ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: The Two Moors Campaign

Complaint

A leaflet, for the Two Moors Campaign, was headlined "The 10 Point Plan to Wind Turbine Wisdom at Batsworthy Cross". Text in the leaflet claimed "In Scotland ... the windiest locations are at great distances from the urban centres in the south, requiring extensive and expensive new grid extensions to bring the power south ... Massive grid expansion would be needed to accommodate even a small part of the proposed build in Scotland ... Wind turbines cannot provide "firm generation" and cannot replace conventional generators such as nuclear, gas or coal ... a 2MW turbine (100 metres tall) installed next year will save for most of its claimed 25 year lifetime approximately 0.27 tonnes of CO2 per MWh generated ... a Heavy Duty Vehicle emits 125 kg per hour at 100 kph ... through the Renewable Obligation subsidy system this saving will cost the consumer about £250,000 per year". The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim "Massive grid expansion would be needed to accommodate even a small part of the proposed build in Scotland" was misleading, because reports such as that of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) illustrated that accommodating up to 20% of the UK's generation from wind would not mean major grid system changes;

2. the claim "wind turbines cannot provide 'firm' generation and cannot replace conventional generators" was misleading, because an Environmental Change Institute (ECI) report claimed that conventional generators could be replaced by wind power;

3. the claim "a Heavy Duty Vehicle travelling at 100 kph emits about 125 kg per hour " was misleading, because she believed the figure was 1.25 kg/hr;

4. the claim "the emissions factor is only about 0.3 tonnes per MWh" was misleading, because she asserted that the industry standard was 0.86 tonnes of CO2 per MWh and

5. the reference to the "Renewable Obligation system" as a subsidy was misleading, because it was not a subsidy.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 13TH DECEMBER 2006. COMPLAINTS 1 AND 2 REMAIN UPHELD BUT THE WORDING HAS BEEN CHANGED.

1. Upheld

The Two Moors Campaign sent a presentation by a representative of National Grid Transco from May 2005 in support of their claim. The presentation stated that applications had been made to connect 17GW of wind power to the grid in Scotland and estimated that even if only a fraction of those were implemented the cost of necessary network investment could be between £500 million and £1.5 billion. They pointed out that the Sustainable Development Commission's report used an earlier article by the same representative of National Grid Transco to estimate transmission infrastructure costs at between £1.7 billion and £3.3 billion if 20% of the UK's overall energy was to be generated by wind power. They argued that both estimates represented major grid expansion.

The ASA noted that the existing capacity of the connections bringing electricity from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom was only 2GW and accepted that it was likely that substantial infrastructure investment would be necessary either in the form of reinforcements to existing connections or by new build on green-field sites. We considered however that in the absence of more detailed information about the nature, location and extent of such investment the use of the words "massive grid expansion" had not been substantiated and readers might be misled into thinking that the actual impact of grid expansion in the United Kingdom resulting from wind power developments in Scotland would be significantly greater than would in reality be the case. We considered that the claim, without some qualification, was misleading and advised the Two Moors Campaign to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team when advertising in future.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

The Two Moors Campaign argued that the amount of conventional capacity that could be replaced by wind power, expressed as a percentage figure of total output and termed ''capacity credit'', was so low that no conventional plant could be closed. They sent a report by a German national grid operator, E.ON Netz, that stated that if some 8% of wind energy output contributed to Germany's secured total output today, the figure was set to fall to 4% by 2020 if the predicted expansion of wind power went as forecast. The Two Moors Campaign also sent a magazine article by a British academic which concluded that, to preserve security of electricity supply, enough conventional capacity would need to be retained to meet the peak load and that much otherwise uneconomic conventional plant would need to be retained or replaced either running on low or minimum output or be replaced by plant that could be started rapidly and frequently to cope with the intermittency of energy generated by wind power.

We considered that, without further qualification, readers were likely to infer from the claim ''wind turbines cannot provide 'firm' generation and cannot replace conventional generators'' that there could be no reduction in the amount of conventional capacity required for any realistically achievable level of installed wind capacity. We noted, however, that the article sent by the Two Moors Campaign showed that appreciable reductions in the amount of conventional capacity required could theoretically be made once wind power was providing 10% of the UK's energy. We understood from the same article that some of the "surplus" conventional capacity might in the event be retained running on low or minimum output and that irrespective of the amount of wind capacity installed in the system, the conventional capacity required would never be less than the peak demand. But we concluded that the claim, categorical as it was, was misleading and told the advertisers to amend it.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1(Substantiation) and 7.1

(Truthfulness).

3. Not upheld

The Two Moors Campaign sent information from the Highway Agency that stated an Articulated Heavy Duty Vehicle emitted 1248g of CO2 per km at 100kph. They explained they had rounded up to 1.25Kg and had calculated that, traveling at 100kph, a Heavy Duty Vehicle would emit 125kg of CO2 in one hour.

We noted the figures provided from the Highways Agency and concluded the Two Moors Campaign had substantiated their claim.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

The Two Moors Campaign said the figure of 0.86 tonnes of CO2 per MWh (megawatt hour) was based on the assumption that wind energy would displace coal generation. They pointed out that the DTI and DEFRA acknowledged it was unlikely that coal displacement would occur over the lifetime of a wind turbine. They said the DTI and DEFRA recommended the use of a "grid average displacement" factor to calculate current CO2 savings from wind energy, which was 0.43 tonnes per MWh. They argued that it was more likely that, over the course of its lifetime, a wind turbine would displace gas and not coal. They sent a government statement that said 10% of supply from renewable energy in 2010 would save approximately 2.5 million tonnes of carbon per year if the equivalent amount of energy were generated from gas. They explained that the government target for 2010 equated to 33.6 TWh (terawatt hours) of energy. They calculated that 2.5 million tonnes of carbon converted to 9.2 million tonnes of CO2 and divided that figure by 33.6 TWh, which gave an implied emissions factor of 0.27 tonnes CO2 per MWh.

We noted the information and calculations provided by the Two Moors Campaign. We noted that the claim was preceded by text that stated "the results could be worse. Many experts expect wind to run in partnership with gas generation in the future, which doesn't emit much CO2". We considered it was clear from the text that the emissions factor of 0.27 tonnes was a projected figure for one possible profile of the UK's future fuel generating mix. We considered that, although the DTI and DEFRA recommended a "grid average displacement" factor to calculate current CO2 savings, it was reasonable for the Two Moors Campaign to use the government's implied emission factor of 0.27 tonnes to project future CO2 savings in the context of a speculative claim about a partnership between wind and gas generation. We concluded that the Two Moors Campaign had substantiated their claim.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.

5. Not upheld

The Two Moors Campaign explained that the Renewables Obligation created a revenue stream passing from electricity consumers to renewable generators which would not have existed otherwise. They agreed that that revenue stream did not pass through the Treasury, but argued that it was a subsidy in fact and that it was common to refer to it as a subsidy in literature on renewable energy. They sent an article from an official publication of a climate change institute and a report of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, both of which referred to the Renewables Obligation as a subsidy.

We noted the arguments and articles sent by the Two Moors Campaign. We considered that, although the Renewables Obligation was not officially a subsidy, it created an economic incentive for renewables generators and was commonly recognized to be the equivalent of a subsidy. We concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness), but did not find it in breach.