 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 47 6.8 Green Issues analysis 49

7. Exeter workshop 52 7.1 Logistics 52 7.2 Attendance 52 7.2.1 WPD and Green Issues 52 7.2.2 Stakeholders 53 7.3 Introduction 54 7.4 Format 54 7.4.1 Table plan 55 7.4.2 Feedback mechanisms 56 7.5 Thermometer feedback 56 7.5.1 Procedure 56 7.5.2 Summary of results for improving services 57 7.5.3 Summary of results for new challenges 59 7.6 Roundtable discussion – electricity in the South West 2010-2015: 60 7.6.1 Do you agree that WPD’s investment program should aim to maintain its current levels of service to 2015 and beyond? 60 7.6.2 Has the right balance been struck between replacement and repair or should we be aiming to reduce fault rates? 61 7.6.3 Are there any other future challenges or cost pressures that we are likely to face? 63 7.7 Options for improving services 2010-2015: 63

3 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.7.1 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing? 63 7.7.2 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 65 7.8 New Challenges 2010-2015 69 7.8.1 Do you agree with our assessment of distributed generation? 69 7.8.2 Is there anything else that we could do or should do to encourage generator connections? 70 7.8.3 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? 71 7.8.4 Is there anything missing? 72 7.8.5 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 72 7.9 Green Issues analysis 75 7.10 Group discussion 78 7.11 Green Issues analysis 79

8. Workshop feedback results 81 8.1.1 Overview 81 8.1.2 Results 82

9. Conclusion 85 9.1 The Business Plan recommendations 85

10. Next steps 89 10.1 WPD 89 10.2 Green Issues 89

11. Appendix 90 11.1 WPD South West Business Plan 90 11.2 WPD South Wales Business Plan 91 11.3 WPD South West feedback form 92 11.4 WPD South Wales feedback form 93 11.5 List of respondents - South West 94 11.6 List of respondents – South Wales 97 11.7 WPD information boards 100 11.8 Welsh Assembly drop-in session 104 11.9 Westminster drop in session invite letter 105 11.10 Exeter workshop invite letter 106 11.11 Cardiff workshop invite letter 107 11.12 WPD Exeter stakeholder workshop agenda 108 11.13 WPD standard response letter 109 11.14 Online consultation 110

12. List of abbreviations used within this document 111

4 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

1. INTRODUCTION

Western Power Distribution (WPD) is responsible for the local distribution of electricity along an extensive network of overhead wires and underground cables. It serves 2.5 million homes and businesses across South West England (all of the counties of Cornwall including the Scilly Isles, Devon and Somerset, and parts of Dorset and South Gloucestershire) and South Wales including Cardiff and Swansea, the South Wales Valleys, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and parts of Ceredigion and Powys.

WPD’s network is one of the most expansive in the UK with 85,000 km of network and 90,000 transformers. It maintains the electricity network, repairs it when faults occur, extends it to connect new customers and reinforces it to cope with changes in the pattern of demand.

WPD operates two of the fourteen of the UK’s regulated electricity distribution licence businesses and works under a price control regime that determines its allowed revenues, operating cost and capital allowances. Every five years, the energy regulator, Ofgem, conducts a comprehensive review of the electricity distribution price control regime known as a Distribution Price Control Review or DPCR. Ofgem commenced its fifth review “DPCR5” in March 2008.

1.1 Stakeholder engagement In its DPCR5 Initial Consultation Document published in March 2008, Ofgem stated that each Distribution Network Operator should seek the views of its regional and local stakeholders on its high level business plan. The DNOs then needed to show evidence of how this feedback had impacted on their plans.

‘To increase Ofgem’s confidence in the robustness of their forecasts, DNOs will need to consult more widely on their plans, provide greater visibility of their assumptions and justify their forecasts based on the outputs they will deliver.’ (4.43)

5 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ofgem did not prescribe how the stakeholder engagement should be conducted. This was left to the respective DNO’s to decide. However, it listed the minimum level of engagement expected during this process. This was detailed as:

Ø Identify stakeholder groups and the issues on which they want to engage each group Ø Make available their plans in a user friendly format Ø Present stakeholders with a range of investment options including both high and low cost sensitivities as well as their base case expenditure and identify any trade-offs both in terms of cost and outputs in order for stakeholders to make informed contributions possibly via regional consultations or workshops Ø Engage with users or potential users of the networks to better understand future requirements for network capacity Ø Engage with input manufacturers and contractors to understand any delivery issues and how this may impact on their plans

1.2 WPD methodology WPD prepared a consultation document summarising a range of costed options for additional investment. The document was in a user friendly format and included a simple tick sheet for ease of response. Over 2,000 key stakeholders were identified including parish & community councils, local authorities, MPs and AMs, consumer representatives and other interested parties such as National Park Authorities and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). The consultation was mailed out to all 2,000 stakeholders and was also posted on WPD’s website with a dedicated email address set up for responses.

WPD appointed Green Issues to provide independent advice and support to the programme of stakeholder engagement. They agreed a three-pronged approach, which was:

6 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Postal and electronic response to the WPD Business Plan Ø Drop-in sessions in Westminster and Cardiff for MPs and Assembly Members Ø Stakeholder workshops to be held in Cardiff and Exeter

1.3 Summary and conclusions Below are the conclusions drawn by Green Issues from the programme of stakeholder engagement undertaken by WPD in June and July 2008.

· Throughout the programme of stakeholder engagement undertaken, Green Issues noted that a significant majority of those consulted in the South West and South Wales, especially at the workshops, appeared happy with the level of service being provided by WPD. As a result much of the discussion and debate was about whether WPD should seek to maintain this level up to 2015 or invest more capital into the network and raise standards to a higher level. · This sentiment has been expressed in several ways. The Westminster and Cardiff drop-in sessions for MPs and Assembly Members received a low turnout. In Green Issues’ experience, a low turnout at such events means the matter being discussed is not a cause for concern for the constituents and as a result the elected representatives have little interest. For MPs and AMs, like many people, good news is no news. · These views were also expressed by stakeholders attending these events. They stated there was nothing of concern for them in either their own constituency or, to the best of their knowledge, in that of their colleagues. · More detailed feedback was collected at the workshops in Cardiff and Exeter, but the general sentiment was also one of satisfaction for the level of service being provided by WPD.

7 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

1.4 The Business Plan recommendations · All consultation undertaken in the South West has been conducted separately to that in South Wales. It is therefore interesting to note that stakeholders in both regions have produced a similar list of what they believe are the most important priorities. · At the workshops in Cardiff and Exeter there was a clear consensus that maintaining service levels was a top priority for WPD. It was said that customers were now used to a high level of service and would not tolerate any drop-off. This sentiment was confirmed in the written feedback received. In both the South West and South Wales respondents selected this option as one of the most important listed. · Written and emailed responses listed the next two most important priorities for WPD as being protecting the network in severe weather and reducing power cuts. This feedback was mirrored by that collected from the workshops. · In particular, when discussing these priorities at the workshops with stakeholders it became clear how interwoven they were. By protecting the network from severe weather you would subsequently be able to reduce power cuts, which together may also improve services to remote customers. By tackling one you also start to address the others. · Out of this discussion came one of the two really contentious debates at the workshops and to a lesser degree on the written feedback. There was a split in Cardiff and Exeter over whether people living in rural areas should expect a similar level of services to those living in urban areas. Interestingly it was quite often those living in rural areas who stated they were happy to sacrifice a little less reliability in energy supply in return for the quality of life they enjoyed. · Which side WPD take in this debate will partly dictate the exact future spending on reducing power cuts, protecting the network from severe weather and improving service to remote customers. Whatever way it is addressed these have all been selected as priorities by stakeholders in the South West and South Wales and should be included in some shape or form in the final Business Plan.

8 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Protecting the substations against flooding was listed as a high priority for WPD across the South West, but slightly less so in South Wales. However, in South Wales in particular there was support from a number of key stakeholders, including the Welsh Assembly, the Public Health Service for Wales and the Police and Fire Services. · As with flooding there was a good level of general support for more expenditure to be allocated for improving substation security. At the workshops it was recognised this was an issue likely to become increasingly important in the next decade. For this there was specific support from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, Environment Agency and the Police Services. It would seem clear this is a measure that will need to be included in the Business Plan. · The priorities that could be classified as additional expenditure i.e. city centre substations, the environmental measures and undergrounding, have been and are likely to still be the source of greater debate. · From the feedback collected during the program of stakeholder engagement it is clear that WPD have the option of dropping additional spending on specific city centre substations from the Business Plan. This option was designated the lowest priority in both the South West and South Wales. · Rather surprisingly there was a lower level of support at both the workshops and in the feedback for reducing the risk of emissions of oil and SF6 and reducing the carbon footprint of WPD’s equipment. This may be an early indicator of consumer concern for the economic times ahead. In the South West reducing the risk of oil and SF6 emissions was prioritised by 28% and reducing the carbon footprint by 25%. In South Wales it was 15% and 26%. · Of the two, reducing the carbon footprint of equipment was deemed as being a higher priority for those responding to the Business Plan. However, at the workshop a price comparison was drawn by a number of tables who noted that reducing the risk of emissions came at a fraction of the price of reducing the carbon footprint of equipment. This then persuaded them to place a higher priority on the cheaper option. Something for WPD to consider.

9 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· The issue of undergrounding in National Parks/AONB received a varying level of feedback. It was categorised as one of the lower priorities in the written feedback but was the source of heated debate at the workshops. It was also the option that generated the majority of the longer correspondence sent in as feedback. · In the South West 18% of respondents identified undergrounding as important with a further 18% making specific reference to AONBs or villages in conservation areas. In South Wales 23% cited undergrounding as a priority, with a further 17% making specific reference to AONBs. · There was little support for a large scale programme of undergrounding – recognising that supply reliability was a higher priority. There is some support from customers for undergrounding – but usually to ask for their village to be undergrounded. Others linked it to improved supply reliability and routine replacement programmes. · It was pointed out that AONBs were included in the DPCR4 proposals and that 38% of the South West is designated as National Park/AONB. There was support for “carefully targeted resources” to selectively underground “iconic” sites that would contribute to tourism and “wellbeing”. It was also suggested that WPD consider multi-party schemes and seek the assistance of NPs/AONBs in attracting grant-aid. · There appears to be a case for limited undergrounding to take place, but it is not clear how these specific cases will be ranked in terms of order of importance.

10 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

2. QUALITY CONSULTATION

To ensure WPD followed best practice for stakeholder engagement it employed Green Issues, an independent company specialising in community consultation. Green Issues worked with WPD to devise and then implement its programme of stakeholder engagement. It was also responsible for the analysing and logging of all feedback received both through the post and by email, and then at the stakeholder workshops. Below is more information about Green Issues.

2.1 About Green Issues Green Issues is one of the UK’s leading PR consultancies and is counted among PR Week’s list of the top 60. With a strong track record in the delivery of community consultation programmes, stakeholder contact, liaison with political audiences at a regional and national level, it is best placed to deliver support to some of the UK’s largest consultation programmes.

Green Issues has experience of working with utility and energy providers in the UK. This experience involves:

Ø Extensive stakeholder auditing Ø Stakeholder engagement (often one-to-one) at local, regional and national level Ø Organising aspects of public consultation Ø Extensive experience of running and managing interactive consultation and engagement workshops

It conducts consultation and communication services for a variety of public and private sectors including the utilities, education, NHS, aviation, telecommunications sectors and the development industry.

11 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

3. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - METHODOLOGY

As previously stated Ofgem did not prescribe a specific methodology for DNOs to follow when conducting stakeholder engagement. However, minimum requirements were listed as being:

Ø Identify stakeholder groups and the issues on which they want to engage each group Ø Make available their plans in a user friendly format Ø Present stakeholders with a range of investment options including both high and low cost sensitivities as well as their base case expenditure and identify any trade-offs both in terms of cost and outputs in order for stakeholders to make informed contributions possibly via regional consultations or workshops Ø Engage with users or potential users of the networks to better understand future requirements for network capacity Ø Engage with input manufacturers and contractors to understand any delivery issues and how this may impact on their plans

3.1 WPD’s approach WPD’s objective was to inform stakeholders served by the South West and South Wales network of their investment plans for 2010-2015 and give them every opportunity to feedback their views. The results would then be analysed and responded to by WPD as part of its final Business Plan, to be submitted in August 2008.

To achieve this, WPD and Green Issues agreed a three-pronged approach to the programme of stakeholder engagement. These were:

Ø Postal and electronic response to the WPD Business Plan Ø Drop-in sessions in Westminster and Cardiff for MPs and Assembly Members Ø Stakeholder workshops held in Exeter and Cardiff

12 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

3.1.1 Postal and electronic feedback This was to be the tool to deliver consultation across the the South West and South Wales. The Business Plan, mailed and made available on the website, would be the first line of stakeholder engagement. Included would be a response form, presenting a range of investment options with price variables. Information would also be given about stakeholder workshops.

