ASA Adjudication on E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Ltd

Ad

A local press ad and other promotional material for E.ON's West Ancroft wind farm development.

a. A local press ad listed the benefits of the proposed wind farm development and encouraged people to visit a public exhibition on the development. Specifically, it stated "the wind farm is expected to generate about 18 MW of energy and provide enough renewable power for around 10,200 homes”. The ad also featured an image of several wind turbines sited on a coast line.

b. A postcard encouraged people to visit a public exhibition on the development and also featured the image of several wind turbines sited on a coast line. It also stated "The proposed wind farm will be made up of 8 turbines and will have a generation capacity of around 18 MW, providing enough renewable energy for around 10,200 homes."

c. An information sheet for the West Ancroft development featured an image captioned "A view from Bowsden Village" and included a list of the development's benefits and impact. One point stated "Provide enough renewable power for around 10,200 homes¹". The footnote stated "¹annual homes equivalent based on an average domestic household consumption of 4.7 MWh (DTI Report on domestic energy consumption 2004)".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claims in ads (a), (b) and (c) that the wind farm could provide enough energy to power 10,200 homes were misleading and could be substantiated;

2. the image in ads (a) and (b) was misleading because it showed turbines that were significantly smaller than those that would be constructed at the West Ancroft site; and

3. the image in ad (c) was misleading because he did not believe that it accurately represented the visual impact of the proposed development.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Ltd (E.ON) said they calculated the prospective number of homes served by the West Ancroft wind farm development on the basis of the development's projected generation capacity of 18 MW, an average annual domestic usage (ADU) figure of 4,700 kWh and a capacity factor of 0.30. They said the ADU figure was based on established figures published by the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and pointed out that the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) identified a typical capacity factor of 0.30 for onshore developments. E.ON said the Digest of UK Energy Statistics, compiled annually by the Department of Trade and Industry, reported an average capacity factor of 0.282 in 2005. They maintained that the figure compared favourably with the typical industry average and believed that it was expected to improve year on year as greater numbers of modern turbines were brought online. Nonetheless, E.ON said their choice of capacity factor was supported by modelling they had carried out derived from potential wind speed data available from BERR's NOABL wind speed database.

E.ON said 13 scenarios were developed to ascertain the appropriate projected capacity factor for the West Ancroft site based on varying wind speed, turbine model and hub height. They said 11 out of the 13 scenarios resulted in a capacity factor greater than 30% and provided data on each of the calculations. E.ON added that, when they exhibited the project in November, they were working on a tip height of 125m and that, in each of the scenarios displaying at least 125 m tip height, a capacity factor of 0.30 was calculated. E.ON maintained that, despite the evidence suggesting that it would be appropriate to assume a higher capacity factor, they decided to take a prudent approach of using around 0.30, in line with the industry standard. They also sent a summary of the modelling they had carried out.

2. E.ON said they organised public exhibitions to enable them to consult effectively with the public and other key stakeholders. They said they used images of one of their existing wind farms on invitations to provide a general, eye-catching image of renewable energy. E.ON stressed that the images in the ads were used for illustrative purposes only and maintained that it was not the intention for them to be referred to as a depiction of how the West Ancroft wind farm would look. They pointed out that it was clear that the site was only in the development phase and therefore an image of the particular wind farm was not possible. They said the image used was of their Oldside wind farm, located in Cumbria. E.ON maintained that they chose the image because it depicted a coastline and could therefore not be mistaken for the West Ancroft site. They added that the image provided no scale comparisons, for instance, vehicles or buildings, and was therefore not misleading as to the comparative size of the prospective turbines.

3. E.ON said the graphic used in ad (c) was a photomontage, which aimed to provide the public with a general idea of how the West Ancroft wind farm would look when fully commissioned. They said the montage was part of a landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed West Ancroft scheme graphics, which was produced for E.ON in strict accordance with the requirements set by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Guidelines for Landscape and Visual assessments.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the ads stated that West Ancroft wind farm was expected to generate 18 MW of energy providing enough "renewable power for around 10,200 homes". We considered that readers were likely to appreciate that the project was in its early stages and that the figure was an approximate projection. We noted E.ON had used a generally accepted ADU figure as part of the equation and that that was acceptable for illustrative purposes. We noted, however, E.ON used an industry standard capacity factor cited by the BWEA as typical of onshore wind developments and considered that that figure alone was insufficient without data to support its applicability to the proposed site.

We noted E.ON had used data from the NOABL wind speed database, which provided annual estimated mean wind speeds for each Ordinance Survey 1km grid square in the UK. We noted the data was based on extensive modelling of wind patterns and was developed by the Department of Trade and Industry. We considered that NOABL data provided a robust estimate of the wind conditions expected in a particular area, although we considered that it did not provide the level of certainty and accuracy associated with measurements taken on-site. We noted E.ON had used the NOABL data to model the use of several different types of turbine on the prospective site. We noted that the vast majority of models, including all of those where the prospective tip-height of the turbines was consistent with the plan E.ON were working with at the time of the ad, resulted in a capacity factor greater than 0.30. Consequently, we considered that E.ON had demonstrated that the actual expected capacity factor was likely to be in excess of the 0.30 used in the ad. Because they had given reasonable grounds for the equation used and made clear in the ad that the claim was a projection, we concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ads (a), (b) and (c) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find them in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted the ad did not feature a specific indication that the image was intended to be a representation of the proposed site. However, we noted the complainant's concern that the site depicted utilised turbines that were only half the size of the planned 125 m turbines at West Ancroft. Although we noted E.ON's argument that the graphic was merely a generic image of a wind farm used for the purposes of promoting E.ON's public exhibitions on the proposed development, we considered that the image was likely to give readers an indication of the impact of the proposed wind farm development. Because of the disparity in size between the image and the turbines proposed for the West Ancroft site, we concluded that the ads were likely to mislead.

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

3. Upheld

We noted the photomontage was intended to give an impression of what the development would look like from a specific viewpoint and noted E.ON maintained that they had followed the established guidelines, in particular, those published by SNH. We noted, however, the complainant was concerned that the photomontage reduced the visual impact of the development. Although the ad made clear that the viewpoint was from the perspective of Bowsden village, we noted it was several kilometres from the proposed site. We also noted, as well as detailing technical guidelines for the production of photomontages, the SNH guidelines emphasised the importance of using viewpoints that were representative of the proposed developments impact. Because we understood that the proposed 115 m high turbines at the West Ancroft site would be highly visible in some areas, particularly areas closer to the site than Bowsden village, and because we considered that the photomontage in ad (c) was not sufficiently representative of the likely visual impact in those areas, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

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

Action

Ads (a), (b) and (c) must not appear again in their current form.

On point 2, we told E.ON to ensure that they used generic wind farm images in their promotional material that were more representative of the particular development.

On point 3, we told E.ON to ensure that they used viewpoints more representative of a proposed developments impact.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)