The government's response was presented in a paper by Secretary of State for Wales John Redwood. It welcomes the committee's report -- published in July -- which supported wind energy development provided it is carried out in an environmentally acceptable way.
In its response the government reveals a commendable reluctance to be too prescriptive in laying down criteria for development, believing local planners to be better placed to judge schemes in accordance with local constraints. "It is more appropriate for the planning authority to show in their local plan the circumstances, however limited, in which development proposals might be permitted," is the government's reply to the committee's proposal that wind farms should generally be banned from sites in or near areas with landscape designations.
Responding to the criticisms of the Welsh Members of Parliament (MPs), the government draws attention to some of its initiatives to encourage sensitive wind energy development. Ongoing research into the environmental impacts of wind energy is likely to be expanded to include a study of the effects of long term exposure to low levels of mechanical noise, it says. It is looking at ways to encourage wind energy related manufacturing to Wales and expects to produce a national assessment of renewable energy potential in Wales. The paper also points to government steps to increase the availability of private sector financing of schemes.
The government defends the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) -- its system of financial support for renewable schemes -- which came under fire from the Welsh MPs. "The NFFO process encourages the most efficient developers with the most economic projects," it says in response to the charge that NFFO must bear the blame for much of the unpopularity of wind energy. It denies the NFFO process is too bureaucratic, but it concedes that the 1998 cut-off date for contracts under the first two NFFO rounds was "undesirable" and says this has now been rectified.
Answering the accusation that the NFFO has led to most wind turbines in the UK being of foreign manufacture, it says: "The NFFO process does not provide a privileged position for UK equipment suppliers but the government believes this is as it should be. Suppliers must be able to compete in world markets if they are to succeed so, ultimately, it does not help to protect them at home." However, this reply effectively ignores the reasoning of the MPs behind their criticism -- namely that it was as a direct result of the short time scales for contracts in previous NFFO rounds that most developers were obliged to look to overseas manufacturers at the expense of the emerging indigenous industry.
The British Wind Energy Association welcomes the government's response. It gives firm backing to appropriate development, says the BWEA's Michael Harper. "This is welcome news for the young UK wind energy industry. Wind energy makes economic and environmental sense and it is encouraging that this is now being acknowledged."
Environment group Friends of the Earth also agrees with the government's view that the local planning system is best placed to weigh up the benefits of wind. But it claims the government is not doing enough to encourage a more diverse industry. In particular FoE believes it should not have discontinued research on longer term technologies such as offshore wind, and that the government should do more to encourage smaller, community-based projects.