3.1.2 Political drop-in sessions Copies of the Business Plan were also sent out to all local MPs and Welsh Assembly Members. To give these elected officials every opportunity to be personally informed of and pass comment on WPD’s spending plans special ‘drop-in’ sessions were to be arranged in Cardiff and Westminster. These were to be attended by representatives from Green Issues and WPD.

3.1.3 Stakeholder workshops To be held at suitable locations in South West England and South Wales, the workshops would be designed to allow WPD to present more detailed information about its spending plans and facilitate interaction and debate between stakeholders and WPD.

3.1.4 Timing All stakeholder engagement was to be implemented simultaneously in South West and South Wales, finishing on 25th July 2008.

13 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

4. WRITTEN FEEDBACK

The first stage of the stakeholder engagement process was to mail out copies of the WPD Business Plan to over 2,000 stakeholders in South West England and South Wales. The costings presented in the Business Plan reflected the region within which it was being sent.

4.1 The WPD Business Plan WPD produced two separate Business Plans, one for WPD South West and one for WPD South Wales. The document summarises its investment plans for 2010-2015, under four main headings. These are:

Ø Maintaining service levels Ø Future requirements of network users Ø Reducing power cuts Ø New Challenges – Network Security and Climate Change

Under each of these are sub-headings identifying specific issues for consultation, followed by questions to be considered. At the end of the document is a response form where consumers are asked to prioritise the various options for expenditure. Each one of these has a price range attached, detailing the minimum and maximum costs for improvement of each option.

Recipients of this Business Plan included:

Ø MPs and Assembly Members with constituencies within the region Ø Members of relevant Select Committees and All Party Parliamentary Groups Ø Chief Executives and Leaders of District/County/ Borough Councils Ø Parish and Community Councils and District/County/Borough Councils Ø Business customers, developers and Chambers of Commerce Ø Consumer groups Ø National Parks/AONB/and other statutory bodies

14 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Farming and landowner organisations Ø Emergency Planning organisations including the Environment Agency, Police and Fire Services

4.2 Feedback Within this mail out, details were given of the WPD website (www.westernpower.co.uk). On this were links to the relevant page containing all information on the consultation process, including an electronic version of the Business Plan.

Stakeholders therefore had the opportunity to learn of the WPD Business Plan via both the mail out and website. The hard copy of the business plan contained a feedback form listing the various improvements WPD could make to the network and the associated costing (see appendices 11.3 and 11.4). Stakeholders were invited to tick the relevant boxes to display their priority or priorities. The website enabled the stakeholders to answer a series of questions relating to the Business Plan.

Respondents were invited to either post or send electronically their feedback to WPD. This information was then sent on to Green Issues on a weekly basis.

The closing date for feedback to be received by WPD was 25th July 2008. The responses were recorded by Green Issues, and all those who contributed feedback were responded to by WPD.

4.3 Feedback results As previously mentioned stakeholders were sent copies of WPD’s business plan with an attached feedback form. The feedback form listed ten issues and asked the respondent to tick which issues ‘are most important to you’ (see appendices 11.3 and 11.4) Respondents were also invited to tick one issue which they felt was the most important. Coupled next to each issue was the amount extra on an average domestic bill each year investment in the issue would equate to. There was also room on the form for respondents to write any further comments or issues that they felt WPD needed to address.

15 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

4.3.1 Total responses received

Region Respondents South West 101 South Wales 65 Total 166

4.3.2 WPD South West responses

Priority Cost £ Importa V.Imp nt Maintaining service levels £7-£11 30 23 Reduce power cuts 20p-65p 29 12 Improve services to remote customers 10p-25p 28 3 City centre substations 20p 13 0 Protecting substations with security equipment 30p 24 7 Protecting the network in severe weather 40p-£1.60 41 8 Protecting substations against flooding 40p 38 2 Reduce the risk of emissions from our equipment 50p 28 0 Reduce the carbon footprint of our equipment £1.75 20 5 Undergrounding in National Parks £1 13 5 Undergrounding in AONB’s/villages - 0 18

16 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

On top of the views collected on the possible spending options, additional comments were made in relation to costs, security of supply and undergrounding, as listed below:

Ø “Keep overall costs to a reasonable level.” Customer Ø “Reduce the prices.” South Brent Parish Council Ø “A waste of time and money. All of this should already be within your remit. They should have been addressed within your budget and should not cost the customer extra.“Customer Ø “I would have assumed these were all standard procedures?” Perranzabuloe Parish Council Ø “Issues raised should be accomplished within present revenue streams.” Ø “The security of supply should be the top priority.” CPRE Devon Ø “The effective operation of the emergency services in all guises should be considered to mitigate against second circuit outage risks. Important to protect assets against criminality.” Ø “Have only one light in the car park if it goes out the risk of crime increases.” Ø “Please bury overhead power cables in the village of Coverack, as they are very detrimental to the area.” 5 separate responses made this comment. Ø “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should be given the same amount of consideration as National Parks, with regard to undergrounding overhead cables. They already have the same status as National Parks within planning legislation.” A number of respondents made this point. Ø “Please replace ugly, rusty power poles in the central area of Seaton (EX12). They are a disgraceful blight on the town.” Customer Ø “Please underground wires in the village of Wembury.” Customer Ø “Towns and villages are seriously disfigured by overhead power cables put up as a temporary measure in the 1920s.” Upton Parish Council Ø “Sites should be provided with additional security measures such as CCTV coverage of perimeter fences and a perimeter intruder detection centre, security doors are fitted with plant rooms.” Avon and Somerset Constabulary Ø “Would like to see a replacement of overhead cables with underground services.”

17 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

4.3.3 WPD South Wales responses

Priority Cost £ Important V.Imp Maintaining service levels £6-£12 23 16 Reduce power cuts 90p-£2.50p 31 2 Improve services to remote customers 10p-60p 17 3 City centre substations 25p 8 0 Protecting substations with security equipment 65p 18 0 Protecting the network in severe weather 25-80p 26 8 Protecting substations against flooding 85p 20 3 Reduce the risk of emissions from our equipment 25p 10 0 Reduce the carbon footprint of our equipment £1.65 14 3 Undergrounding in National Parks 50p 13 2 Undergrounding in AONB’s - 0 11

On top of the views collected on the possible spending options, additional comments were made on the feedback forms in relation to prices, environmental issues and undergrounding:

Ø “By far the most important thing for people in Wales at the moment is paying a reasonable price for their power. Can you give assurances on limiting that to the rate of inflation?” Conservatives in Wales Ø “£20 p.a. covers all these items. Not considered excessive.” Welsh St Donas Community Council Ø “Reduced bills for rural areas.” Llanfynydd Community Council Ø “Duplication of manning in repairs/maintenance.” Lantrisant Fawr CC Ø “Will Wales be self-sufficient in electricity from renewable sources?” Customer Ø “I chose reducing carbon footprint of equipment because this will be a good energy saving measure, reducing the need for generating capacity and if we all followed your lead, reduced new energy generating needs (especially nuclear).” Customer

18 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø “More needs to be done to underground cables throughout the area, not just National Park, i.e. in Agricultural areas such as ours.” Customer Ø “Disappointed to note undergrounding is not a big issue in our spending plans. It would be an effective tool in landscape conservation.” Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Ø “WPD should reconsider its position and help make beautiful areas even more attractive. Will lobby the appropriate AMs and MPs and try to get an EDM signed.” Monmouthshire County Council Ø “Undergrounding would protect from severe weather. It should also take place in AONBs.” Customer Ø “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should be given the same amount of consideration as National Parks, with regard to undergrounding overhead cables. They already have the same status as National Parks within planning legislation.” A number of respondents made this point.

19 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

WPD South West- total responses

20 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

WPD South West- percentage of respondents supporting each of the investment alternatives set out in the May 2008 consultation document

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Reducing power cuts Maintaining service levels

Undergrounding in National Parks

Protecting substations aImgainprosvt ingflooding service to remote customers

Reducing the carbon footprint of equipment Higher protection for City Centre substations Protecting the network against severe weather Protecting substations with security equipment Undergrounding in AONB/Conservation areas Reducing the level of risk of SF6 & oil emissions

21 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

WPDSouth Wales- total responses

22 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

WPD South Wales - percentage of respondents supporting each of the investment alternatives set out in the May 2008 consultation document

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Reducing power cuts

Maintaining service levels Undergrounding in AONB

Undergrounding in National Parks

Protecting substations against flooding Improving service to remote customers Reducing the level of risk of oil emissions Reducing the carbon footprint of equipment Higher protection for City Centre substations Protecting the network against severe weather Protecting substations with security equipment

23 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

4.4 More detailed comments Along with filled out copies of the response form a number of long and detailed letters were sent to WPD. Green Issues has included this correspondence in the feedback figures, identifying the major themes in the letter and recording them as either important or very important under the relevant heading. However, for these correspondence to be properly represented in this report it is necessary to list the points made in greater detail.

47 separate extended correspondence was received in total with the majority of these letters arriving on the days just before the closing date of 25th July 2008. A large number of these were in reference to the issue of undergrounding. As a result the feedback listed below has been split into the South West and South Wales and then further into two sections:

Ø Undergrounding and AONBs Ø Other comments made

4.5 WPD South West 30 separate extended correspondences were received from the WPD South West area, the majority of which related solely to AONBs and undergrounding. Approximately a third focused on other issues such as climate change and flooding.

4.5.1 Undergrounding in National Parks and AONBs In the correspondence received from the South West area 20 letters were submitted which solely related to undergrounding in National Parks, AONBs and villages in conservation areas. Letters were received from a number of organisations such as: Cornwall AONB Unit, Dartmoor National Park Authority, Mendip Hills AONB, Wembury Amenity Society, The Lizard Trust (Coverack) and CPRE. Undergrounding in AONBs and villages in conservation areas were logged as a separate issue.

24 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

There were a number of reoccurring themes within the letters, for example:

· AONBs should be included in the Business Plan not just National Parks · Undergrounding in AONB is seen as an investment and should be prioritised · Undergrounding would enhance the AONB which are a source for tourism · Pressure should be put on WPD by stakeholders and Ofgem to meet the objectives set out.

An example of comments can be seen below:

· “You state that very high costs are estimated at £1.00 per customer a year. I do not think that is a high figure to pay for an improvement in the environments' appearance” · “I consider that replacing the network with underground cables is an investment priority for customers” · “In addition to National Parks the Business Plan document should have referred to Areas of Outstanding Beauty” Cornwall AONB Partnership · “This Authority remains very disappointed by WPDs continuing reluctance to participate, thereby excluding the National Park from enjoying the clear benefits that the scheme can offer” Dartmoor National Park Authority · “It is disappointing that the Business Plan document does not refer to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and only National Parks” Mendip Hills AONB · “…however, the priority programme for the undergrounding of cables should be judged on a case by case basis- to include the benefit to critical areas of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, World Heritage Sites and Conservation Areas as well as National Parks & proposals to undergrounding should always have regard to any possible impacts on important buried archaeology.” Devon County Council · “Consideration of undergrounding work on a cost/benefit basis will always produce a negative outcome. The work needs to be considered in relation to the

25 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

wider issues of landscape quality and conservation, and the public benefits that are thereby made available” Dartmoor Preservation Association · “It has been a frustration to us that Western Power Distribution, uniquely amongst the network distributors in Britain, declined to take part in the undergrounding programme for unsightly power cables in AONBs in the current investment period” South Devon AONB · “Natural England has welcomed the indications from Ofgem regarding the continuation of the underground scheme. We have responded to their recent Electricity Distribution Price Control Review recommending that all DNOs, such as WPD, should take up the scheme on a permanent basis, and although regional flexibility may be required, they should not be able to opt out of the scheme completely” Natural England · “Our North Devon AONB Partnership in common with all other AONBs represent a wide variety of stakeholders from the community and economic sectors as well as the environment sector and we are strongly of the opinion that landscapes free of clutter have economic as well as social and health benefits in terms of relaxation and enjoyment” North Devon AONB Partnership · “The question is so worded as to almost guarantee that respondees will reject investment in undergrounding” CPRE Gloucestershire

4.5.2 Other Comments 10 letters were received commenting on a number of other aspects of the Plan such as climate change, flooding, pricing and how to improve services for remote customers. Letters were received from various organisations for example: Chagford Parish Council, Delivering Safer Communities, Regional Resilience Team GOSW, the Health and Safety Executive and the NFU.

26 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Comments include:

· “Congratulations on building this into your plan[climate change] I know several other power companies who have missed this important issue” GOSW · “My Council is very supportive, however, of any works that will reduce the level of electricity loss in the distribution system such expenditure will have the double benefits of reducing costs (we have to pay for the loss of electricity) and reducing carbon footprint (the major cause of climate change and thus high rainfall and winds).” Chagford Parish Council · “Both of these issues [substation security & substation flooding] reflect areas of concern where the need for capital expenditure can be clearly justified as a priority to both levels of direct personal safety and have a positive impact on secondary health and safety considerations” HSE. · ”We would also hope that Western Power Distribution would address the needs of those on the most remote parts of the network that suffer a higher than average number of power cuts” SW NFU

4.6 WPD South Wales 17 letters were received from various organisations and other respondents commenting on different aspects of the Business Plan. Of the extended correspondence 10 dealt solely with issues in connection with undergrounding and AONBs and a further 7 letters dealt with other issues such as security, network reliability and flood protection and were submitted by for example: National Public Health Service for Wales, Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council and the Campaign for National Parks.

