ASA Adjudication on Gamesa Energy UK

Ad

Two circulars and a leaflet, from Gamesa Energy UK (GEUK), an energy company, detailed the proposed construction of a wind farm.

a. Text in the first circular stated " ... The proposed Shap Renewable Energy Park will make a saving of over 40,000* tonnes of CO2 annually and provide electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000* homes annually ...". The asterisk was linked to a footnote that stated "*These figures are based on the current electricity generating mix and may vary due to uncertainties about the UK's future fuel generating mix. The equivalent homes figure is based on a 30% load factor and an average annual domestic electricity consumption of 4,700kWh."

b. Text in the second circular stated " ... That's enough electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000 homes annually* …". The asterisk linked to a footnote that stated "*This is based on a 30% load factor, an average domestic electricity consumption of 4,700kWH and an emissions factor of 860g CO2/kWH, as electricity generated by coal-fired power stations is typically displaced by wind power generating capacity. However, it should be noted that future changes in the power generating mix and fuel costs in the UK over the life of the wind farm means this figure may change over time."

c. The leaflet featured a number of photographs of wind turbines and a photomontage projecting how the landscape where the development was proposed would look with the wind turbines in place.

Issue

1. Community Opposed to Shap Turbines (COST), a pressure group set up in opposition to the proposed wind farm, objected that the images of wind turbines in ad (c), particularly the image on the front of the leaflet, gave a misleading impression of the visual impact of the proposed wind farm, because they believed the turbines at the proposed site would be more squat and more objectionable aesthetically.

2. The ASA challenged whether it was appropriate to base the claim in ads (a) and (b) that the proposed wind farm would provide "electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000* homes annually" on a 30% load factor.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. GEUK asserted that the turbine in the image on the front of the leaflet was clearly from an operational site and did not represent the Shap proposal. They argued that it was not possible to tell from the image the exact ratio of the tower height to the blade length, because the blade was not perpendicular to the tower. They believed it was, however, possible to estimate the approximate height of the centre of the hub by measuring the ratio of the height of the person (pictured at the bottom of the tower) to that of the tower. They asserted that that indicated a tower height of over 56 metres which, they argued, was not significantly different from the 60 metre height proposed for the Shap wind turbines; they pointed out that the leaflet stated "... The turbines will be 60 metres high to the hub ...". They also pointed out that the image on the front of the leaflet did not show the full view of the wind turbine, because the top was not shown. They argued that cropping the turbine made it look squat rather than showing its full height and, therefore, the image was unlikely to give a misleading impression of elegance.

GEUK argued that their photomontage at the back of the leaflet, which showed ten turbines superimposed onto a photograph of the proposed site, gave an accurate depiction of how that site would look when built.

2. GEUK said they had recently measured wind data specific to the Shap site and would make the results known when they had them. They said the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) recommended a load factor of 30% for onshore wind farms and, using information they had for the type of wind turbine proposed and the expected wind speed for the area, they estimated a load factor of between 28.6% and 32.2%. They also said information from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on load factors in the North-West suggested an average load factor of 27% between 1998 and 2004.

GEUK said the claim was a conservative estimate; their calculations resulted in a figure of over 10,000 homes whether a capacity factor of 27% or 30% was used.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted it was not possible to calculate the exact measurements of the turbine in the image on the front of the leaflet, because the blade was not perpendicular to the tower and the full turbine was not shown. We considered that, because their blades seemed longer in relation to the tower height, the turbines in the photomontage at the back of the leaflet appeared more squat than the turbine on the front of the leaflet. We considered that, because there was no clarifying text, when they first viewed the leaflet some readers might infer the turbine pictured on the front page represented how the turbines at the proposed Shap site would appear. We considered, however, that it was clear that the photomontage at the back of the leaflet was a depiction of how GEUK believed the proposed site would appear on the horizon when built; we noted accompanying text stated "The image is a cylindrical projection panorama ...". Because of the contrast between the appearance of the turbines in the photomontage and that of the turbine on the front of the leaflet, we considered that readers would understand that the image on the front of the leaflet was of a general turbine and was not intended to be representative of how the particular turbines at the proposed site would appear. We concluded that the ad was therefore unlikely to mislead on that point.

On this point, we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted GEUK's calculations. We considered, however, that the claim " ... That's enough electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000 homes annually* ..." would be seen as referring to the Shap wind farm, not to wind farms in general, and therefore implied that the figures had been calculated using specific data from the Shap area. Because the figures were based on the capacity factor of wind farms in general, and not on specific data from the Shap area, we considered that the claim was misleading.

On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told GEUK to remove the claim "That's enough electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000 homes annually* ..." unless the calculations the claim was based on included site-specific data.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)