4.6.1 Undergrounding in National Parks and AONBs 10 letters were sent in response to the Business Plan all relating solely to undergrounding and AONBs. The common denominator for the majority of those letters was the fact that AONBs should have been included in the Business Plan and that

27 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

undergrounding of overhead power lines within both National Parks and AONBs should be considered a priority.

Below are some examples of quotes:

· “'It should be possible, through appropriate consultation with the NP and AONB management teams, to identify specific (and limited) areas of outstanding landscape which would be significantly improved by this process. This would not require the total budget you suggest, but it would provide major social and environmental benefits through careful application of available funds i.e: value for money.” CPRW Monmouthshire Branch · “The undergrounding of even short sections of cabling both within settlements and in remote areas of our National Park is a very effective tool in landscape conservation” Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority · “I agree that maintaining and improving the reliability of supply should be WPD’s top priority, that is not to say that this objective [undergrounding wires in AONBs and NPs] should be to the exclusion of all else” Monmouthshire County Council · “The Town Council considers the undergrounding of overhead power lines which have a detrimental impact within areas of outstanding natural beauty to be an important priority and is aware that other Distributor Network Operators have worked with their local AONB partnerships and national park authorities to identify areas where lines have a particular impact on the landscape and have begun a programme of placing these lines underground” Chepstow Town Council · “The Plan should include Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty as nationally protected landscapes and of international importance for their landscape, biodiversity, recreation and heritage value” City and County of Swansea · “CNP is concerned by WPD’s refusal to take up the Ofgem allowance to underground lines in National Parks” Campaign for National Parks · “This Council applauds the decision of Ofgem to provide financial incentives to electricity distribution companies for undergrounding power lines in Areas of

28 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, and notes that Western Power Distribution plc (WPD) has chosen not to take advantage of these incentives thus denying the possible removal of overhead power cables in areas including the Wye Valley and the Brecon Beacons” Leader of Monmouthshire County Council · “The issue in your consultation which is most important to me is: the undergrounding of power lines in National Parks and in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty” National Trust Wales

4.6.2 Other comments Seven letters were submitted in relation to issues such as flooding, energy provision to remote areas, security and climate change. The letters were received from groups such as: Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council, the National Assembly for Wales and the National Public Health Service for Wales.

Comments include:

· “In particular we would welcome any proposals which would result in: - A reduction in the potential power cuts - Quicker restoration of power in the event of a power cut occurring - Improve sub-station security against terrorism and criminal activity - Improve resilience against the impact of flooding and other natural disasters” Gwent Police · “With the likely impact of climate change and the need to protect substations etc, we see little choice but for investment to be made in security and in technologies to reduce loss and the carbon footprint of your equipment” National Partnership for Older People in Wales · “We agree that you should protect your network against severe weather and flooding. This is very important to us” Welsh Water · “We would whole heartedly support the proposed investment to provide flood protection for all fifty identified sites; we feel that this would be a valuable

29 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

contribution in mitigating the effects of severe weather and flooding” Fire and Rescue Service for Wales · “As you will understand, by far the most important thing for people in Wales at the moment is paying a reasonable price for their power” Nicholas Bourne, Leader Conservatives in Wales · “Any part of your network found to be at risk within this area [flood risk area] of work should be identified as a priority for protection against flooding and/or severe weather, if not already in place. This I would suggest is key area of work to be undertaken over the forthcoming months” Dyfed- Powys Police

4.7 Analysis · The Business Plan made available by WPD through post and on the internet appeared to be well received by stakeholders, with only a few respondents out of more than 2,000 questioning the presentation of the document. · Due to the nature of the mail out there was a good quality of feedback, with responses from a wide spectrum of stakeholders from individual customers, parish and community councils, consumer organisations, public services and government bodies. · For this type of exercise there was a high level of response, with 101 stakeholders submitting feedback in respect of WPD South West spending plans and 65 In respect of WPD South Wales spending plans. This difference in responses represented the differing population sizes of the two regions.

4.7.1 WPD South West analysis · Respondents in the South West clearly identified certain priorities they believed WPD should focus on in its future spending plans. · When evaluating the feedback as a whole it is clear that respondents placed the highest priority on maintaining and protecting the network against future problems delivered by both man and nature.

30 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· This was exemplified in the feedback, with 52% of respondents identifying maintaining service levels and 49% protecting the network in severe weather as high priorities. · Continuing to reduce power cuts (41%) and protecting substations against flooding (40%) were also recorded as being high priorities for respondents. · There was a reasonable measure of support for the new initiatives presented by WPD as possible focuses for future expenditure. 28% of respondents stated that reducing the risk of carbon emissions should be a priority for WPD, while 25% identified reducing the carbon footprint of WPD equipment as a priority. · Protecting specified City centre substations attracted the lowest level of support. · Whilst undergrounding in National Parks (and AONB) attracted significant support from the National Parks, AONB and related bodies including Wembury Amenity Society and The Lizard Trust and customers supporting these groups, only a small number of other stakeholders supported this investment option as a priority for WPD. In total 18% of respondents identified undergrounding as a priority with 18% making specific reference to AONBs. · Within the feedback for the South West were 30 letters and extended emails both recorded in the database and analysed individually. · The majority of these focused on the issue of undergrounding, and specifically on the fact it should take place in both National Parks and AONBs. · Letters focusing on issues away from undergrounding provided gave a greater cross section of opinion, with some respondents being critical of a particular aspect of the Business Plan while others expressed support for WPD and the steps they are looking to take to improve the network.

4.7.2 WPD South Wales analysis · Identified priorities in South Wales mirrored much of what was found in the South West. Maintaining service levels and protecting the network in severe weather were the top priorities, with reducing power cuts also being identified as important by a high percentage (51%) of respondents.

31 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Also falling closely in line with the South West feedback was the importance respondents in South Wales placed on there being additional expenditure made available to protect the substations against flooding. 35% of respondents identified this as a priority. · Interestingly when it came to alternative initiatives there was a divergence from respondents in the South West. · A lower number of stakeholders in South Wales responded to the idea of there being additional expenditure to reduce carbon output from the network – 26% identifying reducing the carbon footprint of WPD equipment and 15% citing reducing the risk of emissions. However, in contrast a proportionally higher number expressed the view that WPD should prioritise the issue of undergrounding. · The fact there are fewer AONBs in South Wales compared to the South West is borne out by the number of stakeholders who expressed the view that these rural spaces should be afforded the same treatment as National Parks. · As in the neighbouring network very few respondents identified greater technical security for specified city centre substations as being a high priority running up to 2015.

32 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

5. CONSULTATION WITH MPS AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS

A key part of WPD’s stakeholder engagement was to seek the views of MPs and Assembly Members representing constituencies which are situated in either the South West or South Wales. It was also WPD’s aim to consult with those MPs who were members of relevant Select Committees and All Party Parliamentary Groups. To achieve these objectives WPD hosted a buffet lunch and wine reception in Westminster and Cardiff.

5.1 Westminster MP ‘drop-in’ session Ø The Westminster reception was held on Tuesday 1st July 2008 at Central Hall, Westminster, running from 12pm to 2.30pm. Ø All MPs whose constituencies were in the South West and the South Wales were invited Ø MPs from five APPGs; Energy Studies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy, AONBs, Conservation and Wildlife. MPs from one select committee; Business Enterprise Regulatory Reform Ø Invitations sent to the aforementioned MPs were accompanied by emails and follow up phone calls prior to the event. Ø Information material was displayed and made available to attendees. Ø Two members of Green Issues were present together with two members of WPD in order to answer any questions. Ø The Westminster ‘drop-in’ session was attended by Lord Redesdale, Tina Davy (senior researcher to Colin Challen MP) and Mark Cox (OFGEM).

5.2 Welsh Assembly ‘drop-in’ session Ø The Cardiff reception was held on Tuesday 8th July 2008 at the Welsh Assembly, running from 12pm to 2.30pm. Ø All Welsh Assembly members were invited to the session in Conference Room C in Ty Hywel by way of written invite, email and follow up phone call.

33 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø The event itself was sponsored by Nick Bourne AM, Leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly. Ø One facilitator from Green Issues was present accompanied by two persons from WPD in order to answer any queries the members had. Ø The Welsh Assembly Members that attended the ‘drop-in’ session were Nicholas Bourne AM and Geoffrey Cuthbert AM.

5.3 Green Issues analysis Ø WPD wanted to ensure all MPs and Assembly Members had the opportunity to personally speak to them during the consultation period. Holding ‘drop-in’ sessions was deemed to be the best way to achieve this objective. Ø MPs and AMs were sent invitations along with a copy of the WPD Business Plan. Despite Green Issues also calling the offices of all the respective members’ turnout for both the Cardiff and Westminster event was low. Ø This may have been due to busy summer schedules or because the performance of Western Power Distribution is not a hot political issue to MPs and AMs. Ø The likelihood is that it was a bit of both. Green Issues’ experience is that it is the angry and the unhappy that are most likely to attend such events. A lack of interest from these elected officials could be taken as them being happy enough with the performance of WPD.

34 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6. CARDIFF STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

The first stakeholder workshop was held in Cardiff on Thursday 17th July 2008 and was specifically designed for key stakeholders served by the WPD South Wales Network.

6.1 Logistics Ø The Cardiff Marriott Hotel was chosen as a suitable location due to its proximity to the train station and available facilities. Ø All recipients of the Business Plan were invited to register for the Workshop. Ø Invitations to the event were sent out to 100 key stakeholders. These included members of county and community councils, groups representing the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, major businesses and chambers of commerce, developers and members of Unions. All invitations were followed up with a phone call to establish the likely attendance number. Ø As of the morning of the workshop there were 13 confirmed attendees. Ø Nine stakeholders attended the workshop.

6.2 Attendance 6.2.1 WPD and Green Issues

Alison Sleightholm WPD, Regulatory & Government Affairs Manager Nigel Turvey WPD, Design & Development Manager Barry Hollinghurst WPD, Forecasting & Planning Manager Natasha Richardson WPD, Regulatory & Government Affairs Advisor Harry Watkinson Green Issues Richard Halderthay Green Issues Phil Heath Green Issues

35 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6.2.2 Stakeholders

Name Organisation Wendy Davies energywatch Andrew David South East Wales Energy Agency Jeff Perren Head of Technical Services: Welsh Assembly Cllr Richard Clark Torfas County Borough Council Georgios Aronis Ofgem Cllr Geoffrey Cox Vale of Glamorgan Council Gary Meopham Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Bob Westlake Wales and West Utilities Joanne Edwards energywatch

6.3 Introduction Alison Sleightholm welcomed people and outlined the format for the day. This was followed by Richard Halderthay explaining Green Issues’ role, both within the Cardiff and Exeter workshops and the overall programme of stakeholder engagement being undertaken. As part of this he detailed the aims and objectives for the day.

6.4 Format Attendees were divided into two tables, each one having a member of Green Issues. The first presentation delivered was titled:

Ø WPD Overview of Electricity in the South West 2010-2015

Alison Sleightholm then joined one table and Nigel Turvey the other. Each delivered a short presentation, taking questions from stakeholders at their table, as follows:

Ø Options for Improving Services 2010-2015 Ø New Challenges 2010-2015

36 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

After the presentation was completed a roundtable discussion was held, with specific questions being addressed, details of which will follow below.

6.4.1 Table plan

Table 1 Table 2 Joanne Edwards – energywatch Wendy Davies – energywatch Cllr Geoffrey Cox – Vale of Glamorgan Council Bob Westlake – Wales & West Utilities Gary Meopham – Pembrokeshire Coast Georgios Aronis - Ofgem National Park Andrew David – SE Wales Energy Agency Cllr Richard Clark – Torfas CB Council Jeff Perren – Welsh Assembly

6.4.2 Feedback mechanisms Before each discussion, stakeholders were passed copies of specific questions to be addressed. The debate was facilitated by Green Issues, who also took notes of what was said.

Once the first roundtable discussion was completed Alison and Nigel switched to deliver their presentations to the other table.

As part of the feedback process Green Issues also used thermometer graphics to gauge how much of a priority stakeholders viewed specific issues. They were only used where a number of options were presented to the tables. The scales were classified as:

Ø BH = Boiling hot Ø H = Hot Ø W = Warm Ø LW = Lukewarm Ø C = Cold Ø FR = Freezing

37 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholders were encouraged to discuss each priority and then reach a consensus as to where on the scale of the thermometer it should be placed. The objective was then to have a list of priorities from each table, which could then be compared and then debated.

6.5 Thermometer feedback 6.5.1 Procedure As previously mentioned the thermometer’s objective as a consultation device is to enable stakeholders to reach a consensus. This effectively meant that each table would be reaching a consensus on an issue. The nature of thermometer use means that it is best utilised for prioritising issues, a clear picture can be created of an issue’s relative importance in relation to other issues.

Each table was asked to reach a consensus, using the thermometer on a series of issues on two topic areas: ‘New Challenges’ and ‘Improving Services’.

6.5.2 Summary of results for ‘Improving Services’

Ranking Table 1 Table 2 1 Maintaining service levels (BH) Maintaining service levels (BH) 2 Protecting in severe weather (W) Protecting in severe weather in (BH) 3 Improving services for remote Reducing power cuts (H) customers(W) 4 Reducing power cuts (LW) Improving service for remote customers (W) 5 Undergrounding in National Parks City centre substations (FR) (LW) 6 City centre substations (FR) Undergrounding in National Parks (FR)

Exact details of how the two tables prioritised each issue are shown below.

38 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Improving Services Group Number

Maintaining service levels 1, 2 Protecting the network in severe weather 2 Reducing power cuts Boiling Hot Improving service to remote customers City centre substations Undergrounding in National Parks Maintaining Service Levels Protecting the network in severe weather 1 Reducing power cuts 2 Hot – Warm Improving service to remote customers 2 City centre substations Undergrounding in National Parks Maintaining service levels Protecting the network in severe weather Reducing power cuts 1 Warm – Cold Improving service to remote customers 1 City centre substations Undergrounding in National Parks 1 Maintaining service levels Protecting the network in severe weather Reducing power cuts Cold – Freezing Improving service to remote customers City centre substations 1, 2 Undergrounding in National Parks 2

39 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6.5.3 Summary of results for ‘New Challenges’ The two groups were asked to come to a consensus using the thermometer on the following four issues that relate to ‘New Challenges’. The issues are numbered in the order of importance they were believed to be by Group 1.

Ranking Table 1 Table 2 1 Substation Flooding (BH) Substation Flooding (BH) 2 Substation Security (H) Substation Security (BH) 3 Reducing carbon footprint (W) Reducing the risk of emissions (W) 4 Reducing the risk of emissions (W) Reducing carbon footprint (W)

Exact details of how the two tables prioritised each issue are shown below.

New Challenges Group Number Substation Flooding 1, 2 Substation Security 2 Boiling Hot Reducing carbon footprint Reducing the risk of emissions Substation Flooding Substation Security 1 Hot – Warm Reducing carbon footprint Reducing the risk of emissions Substation Flooding Substation Security Warm – Cold Reducing carbon footprint 1, 2 Reducing the risk of emissions 2, 1 Substation Flooding Substation Security Cold – Freezing Reducing carbon footprint Reducing the risk of emissions

40 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6.6 Roundtable Discussion – Options for Improving Services 2010-2015 6.6.1 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing?

Table 1 said that: Ø It was felt by some attendees that those residents who have lived with power cuts in rural communities are used to them and that they are very happy with the improvements that continue to be made. Ø It was also felt that reducing power cuts, on average, to below 45 minutes was ‘diminishing returns’. Ø It was agreed that the important thing was the reaction consumers received from WPD when they had a power cut, especially in relation to what information they received and how accurate it was etc. Customer contact was key, with the emphasis needing to be reliable, up-to-date, accurate, expected time back on.

Table 2 suggested that: Ø There was nothing obvious that WPD had missed out from its business plan. Ø A further reduction in power cuts could only be a good thing. Ø The current level of performance from WPD is very good, but there is also rising customer expectations currently in urban areas.

6.6.2 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 1. Maintaining service levels 2. Reducing power cuts 3. City centre substations 4. Improving the service to remote customers 5. Protecting the network in severe weather 6. Undergrounding in National Parks

41 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 1 suggested that: 1. Maintaining service levels Ø Issue discussed within the context of another question.

2. Protecting the network in severe weather Ø There was a split in the discussion on this subject with two views emerging: Ø One felt this investment would benefit only a small number of people and it fell under the law of diminishing returns. Ø Another felt those living in rural communities at ends of the network exposed to severe weather are more reliant on power / heat and therefore the investment was worth it. Ø Participants wanted more evidence that climate change was causing more severe weather.

3. Improving the service to remote customers Ø It was the general view of the group that residents in rural communities are used to a certain service, where the occasional power cut happens. Ø It was felt by one or two attendees that the money spent on this would have little effect on consumers who generally accepted the occasional power cut. Money would therefore not be that well spent. Ø Generally it was not felt that the benefit for 2,000 people was worth the investment and cost to the wider consumer.

4. Reducing power cuts Ø This issue was viewed as not being as important as previously because people have become used to some power cuts where they happen, i.e, at the extremities of the network. Ø energywatch commented that they receive hardly anyone calling up to complain about power cuts.

42 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø It was commented that people now know who to contact over power cuts – a situation different from the period immediately after competition when consumers were very confused.

5. Undergrounding in National Parks Ø It was recognized by the table that this is a very emotional issue – to some it was very important, to others not so. Ø After discussion it was felt by the group that there would be little impact as the investment would only affect 1.5% of WPD’s overhead cables currently situated in National Parks. Ø It was commented that undergrounding could help reduce the impact of the weather on overhead lines,. In in turn it was mentioned the length of any power cuts was greater with underground cables vs overhead cables. Ø It was commented by an attendee that those benefiting from this could include tourists but they would not have to pay for this. Ø The representative from the Pembrokeshire National Parks Authority questioned whether smaller, specific projects could be undertaken. He said there were a few iconic landmarks that were particularly worthy of improvement as they give special amenity benefit to local residents and other customers who visit, and also attract tourists.

6. City centre substations Ø The group was of the unanimous view that this issue was a ‘waste of time’ and represented planning for the most unlikely of situations. In the event of an incident that led to the two fail-safes not working, the power would, in the groups view, be the least of people’s worries. Ø The group also felt this was stepping into the realms of emergency planning; not an area WPD should be responsible for.

43 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 2 concluded that: 1. Maintaining service levels Ø Everyone agreed this should always be a top priority. Ø It was said that the minimum customers would now expect is for current service levels to continue and it would not be acceptable to reduce the capital programme if this meant reduced reliability.

2. Protecting the network in severe weather Ø Participants agreed that severe weather was becoming more frequent with the change in climate and therefore investment was justified. Ø People would no longer be satisfied with the power going off, even if the weather was particularly bad.

3. Reducing power cuts Ø This issue was closely linked to Maintaining Service Levels. WPD’s record of reducing power cuts across the network was praised. Ø It was said that minimising power cuts would always be the most basic measure of how good a service customers were receiving from the network. Ø A suggestion was that WPD could look into reducing power cuts in areas of dense population. However, this was not a major issue.

4. Improving the service to remote customers Ø Source of the liveliest debate Ø Urban customers were felt to be subsidising rural customers. However, the consensus was that rural customers paid more for the connection and were getting a worse service. On this basis it was fair to devote more expenditure to improve the service for rural customers. Ø However, one stakeholder said it is fair that rural customers experience a poorer service, as long as service improvements to rural customers are at the same rate as improvements to urban customers.

44 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Some participants suggested that WPD could consider providing UPS equipment or alternative generation equipment, instead of investing to improve reliability. Ø It was said that WPD could provide signposts to information about alternative generation sources when providing quotes for connection to rural customers.

5. City centre substations Ø Said that although investment would benefit customers, because of the very low probability of a second circuit outage this was not felt to be a priority for expenditure.

6. Undergrounding in National Parks Ø This was not regarded as a priority. The table ‘could not get excited about it and felt that fuel poor customers would not support this investment. Ø Said that to discuss anything would need to see a plan of National Parks. Ø Other participant felt WPD should have a policy of selective undergrounding when overhead lines need maintaining or replacing. This would benefit National Parks in the long term.

6.7 Roundtable Discussion – New Challenges 2010-2015 6.7.1 Do you agree with our assessment of distributed generation?

Table 1 suggested: Ø Renewable micro generation in homes is a small part of the solution and may aid zero carbon home status, but will never be as efficient as small scale local i.e. “near” homes energy or energy/heat production. Ø Excess power could feed into the grid but with the lack of adequate infrastructure, investment to connect to the grid and the small payback from supplying to the grid, it did not make it worthwhile. Ø There will always be issues of local security of supply causing power availability fluctuations.

45 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Planning policy is unrealistic and it was concluded that 2011 targets cannot be met. Ø Waste-to-energy plants must be the way forward with no landfill in the future. Ø Remote feeds to grid and low level of fees for the future energy supplied need addressing to make sure local production becomes a reality.

Table 2 stated that: Ø It was difficult to gauge exactly what would happen in terms of Distributed Generation. Ever increasing energy prices could change the whole dynamics of the situation. Ø The problem with tackling the issue is that consumers would not be able to measure the benefit. Ø Participants discussed payback periods versus the affordability of initial investment, against the background of rising fuel prices. Ø Although micro and small generation was becoming more economically viable, it was now becoming less affordable. Ø There was general support for WPD’s projections on load growth and distributed generation in the absence of any other evidence to contradict this. It was assumed that WPD’s assumptions were sensible and informed.

6.7.2 Is there anything we could do or should do to encourage generator connections?

Table 1 suggested that: Ø As above, the Welsh Assembly needs to follow Scotland’s lead and invest in remote connections infrastructure; energy suppliers need financial incentives to supply the grid.

46 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 2 suggested that: Ø WPD could possibly target customers who would be able to afford such connections. Generally be more proactive.

6.7.3 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing?

Table 1 stated that: Ø Simple, local renewable schemes are preferable to large projects for local needs; Severn Barrage will feed grid and probably England. Ø Question raised – is it just about how much people are willing to pay? Consensus was no: this looks like a genuine attempt to consult. Ø Questions to answer – are WPD absorbing any costs or are residents paying all improvement costs?

Table 2 discussed this question within the context of another question.

6.7.4 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? 1. Substation Flooding 2. Substation Security 3. Reducing the risk of emissions 4. Reducing our equipment carbon footprint

Table 1 stated: 1. Substation Flooding Ø Participants asked whether WPD would consider moving substations which are high flood risks. Ø Also do WPD liaise with other utilities?

47 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Comments were made that people did not realise how close to disaster the flooding to the power system in Gloucester was.

2. Substation Security Ø The table agreed with the proposals for security.

3 & 4. . Reducing the risk of emissions and reducing our equipment carbon footprint Ø Encouraging seeing WPD looking to reduce losses, as this would also represent a cost saving for customers. Ø Asked whether WPD had undertaken a full life-cycle analysis of low loss equipment.

Table 2 asserted: 1. Substation Flooding Ø Needed to be addressed if it was deemed that present infrastructure would not be able to cope with the additional water generated from prolonged rainfall. Ø With the events of last year it was agreed that customers would not accept future flooding being blamed on being caught unawares. If expenditure was needed then that is what should be done.

2. Substation Security Ø Stakeholders agreed this could be an issue, both in terms of security and theft. Ø The question raised was who should pay for this? Attendees asked whether WPD should not pay for it, especially as it was in their interest to protect their own kit.

3 & 4. Reducing the risk of emissions and reducing our equipment carbon footprint Ø Stakeholders joined these two priorities together for a short discussion. Ø The feeling was that if there was to be additional expenditure big businesses should be targeted first.

48 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø It was felt that it may be more difficult to persuade customers to foot the bill for the necessary improvements. Ø Conclusion was that both issues needed to be looked at in totality.

6.8 Green Issues analysis · Turn-out for the Cardiff workshop was lower than for Exeter. This was likely there are fewer relevant groups, organisations and politicians in South Wales to invite to such an event. The second is there are more National Parks and AONBs in the South West with representatives wanting to personally express their opinions. · There was a good mix of backgrounds within the stakeholders who attended. This led to reasonable debates with a variety of opinions being expressed and no one interest group dominating proceedings. · Green Issues were left with the impression that people viewed WPD as providing a very good service. Much of the debate ensuing at the workshop focused on how its service could be taken to a higher level. · When listing spending priorities there were a number of differences between the two tables. It was a given that maintaining services levels was an absolute priority for both. Customers have become used to a high level of services and thus would expect, at the very least, a similar level being maintained until 2015 and beyond. · Discussing how much of a priority improving service for remote customers was caused the main difference in opinions between the two tables. The consensus on Table One was that it was not a key investment priority as people in rural areas accepted a lower level of service, and would be happy if there was evidence of a gradual improvement. In contrast Table Two agreed that people living in remote areas paid more for a connection and thus should have the right to a similar level of service to those living in urban areas. · Reducing power cuts was viewed as no longer a major issue, with Table Two praising WPD’s performance in this area. It also stated that this level needed to

49 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

be maintained as for most customers it was the most basic measuring stick for the quality of service being provided. · The consensus on how much of a priority it was to protect the network in severe weather mirrored that for improving service for remote customers. Table One again expressed the view that there should not be excessive investment as few people would benefit. In contrast Table Two stated that this should be a top priority. · The consensus on both tables was that investment in city centre substations was not a priority, a view mirrored by Table Two when discussing the issue of undergrounding across the network. · The debate on Table One about undergrounding followed along similar lines until a member of a National Park made a case for having undergrounding on specific projects. As what also proved to be the case in Exeter, a stakeholder making a case for limited undergrounding proved to be quite persuasive. · When talking about new challenges for WPD both tables came up with a number of different ideas and questions for WPD to look into and address as it looks into increasing distributed generation. However, it was agreed that neither group could speak with real authority as in terms of energy the future was very uncertain. · The consensus reached over the issues surrounding new challenges by both tables was nearly identical. · Both put flooding as there number one priority with the feeling being that all DNOs had been given a warning and customers would now expect them to be prepared for the possibility of a deluge of rain falling in the future. · There was also little argument amongst stakeholders about how the issue of security had, over the last few years, risen up the list of priorities for expenditure for DNOs. It was agreed that the issues of combating terrorism and theft needed to be properly addressed.

50 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Table One praised the efforts WPD were making to address the issue of reducing carbon emissions and the carbon footprint of its equipment and pointed out that improvement would benefit the overall efficiency of the line. · In contrast Table Two were quite sceptical as to how much customers would support such expenditure, especially in potentially turbulent economic times. · At its end the consensus amongst all parties was that the workshop had been a constructive and worthwhile exercise, an important sentiment to take forward in to the Exeter workshop the following day.

51 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7. EXETER WORKSHOP

The second stakeholder workshop was held in Exeter on 18th July for key stakeholders specifically served by the South West network.

7.1 Logistics Ø The Thistle Hotel was chosen as a suitable location due to its proximity to the train station and the available facilities. Ø Invitations to the event were sent out to 250 key stakeholders. These included members and chief executives of county and community councils, groups representing the National Parks and AONBs, consumer groups, major businesses and chambers of commerce, developers and members of Unions. All invitations were followed up with a phone call to establish the likely attendance. Ø As of the morning of the workshop there were 27 acceptances from stakeholders, of which 22 attended the workshop.

7.2 Attendance 7.2.1 WPD and Green Issues

Alison Sleightholm WPD, Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager Nigel Turley WPD, Design and Development Manager Phil West WPD, Engineering Policy Manager Paul Jewell WPD, Network Services Manager, Exeter & Torbay Natasha Richardson WPD, Regulatory & Government Affairs Advisor Harry Watkinson Green Issues Richard Halderthay Green Issues Phil Heath Green Issues James Garland Green Issues Katie Hill Green Issues Antony Calvert Green Issues

52 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.2.2 Stakeholders

Name Organisation Carolyn Worfolk Natural England Glynnis Sommerville energywatch Chris Thomas Marksbury and Farmborough Parish Council Cllr Sheila Hobden Portfolio for Culture, Devon County Council Linda Blanchard North Devon AONB Andrew Nixon Development Officer, Wye Valley AONB Darren Smith Transport and Street Lighting, Bristol City Council Alan Burrows Environmental Agency Cllr Peter Waddam Portfolio for Development/Transport, Exeter City Council David Jones energywatch Cllr Simon Coles Taunton and Deane Borough Council Andrew Manning Npower Cllr Richard Davies Chagford Parish Council John Dixon Spatial Planning Co-ordinator, Plymouth City Council Neil Blackmore Landscape Architect, East Devon District Council Glen Newson Energy Manager for the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Tim Hale Chairman, CPRE Devon Philip Heseltine Senior Engineer, Plymouth City Council L. Richardson Federation of Small Businesses James Paxman Dartmoor Preservation Association Jenny Higgins Npower Paul Harding South West Water

53 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.3 Introduction Alison Sleightholm welcomed people and outlined the format for the day. This was followed by Richard Halderthay explaining Green Issues’ role in the workshop and the overall process of stakeholder engagement being undertaken by WPD. He also detailed the aims and objectives for the event.

7.4 Format Attendees were divided into five tables, each one having a member of Green Issues. The first presentation, delivered by Alison Sleightholm gave an overview of WPD. This was then followed by:

Ø Electricity in the South West 2010-2015

Once completed there was a short round table discussion, focusing on questions prepared by WPD. There were then two presentations:

Ø Options for Improving Services 2010-2015 Ø New Challenges 2010-2015

Each presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion, with specific questions being addressed, details of which will follow below.

After the presentation was completed a roundtable discussion was held, with specific questions being addressed, details of which will follow below.

54 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.4.1 Table plan

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Carolyn Worfolk Chris Thomas Alan Burrows Andrew Philip Hesteline Manning Glynis Darren Smith Cllr Peter Cllr Richard L. Richardson Sommerville Waddam Davies John Dixon Linda Blanchard David Jones Tim Hale James Paxman Cllr Sheila Andrew Nixon Glen Newson Neil Jenny Higgins Hobden Blackmore Cllr Simon Paul Harding Coles

Attendees were divided into five tables, each one having a member of Green Issues. The first presentation, delivered by Alison Sleightholm gave an overview of WPD. This was then followed by:

Ø Electricity in the South West 2010-2015

Once completed there was a short round table discussion, focusing on questions prepared by WPD. There were then two presentations:

Ø Options for Improving Services 2010-2015 Ø New Challenges 2010-2015

Each presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion, with specific questions being addressed, details of which will follow below.

After the presentation was completed a roundtable discussion was held, with specific questions being addressed, details of which will follow below.

55 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.4.2 Feedback mechanisms Before each discussion stakeholders were passed copies of questions to be referred to during the workshop. The debates were facilitated by Green Issues, who also took notes of the comments made by stakeholders.

As part of the feedback process Green Issues used model thermometers to gauge how much of a priority stakeholders viewed specific issues. They were only used where a number of options were being presented. The scales were classified as:

Ø Boiling hot Ø Hot Ø Warm Ø Cold Ø Freezing

Stakeholders were encouraged to discuss each priority and then reach a consensus as to where on the scale of the thermometer it should be placed. The objective was then to have a list of priorities.

7.5 Thermometer feedback 7.5.1 Procedure As previously mentioned the thermometer’s objective as a consultation device is to enable stakeholders to reach a consensus with one another. This effectively meant that each table would be reaching a consensus on an issue. The nature of thermometer use means that it is best utilised for prioritising issues, a clear picture can be created of an issues relative importance in relation to other issues. Each table was asked to reach a consensus, using the thermometer on a series of issues on two topic areas: New Challenges and Improving Services.

56 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.5.2 Summary of results for ‘Improving Services’

Rank Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 1 Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining Maintaining Protecting the Service Levels Service Levels Service Levels Service Levels network in Severe Weather 2 Reducing Protecting the Reducing Protecting the Maintaining Power Cuts network in Power Cuts network in Service Severe Severe Weather Weather 3 Protecting the Undergrounding City Centre Improving City Centre network in in National Substations Service to Substations Severe Parks Remote Weather Customers 4 Improving Improving Protecting the Reducing Undergrounding Service to Service to network in Power Cuts in National Remote Remote Severe Parks Customers Customers Weather 5 City Centre City Centre Improving Undergrounding Reducing Substations Substations Service to In National Power Cuts Remote Parks Customers 6 Undergrounding Reducing Undergrounding City Centre Improving in National Power Cuts in National Substations Service to Parks Parks Remote Customers

57 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Improving Services Group Number Maintaining service levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Protecting the network in severe weather 2, 4, 5 Reducing power cuts 3 Boiling Hot Improving service to remote customers 4 City centre substations 3 Undergrounding in National Parks 2, 5 Maintaining Service Levels Protecting the network in severe weather 1, 3 Reducing power cuts 1, 4, 5 Hot – Warm Improving service to remote customers 2 City centre substations 5 Undergrounding in National Parks 4 Maintaining service levels Protecting the network in severe weather Reducing power cuts Warm – Cold Improving service to remote customers 1, 3 City centre substations 2, 4 Undergrounding in National Parks Maintaining service levels Protecting the network in severe weather Reducing power cuts 2 Cold – Freezing Improving service to remote customers 5 City centre substations 1 Undergrounding in National Parks 3

58 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.5.3 Summary of results for ‘New Challenges’

Rank Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 1 Substation Substation Substation Substation Substation Flooding Flooding Security Security Flooding 2 Substation Reducing Substation Substation Substation Security Carbon footprint Flooding Flooding Security 3 Reducing Substation Reducing Risk Reducing Risk Reducing Risk Carbon footprint Security of Emissions of Emissions of Emissions 4 Reducing Risk of Reducing Risk Reducing Reducing Reducing Emissions of Emissions Carbon footprint Carbon Carbon footprint footprint

New Challenges Group Number Substation Flooding 1, 2 Substation Security 1, 3, 4 Boiling Hot Reducing carbon footprint 1, 2 Reducing the risk of emissions 1 Substation Flooding 3, 4, 5 Substation Security 2, 5 Hot – Warm Reducing carbon footprint 3, 4, 5 Reducing the risk of emissions 2, 3, 4, 5 Substation Flooding Substation Security Warm – Cold Reducing carbon footprint Reducing the risk of emissions Substation Flooding Substation Security Cold – Freezing Reducing carbon footprint Reducing the risk of emissions

59 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

7.6 Roundtable Discussion – Electricity in the South West 2010-2015: 7.6.1 Do you agree that WPD’s investment program should aim to maintain its current levels of service to 2015 and beyond?

Table 1: Ø Issue discussed as part of another question.

Table 2: Ø Table consensus was that WPD have virtually no complaints against them. The number of faults is being held steady and the time customers are off-service is being reduced. With this in mind the table agreed totally with this statement. Ø A question was raised of WPD as to the level of service to rural areas; are faults higher in rural areas? The answer was no, although power cable damage is mostly from tree debris hitting them rather than wind itself, so if there are more trees nearby damage increases during high winds. Ø Does icing of lines cause a problem? The last icing incident was in the early 80s, so no it does not.

Table 3: Ø energywatch would be very happy to maintain the current investment levels. Indeed, energywatch currently uses WPD as an exemplar case for other distributors. Ø If the current high standards of service are maintained the group thought there was little need to spend any more. ‘You can’t improve on perfection’ was one comment. Ø A feeling that the ordinary man on the street is struggling to meet costs could be one reason for perhaps thinking about reducing any planned increase in

60 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

spending. This should not mean, however, that reducing investment should be considered.

Table 4: Ø There are many other challenges facing the region. Road and rail infrastructure is more pressing. Ø Power cuts are relatively infrequent. The challenge should be keep costs down. Ø The worry about cost is considerable but people are worried about a decline in service provision. Ø Money should be spent reducing costs through investment in more efficient equipment. Ø Securing of supply (i.e. generation) and power factor should be the main priority. Ø Supply for new proposed developments such as Cranbrook is paramount.

Table 5: Ø One requested that WPD reconsider its approach to undergrounding. Ø One asked for more details of WPD’s growth agenda and how that would fit in with the possibility of more housing and greater employment in certain areas. Ø The point was made that in power cuts it was small businesses that suffered most, something that WPD should acknowledge. Ø There was a general acceptance that there was presently a high level of service being provided by WPD.

7.6.2 Has the right balance been struck between replacement and repair or should we be aiming to reduce fault rates?

Table 1: Ø Issue discussed as part of another question.

61 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 2: Ø Questions were asked if there was a link between network losses and the age of the cables. There is no evidence to that effect. Ø Has third party damage losses changed over recent years? Yes there has been a 14% decrease in incidents due to better partnering arrangements. Ø Will the replacement programme over the 10 years predicted replace like with like so overhead cables will be replaced with overhead cables? Yes there is no need to install underground cables unless special arrangements are made. Costings have been done on a like for like basis.

Table 3: Ø The table considered the balance to be appropriate as both are intrinsically linked.

Table 4: Ø The number of power cuts per day is minimal. Changes should therefore be kept to the minimum. Ø Should not aim to reduce faults. There are not many at present. Ø Power cuts seem to be disproportionately centered on those in vulnerable locations. These people have made the choice to live in remote places. Ø The implications of improving the service to those in remote locations should not be allowed to greatly affect other users. Ø (Looking at projected costs for improvements) A figure of ‘between £6 and £12’ is too elastic.

Table 5: Ø It was said by one attendee that generally people in rural locations accept that the service will not be quite as reliable as in urban areas. He also said that it was much more difficult when the water occasionally stopped then when the power went out.

62 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø This point was disputed, with the person saying that businesses were reliant on WPD responding quickly to any break down. At this point he said that WPD were doing well. Ø The question was asked as to how resilient the whole network was to future change of the climate.

7.6.3 Are there any other future challenges or cost pressures that we are likely to face?

Table 1&2 Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion.

Table 3: Ø Fossil fuels are getting rarer, so new methods of extracting energy and distributing that energy are important. Ø The physical security of the network, especially in light of potential terrorist plots, needs to be far more seriously considered.

Table 4: Ø Consensus that security of provision is the toughest challenge facing WPD.

7.7 Options for Improving Services 2010-2015: 7.7.1 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Is there anything missing?

Table 1: Ø Asked whether WPD took the Regional Spatial Strategy into account when predicting the number of new houses to be developed in an area and the impact this would have on the network.

63 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Commented that when the business plan was being put together the credit crunch had not happened; forward planning can be affected by changes.

Table 2: Ø A general agreement around the table.

Table 3: Ø Should be more communication with customers as to how bills are calculated. For example, perhaps we could investigate breaking down what is levied for different areas. Ø Two councillors said that consumer expectations of performance are far higher today than was the case in the 1970s, when blackouts were accepted as being far more frequent. Further information as to performance indicators should be made available to the public. Ø The table would like to see an increase in the use/consumption of power use graph made more freely available. Ø A need to educate people in energy efficiency is present, especially with increased generation costs. Ø In general the table was very satisfied with all the areas identified.

Table 4: Ø Reducing costs should be top priority. Ø Maintaining service levels should be taken as read. It’s WPD’s job, after all. Ø Improving the service for more customers should allow WPD to be able to fund the requisite improvements. Ø Are changes merely a ‘sticking plaster’ or will they be done in a way that will improve the service long into the future?

Table 5: Ø One attendee suggested that WPD’s feedback to customers could be better.

64 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Generally very impressed by the service.

7.7.2 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? Table 1: Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion. Registered priorities on the thermometer.

Table 2: 1 Maintaining service levels (BH) Ø A given. The day job which must be maintained.

2 Protecting the network in severe weather (BH) Ø Has WPD factored in the effects of climate change? Ø WPD must be seen to be proactive in cutting down trees.

3 Undergrounding in National Parks: (H) Ø Asked whether local customers or tourists would benefit? Answer would be everyone. Ø Majority thought this was an issue that needed to be considered.

4 Improving service to remote customers (H) Ø Attention needs to be given to home workers. Ø Living in rural area is a lifestyle choice and some allowance can be made. 25p allowance was enough as some of the severe weather work will benefit rural customers.

5 City centre substations (H/W) Ø The fear here was WPD being blamed if something does happen. The public will say ‘they only ever act after the event’. So it is worth investing as an insurance policy, even though it only targeted Bristol.

65 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6 Reducing power cuts (F) Ø This is already so good. Why invest money for such a small return?

Table 3: 1 Maintaining service levels and Reducing power cuts Ø Two councillors on the table agreed their constituents’ number one priority was ensuring that the primary service provision is the constant supply of power to homes and businesses. Ø Therefore both maintaining service levels and reducing power cuts was deemed top priority.

2 Reducing power cuts A hot issue for WPD to address.

3 City centre substations Ø Clearly improving the efficiency of substations and reducing the occurrences of errors is important.

4 Protecting the network in severe weather A warm issue.

5 Improving services to remote customers Ø Representatives from urban areas view was that greater concentrations of domestic customers were from the cities and built up areas. Rural and other remote customers should have sufficient back up sources, such as generators. Ø Also felt that an outage in the urban areas had the potential to cost the economy more than in sparsely populated areas.

66 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

6 Undergrounding in National Parks Ø As this was already one element that wasn’t proposed as a priority by WPD the table thought it was not as important as the other investment requirements.

Table 4: 1 Maintaining service levels

Ø Is this what WPD should be doing? It is ‘morally indefensible’ to give some customers better service than others.

2 Protecting the network in severe weather Ø Not seriously discussed.

3 Improving services to a remote customers

Ø One attendee stated that supply reliability had improved significantly, and that further improvement would be costly to achieve. Ø Said that customers who live in remote area generally accept a less reliable electricity supply as a trade-off against the benefits of living in a beautiful location. Does not support investment for remote customers.

4 Reducing power cuts

Ø When the power is cut in cities, it is not ‘the end of the world’.

5 Undergrounding

Ø CPRE members would say undergrounding is a priority but this is not really realistic. Ø Undergrounding should take place only when replacing power lines. Use it as a means to improve visual amenity in villages and AONBs. Ø Things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

67 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Proposal to underground 1.5% of lines in National Parks was considered too much.

6 City centre substations

Ø Should not be a priority. Essential services like hospitals have their own generators.

Table 5:

1 Protecting the network in severe weather Ø The likelihood was that in the future this would become more of an issue and WPD needed to have the capital to address unforeseen problems, especially to be prepared if a number of incidents converged together.

2 Maintaining service levels

Ø Consensus was people were very happy with the present level of service being provided by WPD. Ø WPD’s main goal should be to maintain this level, and not let it get worse. Ø Questioned whether it would be cost effective for most people to embark on an

ambitious programme to enlarge the network. 3 City centre substations Ø A hot topic. Protection and upgrading of city substations listed as a priority. Ø Substations with areas of potential growth should be identified for big expenditure – even if only one every four or five years could be completed.

4 Undergrounding in National Parks Ø Initially agreed as not a major issue and that WPD should focus resources elsewhere.

68 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø One attendee stated that undergrounding on some scale was something all people would benefit from and that you cannot put a price on the quality of National Parks. Ø A bit of investment would make a real tangible difference in certain specific places. Ø He wanted WPD to properly engage so they could understand the benefits. If something was to happen it could be done using a piecemeal approach.

5 Reducing power cuts Ø Priority for WPD should always be to identify any areas of the network that may be susceptible to a power cut. Be proactive rather than reactive.

6 Improving service to remote customers Ø The table agreed that improving services to remote customers was not a big issue, with expectations of service generally lower in the more remote areas.

7.8 New Challenges 2010-2015 7.8.1 Do you agree with our assessment of distributed generation? Table 1: Ø Solar panels for household – feed it back through distribution network. Ø In terms of waste management – Plymouth, current waste is put into new incinerators – is this included in the distributed generation plan? Ø Feel that WPD respond to developers not local authorities – this is something WPD need to do. Local authorities are important in moving towards more sustainable forms of energy production. Ø Potential connections – how are they discovered and who do WPD ask? Ø Timescale for potential connections – how much notice do WPD need?

69 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 2: Ø There was the opinion that no-one really viewed zero carbon homes as a reality. Ø 40% electricity production by 2015 was not achievable. Ø Local generators who supply the grid get paid for the electricity but not at a good rate of return and connections are not readily in place.

Table 3 Ø There is a concern that wind farms generate little energy, but that research into the distribution of this form of power should be classed as important. Ø If there is to be less of an emphasis on wind energy then off shore should be examined. Ø Overall there is a good balance of distribution generation.

Table 4: Ø Issue discussed within the context of another question.

Table 5: Ø One attendee stated that the bottom line was that they did not know how much distributed generation there would be in the future. Ø They pointed out that wind turbines were only in operation for 30% of the time.

7.8.2 Is there anything else that we could do or should do to encourage generator connections? Tables 1 and 2: Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion.

Table 3: Ø With councillors sitting around the table it was thought that more consideration should be given to work in the planning stage, i.e. through the LDF.

70 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Perhaps it would be innovative to encourage households to invest in solar panels through a programme of grants. Ø The table indicated a desire to see planning laws tightened to bring us up to speed with Europe in terms of forcing renewable energy on new builds.

Table 4: Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion.

7.8.3 Have we identified the correct areas of performance improvement for our customers? Tables 1 and 2 Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion.

Table 3: Ø Not included is the need expressed previously to educate the public as to energy use. Ø Essentially a good service. Ø Flooding assessments need to be made with regards the substations and other sensitive electrical distribution. Ø There should be more communication with customers as to how their bills are calculated. For example, perhaps we could investigate breaking down what is levied for different areas. Ø The two councillors present on this table report that consumer expectations of performance are far higher today than was the case in the 1970s, when blackouts were accepted as being far more frequent. Further information as to performance indicators should be made available to the public. Ø In general, the table was very satisfied with all the areas identified.

71 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 4: Ø Sustainable renewal programme is essential.

Table 5: Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion.

7.8.4 Is there anything missing? Tables 1 and 2 Ø Debated this question as part of a different discussion. Table 3: Ø Alarming substations which are regularly vandalized should be a priority to enhance the security of distribution outlets. Ø The table would like to see an increase in the use/consumption of power use graph made more freely available. Ø A need to educate people in energy efficiency is present, especially with increased generation costs.

Table 4: Ø Security of supply – protection from vandalism etc.

Table 5 Ø Issue discussed within the context of another question.

7.8.5 What should our top priorities for additional expenditure be? Table 1: 1 Substation Flooding Ø Position of sub stations – stop building on the flood plains. Ø Felt this was the most important issue in light of the current situation with flooding in the South West.

72 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

2 Substation Security Ø Danger of people killing themselves on the lines should be prevented. Ø Agreed this was the second highest priority.

3 ‘Reducing the risk of emissions’ and ‘Reducing our equipment carbon footprint’ Ø There was some debate over the importance of this issue with differing views expressed.

Table 2: 1 Substation Flooding (BH) Ø Why is the environment agency not paying for this? Some agreement but if we wait the feeling was that nothing will happen. Ø More information presented on the risk to pumping and water/sewage treatment convinced the table this was essential.

2 Substation Security (H) Ø What is the pay-back period? More information is needed. Ø As an insurance policy WPD should go ahead, but only if cost effective multiple hits on one site would be worth the investment.

3 Reducing the risk of emissions (H/W) Ø Is it worth doing as an insurance policy against damaging the environment? Ø This will provide a reasonable payback on the investment. WPD must play their part in reducing carbon emissions but customers play the biggest part in reducing demand. We have to start sooner rather than later.

Table 3: 1 Substation Flooding Ø Thought that with rising sea levels and more precipitation, the threat to supply is rising. This should be reflected in the increasing expenditure.

73 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

2 Substation Security Ø Security needs are rising with the threat of terrorism and also thoughtless, petty vandals. Ø If a line is disrupted it causes inconvenience to users and, as such, the minimizing of this threat through security spending should be the priority.

3 Reducing the risk of emissions and reducing carbon footprint Ø Needs to be considered, but not the same priority as the other two.

Table 4: 1 Substation Security Ø Comes under two headings: Firstly involving location and secondly involving protection from vandalism.

2 Substation Flooding Ø Not discussed in great detail.

3 Reducing the risk of emissions

Ø If we reduce emissions, a reduction in carbon footprint will inevitably follow. Ø Improvements should be made to efficiency and this will have a knock on effect across the board. Ø Government targets for reducing emissions are unachievable.

4 Replacement of necessary infrastructure Ø Should be as high specification as possible.

74 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Table 5: 1 Substation Flooding Ø It was stated that flooding was not a major issue. Actions to take would be for WPD to look into whether equipment would be able to run if there were minor floods. Ø It was also suggested that specific sites with a higher risk of flooding needed to be identified.

2 Substation Security Ø The point consensus was that the issue of security did not pose a huge commercial risk, and that a small amount of work should be carried out on the 5 bigger sites.

3&4 Reducing the risk of emissions and equipment carbon footprint Ø The difference in cost between the two priorities was noted, leading to the group coming down firmly in favour of reducing emissions due to its projected pricing.

7.9 Green Issues analysis · Attendance at the Exeter stakeholder forum was high in comparison to that of Cardiff. The majority of attendees were delegates from non-governmental organisations; six attendees were councillors of various degrees. This higher level of attendance contributed to a larger amount of feedback of a wider scope than at the Cardiff workshop event. · Across the five workshop groups it is clear that maintaining service levels is the most important issue when considering the improvement of services that WPD offer. Only one group (table five) did not recognise maintenance of service levels as the most pressing issue, placing it in second place beneath that of protecting the network in severe weather.

75 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Maintaining the service levels being the top priority for the Exeter workshop groups echoed the sentiments of those in Cardiff. Similarly in regards to the general comments made at the tables there was a feeling that the current level of service offered by WPD was high. · The two issues that were considered a relatively low priority were city centre sub stations and undergrounding in National Parks. · The majority of the tables felt that undergrounding in National Parks was not a high priority, although recognising there would be some people that would see this as the most important issue i.e. CPRE. One table did not share this outlook believing this was a relatively important issue that would be of benefit for a high number of customers. · Although not as significant as other issues (similar to the Cardiff workshop), the option of additional expenditure on city centre substations provoked a substantial level of debate. It was felt that city centre substations could act as an ‘insurance policy’ and that they were important even if ‘only one every four or five years could be completed’. This feedback was in contrast to that recorded from the written responses. · The option of reducing power cuts received wide ranging responses with just two groups rating the issue at the same priority level. Although all groups recognised that a low level of power cuts was important, the tables were divided as to whether they felt this was something WPD already had under control, or that it was something requiring additional investment, with a more pro-active approach being necessary. · There was a greater cross table consensus on the issue of protecting the network in severe weather. Three of the five tables felt that this was a boiling hot issue, the other two groups being hot to warm on the topic. One reason this issue was high on two tables’ lists of priorities was its link to climate change with the sense being that severe weather could become an increasingly pressing concern.

76 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Improvement of services to remote customers in remote areas was considered to be of relatively low importance amongst the five tables. The general consensus was that living in rural/ more remote areas was a ‘lifestyle choice’ and as such those who live there have to make a ‘trade off’ with a slightly less reliable supply of energy provision being a reality. · The most recurrent issue that arose when discussing future challenges or cost pressures was that of the potential effect of climate change. · When asked whether WPD had identified the correct areas of performance improvement for customers, various points were raised by the tables. Communication with customers was considered by a number of tables as an area for improvement. More specifically the need to educate customers on how to reduce their energy consumption and the requirement to communicate the manner in which a customer’s bills are calculated, were both mentioned. · As at the Cardiff workshop the tables were asked to assess new challenges facing WPD for the period 2010 and 2015. When asked whether the tables agreed with WPD’s assessment of distribution energy, there were a wide range of responses with the concern that green energy solutions would not be able to meet energy demand being raised by a number of the tables. · All the areas identified by WPD as new challenges were considered at least hot to warm priorities. This translates to a consensus amongst the five tables at the Exeter workshop session that all areas identified by WPD as new challenges were high priority areas for investment in 2010- 2015. · In terms of new challenges, when asked what WPD’s top priorities for additional expenditure should be, the results for Exeter were relatively similar to those of Cardiff. The consensus among the majority of groups in Exeter and both groups in Cardiff was that the issue flooding was the top priority for additional investment., The exposure of the south west to flooding in the recent past contributed strongly to its high prioritisation.

77 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Substation Security was considered the second most pressing issue, not due of its effects on commercial interests but owing to the threat non-investment could have on personal safety. · Both reducing the carbon footprint and reducing the risk of emissions were low down on the list of relative priorities. However all groups were either hot to warm or boiling hot on both issues. The two areas were seen by a number of tables to not be mutually exclusive, both needing to be addressed by WPD.

7.10 Group discussion Once the second and third roundtable discussions were completed Green Issues collected the list of priorities, placed in numerical order on the thermometer, from each table. These were recorded in a grid using a flip chart placed at the front of the room. The objective was for Green Issues to initially generate a discussion by comparing the feedback from the five tables and asking questions. The aim was for this to then develop into a three-way discussion, with stakeholders debating with each other as well as with the Green Issues facilitator. Listed below are some of the points made during this end of workshop exercise. Much of these focused on the issue of undergrounding:

Ø Consensus that a large scale undergrounding program based on km of overhead line that would add £1 to the annual bill of an average domestic customer was unrealistic. Ø Some participants felt that investment should be to achieve the greatest impact on people’s physical lives. At the beginning of a recession, improved visual amenity should not be a priority. A large customer, such as a local authority, would already be concerned about the impact on their bills. Ø Some participants felt that undergrounding in National Parks benefits tourism and therefore should be funded through tourism. Electricity customers should not pay for this work. It was suggested that alternative sources of funding should be explored.

78 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Ø Other stakeholders wanted undergrounding in villages particularly where there was a tourist benefit. There would also be a benefit to improve service reliability. This work could be linked to maintenance and replacement programmes. Ø It had also been suggested that visual amenity in National Parks/ANOB could be considered when maintaining and replacing lines over time, ideally in co- ordination with other utilities. Projects should also be looked at on a case by case basis, and consider other benefits such as reliability & tourism. Ø James Paxman, Dartmoor Preservation Association said that WPD should consider a more selective programme targeted at specific sites where a big impact could be made for a relatively low cost. Ø A number of other participants supported the idea of targeting “iconic sites” within both National Parks and ANOB. It was pointed out that Ofgem had included ANOB within the DPCR4 Final Proposals. Therefore ANOB should be included in any investment programme. Ø It was accepted that criteria for prioritising projects would be needed. It was suggested WPD contact Central Networks who used sensible criteria such and customer and economic benefit.

7.11 Green Issues analysis · The final group discussion was the source of the liveliest debate across the two days in Cardiff and Exeter, with a number of tables expressing differences of opinion. · The most heated point of discussion was over the issue of undergrounding in National Parks. Several attendees made the point quite forcibly that this was something WPD had to consider seriously, expounding on this point by arguing that the long-term benefits were unquantifiable. · However, a number of stakeholders disagreed saying that the vast majority of customers would not benefit from this program of work. · It was also argued that AONB should be treated in the same way as National Parks, referring to DPCR4.

79 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· A general consensus in the debate amongst those in favour of undergrounding was that it was only realistic to expect small projects to be undertaken. Several stakeholders stressed the point that it could only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. · For those generally in favour of undergrounding there was a split in how it should be paid for. Some stated that WPD should foot the bill whereas others said it was tourists who would benefit most and so should at least make some sort of contribution.

80 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

8. WORKSHOP FEEDBACK RESULTS 8.1.1 Overview

At both the workshop in Exeter and Cardiff, attendees were given a feedback form in order to give feedback on their workshop experience. Attendees were asked to give their responses to a series of multiple choice questions. The multiple choice questions included:

Ø How useful did you find the presentations given at the workshops? Ø How useful did you find the roundtable discussion sessions and feedback? Ø How useful did you find the workshops overall?

The attendees had the opportunity to answer to these questions: very useful, useful, neither, not very useful, not at all useful.

Ø What was your overall view of the format for the workshops?

The attendees had the opportunity to answer to this question: very good, good, neither, poor, very poor.

Ø What was your overall view of the length of the workshops?

The attendees had the opportunity to answer to this question: too long, about right, too short.

The following questions left room for the respondent to provide their own answer:

Ø What aspects of the workshops did you find particularly useful/interesting? Ø What aspects of the workshops would you change?

81 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

8.1.2 Results

The following are the combined results for the stakeholder workshop feedback, received from both Cardiff and Exeter:

Q1 - How useful did you find the presentations? %

Very Useful 13 48% Useful 14 52% Neither Not very useful Not all all useful

Q2 - How useful did you find the roundtable discussions?

Very Useful 16 59% Useful 10 37% Neither 1 4% Not very useful Not at all useful

Q3 - How useful did you find the workshop overall?

Very Useful 8 30% Useful 18 67% Neither 1 4% Not very useful Not at all useful

Q4 - What was your overall view of the format

Very good 9 33% Good 15 56% Neither 3 11% Poor Very poor

82 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Q5 - What was your overall view of the length of the event?

Too long About right 24 89% Too short 3 11%

Q6 – What aspects of the workshops did you find particularly useful/interesting? · The mix of disciplines · Other peoples varied views · Table discussion · Actual cost figures for proposed changes · Discussion with informed member of WPD staff · Well facilitated · The question made one think about how power industry impacts upon my work. Look at how another industry deals with asset management. · Expansion of the issues by WPD staff · Presentations · I found the discussion/debate with other organisation to be thought provoking and interesting · Very informative · Hearing views from other stakeholders who have different priorities/ areas of expertise, in relation to WPD’s plan · Debate and voting on the topics · Opportunity to ensure WPD considered customers as opposed to concentrating on their assets/ business

Q7- What aspects of the workshops would you change? · NA · Involve more people possibly- it was about right · Not- it was very well done

83 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· Discussion facilitators could have had greater technical knowledge · Speed up last feedback session · Don’t think I would · Generally ok, perhaps the scoring of each table could be charged (1-10 + average) · I would not change anything, perhaps the copies of the slides would be useful so that we could follow the presentations better · Length · None · Difficult- but greater participation from the stakeholders! · Add a few others to invitation list · Perhaps present more detailed figures

Any other comments? · A worth-while event · More background information in advance · How about a venue that uses low energy light bulbs? · I think this consultation has been useful to me and other organisations. It is such a good thing and I would thank WPD for giving me the opportunity to comment on my views. · Excellent venue · Need to ensure that the comments are included and not just the ranking of the opinion

84 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

9. CONCLUSION

Below are the conclusions drawn by Green Issues from the programme of stakeholder engagement undertaken by WPD in June and July 2008.

· Throughout the programme of stakeholder engagement undertaken, Green Issues noted that a significant majority of those consulted in the South West and South Wales, especially at the workshops, appeared happy with the level of service being provided by WPD. As a result much of the discussion and debate was about whether WPD should seek to maintain this level up to 2015 or invest more capital into the network and raise standards to a higher level. · This sentiment has been expressed in several ways. The Westminster and Cardiff drop-in sessions for MPs and Assembly Members received a low turnout. In Green Issues’ experience, a low turnout at such events means the matter being discussed is not a cause for concern for the constituents and as a result the elected representatives have little interest. For MPs and AMs, like many people, good news is no news. · These views were also expressed by stakeholders attending these events. They stated there was nothing of concern for them in either their own constituency or, to the best of their knowledge, in that of their colleagues. · More detailed feedback was collected at the workshops in Cardiff and Exeter, but the general sentiment was also one of satisfaction for the level of service being provided by WPD.

9.1 The Business Plan recommendations · All consultation undertaken in the South West has been conducted separately to that in South Wales. It is therefore interesting to note that stakeholders in both regions have produced a similar list of what they believe are the most important priorities.

85 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· At the workshops in Cardiff and Exeter there was a clear consensus that maintaining service levels was a top priority for WPD. It was said that customers were now used to a high level of service and would not tolerate any drop-off. This sentiment was confirmed in the written feedback received. In both the South West and South Wales respondents selected this option as one of the most important listed. · Written and emailed responses listed the next two most important priorities for WPD as being protecting the network in severe weather and reducing power cuts. This feedback was mirrored by that collected from the workshops. · In particular, when discussing these priorities at the workshops with stakeholders it became clear how interwoven they were. By protecting the network from severe weather you would subsequently be able to reduce power cuts, which together would improve services to remote customers. By tackling one you also start to address the others. · Out of these priorities came one of the two really contentious debates at the workshops and to a lesser degree on the written feedback. There was a split in Cardiff and Exeter over whether people living in rural areas should expect a similar level of services to those living in urban areas. Interestingly it was quite often those living in rural areas who stated they were happy to sacrifice a little less reliability in energy supply in return for the quality of life they enjoyed. · Which side WPD take in this debate will partly dictate the exact future spending on reducing power cuts, protecting the network from severe weather and improving service to remote customers. Whatever way it is addressed these have all been selected as key priorities by stakeholders in the South West and South Wales and should be included in some shape or form in the final Business Plan. · Protecting the substations against flooding was listed as a high priority for WPD across the South West, but slightly less so in South Wales. However, in South Wales in particular there was support from a number of key stakeholders, including the Welsh Assembly, the Public Health Service for Wales and the Police and Fire Services.

86 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· As with flooding there was a good level of general support for more expenditure to be allocated for improving substation security. At the workshops it was recognised this was an issue likely to become increasingly important in the next decade. For this there was specific support from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, Environment Agency and the Police Services. It would seem clear this is a measure that will need to be included in the Business Plan. · The priorities that could be classified as additional expenditure i.e. city centre substations, the environmental measures and undergrounding, have been and are likely to still be the source of greater debate. · From the feedback collected during the program of stakeholder engagement it is clear that WPD have the option of dropping additional spending on specific city centre substations from the Business Plan. This option was designated the lowest priority in both the South West and South Wales. · Rather surprisingly there was a lower level of support at both the workshops and in the feedback for reducing the risk of emissions of oil and SF6 and reducing the carbon footprint of WPD’s equipment. This may be an early indicator of consumer concern for the economic times ahead. In the South West reducing the risk of oil and SF6 emissions was prioritised by 28% and reducing the carbon footprint by 25%. In South Wales it was 15% and 26%. · Of the two, reducing the carbon footprint of equipment was deemed as being a higher priority for those responding to the Business Plan. However, at the workshop a price comparison was drawn by a number of tables who noted that reducing the risk of emissions came at a fraction of the price of reducing the carbon footprint of equipment. This then persuaded them to place a higher priority on the cheaper option. Something for WPD to consider. · The issue of undergrounding in National Parks/AONB received a varying level of feedback. It was categorised as one of the lower priorities in the written feedback but was the source of heated debate at the workshops. It was also the option that generated the majority of the longer correspondence sent in as feedback.

87 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

· In the South West 18% of respondents identified undergrounding as important with a further 18% making specific reference to AONBs or villages in conservation areas. In South Wales 23% cited undergrounding as a priority, with a further 17% making specific reference to AONBs. · There was little support for a large scale programme of undergrounding – recognising that supply reliability was a higher priority. There is some support from customers for undergrounding – but usually to ask for their village to be undergrounded. Others linked it to improved supply reliability and routine replacement programmes. · It was pointed out that AONBs were included in the DPCR4 proposals and that 38% of the South West is designated as National Park/AONB. There was support for “carefully targeted resources” to selectively underground “iconic” sites that would contribute to tourism and “wellbeing”. It was also suggested that WPD consider multi-party schemes and seek the assistance of NPs/AONBs in attracting grant-aid. · There appears to be a case for limited undergrounding to take place, but it is not clear how these specific cases will be ranked in terms of order of importance.

88 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

10. NEXT STEPS 10.1 WPD This report has recorded the feedback from WPD’s key stakeholders on their draft Business Plan detailing spending on the network from 2010-2015. WPD has been closely involved in the program of stakeholder engagement and has already considered many of the comments made, especially during the two stakeholder workshops. WPD will now use this report as a means to review the program of stakeholder engagement as a whole, conducted across June and July. Having analysed the comments they will then have to demonstrate to Ofgem how the consultation carried out across South Wales and the South West has affected their future spending plans. Below are relevant future dates in the spending review process for all the DNOs.

Ø WPD submit initial high-level plans in building block format by 15th August Ø Following Ofgem feedback and further stakeholder engagement input a more detailed business plan will be required by 23 January.

10.2 Green Issues As stated earlier Green Issues is an independent company specialising in stakeholder engagement. Throughout the program of consultation it has, at all times, acted impartially and transparently. It will continue to adhere to these principles with all written records of feedback being kept on file for, if necessary, future referral. Stakeholders can continue to contact Green Issues for updates on WPD’s evolving Business Plan. Please contact:

Richard Halderthay Green Issues 9 Southern Court, South Street Reading RG1 4QS

89 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11. TELEPHONE 0118 9839465APPENDIX 11.1 WPD South West Business Plan

90 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.2 WPD South Wales Business Plan

91 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.3 WPD South West feedback form

92 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.4 WPD South Wales feedback form

93 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.5 List of respondents - South West

Age Concern, Okehampton AONB Nether Stowey Avon & Somerset Police Batcombe Parish council Bridgwater Town Council Brixton Parish Council Broadwindsor Group, Parish Council Burrington Parish Council Business Customer, Yeovil Camerton Parish Council Campaign for National Parks Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure Chagford Parish Council Chagford Parish Council Chapel Allerton Parish Council Chardstock Parish Council Chiltern Trinity PC Christchurch DC Combe Hay Parish Council Cornwall AONB Cotswolds Conservation Board CPRE Devon CPRE Gloucestershire Customer Customer' Launceston, Cornwall Customer, Anon Customer, Chudleigh, Devon

94 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Customer, Cornwall Customer, Coverack Customer, Coverack Customer, Coverack Customer, Coverack Customer, Coverack Customer, Exeter Customer, Plymouth Customer, Plymouth Customer, Seaton Customer, Torquay Customer, Wembury Dartmoor National Parks Authority Dartmoor Preservation Association Devon & Cornwall Cosnstabulary Devon County Council Dunchideock Parish Council East Devon District Council energywatch energywatch Environment Agency Exeter City Council Exmoor National Park Authority Federation of Small Businesses Gidleigh Parish Council Godney Parish Council Government Office for the South West Great Torrington Town Council Greinton Parish Council Health & Safety Executive

95 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Kilmersdon Parish Council Kingsbury Episcol Parish Council Lanlivery Parish Council Lizard Trust re Coverack Lord Reesdale, House of Lords Loxton Parish Council Ludguan Parish Council Luppitt Parish Council Marksbury and Farmborough Parish Council Manaton Parish Council McCarthy & Stone plc Mendip Hills AONB Mevagissy Parish Council Morwenstow Parish Council National Counter Terrorism Security Office Natural England Neroche Parish Council Nettlecombe Parish council NFU South West North Devon AONB North Devon CPRE North Devon District Council North Petherton Town Council Okehampton Parish Council Perranzabuloe Parish Council Plymouth City Council Powerstock & North Poorton PC (Bridport) Restormel Borough Council Rodney Stoke Parish Council Sedgemoor District Council

96 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

South Brent Parish Council South Devon AONB St Mewan Parish Council St Stephens-in-Brannel PC (St Austell) Staverton Parish Council Street Parish Council Taunton Deane BC Tavistock Town Council Teigngrace Parish Council University of Bath Upton Parish Council Wembury Amenity Society Williton Parish Council Wraxall & Failand PC Zeales B&B

11.6 List of respondents – South Wales

Aber Valley Community Council Argoed Community Council Campaign for National Parks Ceredigion County Council Chepstow Town Council Conservative Party Wales CPRE Wales Customer, Abergavenny Customer, Brecon Customer, Ceredigion Customer, HaverfordWest Customer, Lampeter

97 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Customer, Monmouth Customer, Swansea Customer, Wye Valley Cyngor Bro Pencarreg Cyngor Cymuned Lledroy Cyngor Cymuwed Llapumsar Dyfed-Powys Police East Williamston energywatch Wales Lay Committee energywatch, Wales Environment Agency Wales Fire & Rescue Service, Wales Forest of Dean District ANOB Gorslas Community Council Gower ANOB Gwent Police Havens Community Council Health & Safety Executive Jeffreyston Community Council Landowner in Wye Valley Langstone Community Council LlanafanFawr Community Council Llanddarog Community Council Llanddeusant Community Council Llandyfaelog Community Council Llanegwad Community Council Llanfynydd Community Council Llangattock Vibbon Avel Community Council Llangybi Community Council Llantillo Pertholey Community Council

98 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Llantrisant Fawr CC Llanwwrthwl Community Council Mid & West Wales Fire & Rescue Service Monmouthshire County Council Monmouthshire Tourist Alliance National Counter Terrorism Security Office National Forum for Older People in Wales National Public Health Service for Wales National Trust Wales Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Pendoylan Community Council Redrow Homes (South Wales) Ltd South East Wales, Energy Action Trelleck Community Council Vale of Glamorgan Council Wales & West Utilities Welsh Assembly Welsh Blood Service Welsh St Donas Community Council Welsh Water/Dyr Cymru Whitton Community Council Y Ferwig Community Council

99 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.7 WPD Information Boards

100 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

101 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

102 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

103 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.8 Welsh Assembly drop-in session

Dear

WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION: ELECTRICITY SPENDING PLANS 2010-2015 A buffet lunch and wine reception to be held in Conference Room C in Ty Hywel from 12.00 to 14.30 on 8 July 2008

I am writing to invite you to a buffet lunch and wine reception hosted by Western Power Distribution on Tuesday July 8th. We would be very pleased if you can come for any, or all, of the reception to meet with us and discuss our spending plans across the electricity network for 2010-2015 and how they will impact on constituencies in South West England and South Wales.

WPD is currently consulting with stakeholders on its proposed Business Plan for 2010-2015. During this period and beyond the company will face many challenges, from ensuring our network is maintained to meet increased demands from customers and a new generation, to protecting it against the impact of climate change and increased security risks. We are keen to hear the views of Assembly Members on these and other issues relating to our network.

Please could you let me know as soon as possible if you would like to attend the reception by emailing me at [email protected], faxing Green Issues at 0118 9598244 or by telephoning them on 0118 9839486. I hope to see you on July 8th.

Please note that all available information on the investment programme can be found on our website www.westernpower.co.uk.

Yours sincerely,

104 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Alison Sleightholm Regulatory & Government Affairs Manager 11.9 Westminster drop in session invite letter

Dear

WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION: ELECTRICITY SPENDING PLANS 2010-2015 A buffet lunch and wine reception to be held at the Dinsdale Young Room in Central Hall Westminster, Storey’s Gate from 12pm to 2.30pm on July 1st

I am writing to invite you to a buffet lunch and wine reception hosted by Western Power Distribution on Tuesday July 1st. We would be very pleased if you can come for any, or all, of the reception to meet with us and discuss our spending plans across the electricity network for 2010-2015 and how they will impact on constituencies in South West England and South Wales.

WPD is currently consulting with stakeholders on its proposed Business Plan for 2010-2015. During this period and beyond the company will face many challenges, from ensuring our network is maintained to meet increased demands from customers and a new generation, to protecting it against the impact of climate change and increased security risks. We are keen to hear the views of MPs on these and other issues relating to our network.

Please could you let me know as soon as possible if you would like to attend the reception by emailing me at [email protected], faxing Green Issues at 0118 9598244 or by telephoning them on 0118 9839486. I hope to see you on July 1st.

Please note that all available information on the investment programme can be found on our website www.westernpower.co.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Alison Sleightholm

105 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Regulatory & Government Affairs Manager 11.10 Exeter Workshop invite letter

Dear

WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION: INVITATION TO STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP AND BUFFET LUNCH ON FRIDAY 18TH JULY I am writing to invite you to a Stakeholder Workshop on Friday 18th July to discuss WPD’s proposed spending plans for 2010-2015 in the South West. This event will form an important part of the programme of public consultation we are currently undertaking. The opening session will be from Chief Executive, Robert Symons. There will also be short presentations from WPD senior managers, followed by roundtable discussions on the proposed Business Plan you received earlier this month. Attendees are expected to include representatives from parish and district councils, energy suppliers, consumer organisations, chambers of commerce, developers, businesses, energy and environmental groups. The event will be held on Friday July 18th at: The Thistle Hotel, Queen Street, Exeter, EX4 3SP Registration from 9.30am Workshop from 10am to 1pm with a buffet lunch served from 1pm to 2pm WPD faces many challenges, from ensuring our network is maintained to meet increased demands from customers and a new generation, to protecting it against the impact of climate change and increased security risks. We are keen to hear your views on these and other issues relating to our network up to 2015.

I look forward to meeting you on July 18th. Please can you confirm your attendance by Monday July 7th by email at [email protected], by fax on 0117 9332428, or write to me on the above address. Please note that all available information on the investment programme can be found on our website www.westernpower.co.uk. Yours sincerely

Alison Sleightholm

106 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Regulatory & Government Affairs Manager 11.11 Cardiff Workshop invite letter

Dear

WESTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION: INVITATION TO STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP AND BUFFET LUNCH ON THURSDAY 17TH JULY I am writing to invite you to a Stakeholder Workshop on Thursday 17th July to discuss WPD’s proposed spending plans for 2010-2015 in South Wales. This event will form an important part of the programme of public consultation we are currently undertaking. The opening session will be from Chief Executive, Robert Symons. There will also be short presentations from WPD senior managers, followed by roundtable discussions on the proposed Business Plan you received earlier this month. Attendees are expected to include representatives from parish and district councils, energy suppliers, consumer organisations, chambers of commerce, developers, businesses, energy and environmental groups. The event will be held on Thursday 17th July at: The Mariott Hotel, Queen Street, Mill Lane, Cardiff, CF10 Registration from 9.30am Workshop from 10am to 1pm with a buffet lunch served from 1pm to 2pm WPD faces many challenges, from ensuring our network is maintained to meet increased demands from customers and a new generation, to protecting it against the impact of climate change and increased security risks. We are keen to hear your views on these and other issues relating to our network up to 2015. I look forward to meeting you on July 17th. Please can you confirm your attendance by Monday July 7th by email at [email protected], by fax on 0117 9332428, or write to me on the above address. Please note that all available information on the investment programme can be found on our website www.westernpower.co.uk. Yours sincerely

Alison Sleightholm

107 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

Regulatory & Government Affairs Manager 11.12 WPD Exeter stakeholder workshop agenda

Western Power Distribution

Regional Stakeholder Workshop

Friday 18th July 2008 Thistle Hotel, Exeter

09:30 Registration - Tea and Coffee 10:00 Welcome – Alison Sleighthom, WPD 10:05 Introduction – Richard Halderthay, Green Issues 10.10 WPD Overview - Alison Sleightholm 10:25 Electricity in the South West 2010–2015 – Nigel Turvey, WPD 10.45 Roundtable Discussion 11:00 Options for Improving Services 2010–2015 - Alison Sleightholm 11:20 Coffee Break 11:35 New Challenges 2010–2015 - Nigel Turvey 11:55 Question and Answers 12:05 Roundtable Discussion followed by Feedback from Groups 12:45 Next Steps and Close – Alison Sleightholm 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Depart

108 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.13 WPD standard response letter

Dear

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION: OUR FUTURE – YOUR FUTURE

I am writing to thank you for taking the time to respond to the consultation process on our proposed Investment Programme for 2010-2015. Your views have been logged by Green Issues Communications, an independent community consultation company, and your comments are now being considered by Western Power Distribution.

In addition to seeking the views from customers and stakeholders in writing, two stakeholder workshops are being held in Cardiff and Exeter. All feedback received in this process will help form the Business Plan that we will submit to Ofgem in 2009

I would like to thank you again for your comments. If you have any further queries please email me to [email protected] or write to me on the above address.

Please note that all available information on the investment programme can be found on our website www.westernpower.co.uk.

Yours sincerely

109 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

11.14 Online consultation

WPD online consultation portal: http://www.westernpower.co.uk/default.asp?categoryID=92

Stakeholder Consultation for the South West: http://www.westernpower.co.uk/servercode/showdocument.asp?ID=347

Stakeholder Consultation for South Wales:

http://www.westernpower.co.uk/servercode/showdocument.asp?ID=348

Summary Response Form for the South West:

http://www.westernpower.co.uk/servercode/showdocument.asp?ID=350

Summary Response Form for South Wales:

http://www.westernpower.co.uk/servercode/showdocument.asp?ID=351

Business Plan for the South West and Wales:

http://www.westernpower.co.uk/servercode/showdocument.asp?ID=353

110 WPD Stakeholder Engagement

12. 11.5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT

Ø WPD- Western Power Distribution Ø AONB- Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Ø DNO- Distribution Network Operator Ø NP- National Park Ø CPRE- Campaign to Protect Rural England Ø MP- Member of Parliament Ø AM – Welsh Assembly Member Ø APPG- All Parliamentary Party Groups Ø DPCR5 – Distribution Price Control Review Ø GOSW – Government Office for the South West Ø NFU – National Farmers Union Ø Ofgem – Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

111