Rt Hon Brian Wilson CBE – Written evidence (LES0008)

I appreciate the opportunity to make this submission and welcome the Committee’s interest in a subject which is, in my view, long overdue for serious consideration and is also critical to the achievement of the UK’s net zero targets.

The sole subject of this submission is the role of hydro-electricity of which I have been a longstanding advocate, not least when I was Energy Minister. I endorse entirely the case put forward by the UK Pumped Storage Hydro Group for the urgent introduction of a “cap and floor” mechanism which would unlock the potential of this sector which is otherwise in danger of being lost to the United Kingdom.

My comments are therefore supplementary to that submission and can be stated fairly briefly. I should declare that I have advised Intelligent Land Investments plc during the consenting process for their Red John scheme on Loch Ness-side but have no financial interest in the outcome of that project or any other.

Rather, my interest lies in the belief that there is enormous potential for Pumped Storage Hydro to contribute to the UK’s “clean energy” resources, and that this is currently being under-valued by Government, probably due to the issue being regarded as “marginal” rather than through active hostility. I hope that the Committee will challenge that thinking.

I firmly believe that the current energy imperatives should lead to a revival of substantial Pumped Storage Hydro schemes, mainly in Scotland but also elsewhere in the UK where conditions permit. Hydro “new build” was effectively abandoned in the 1960s when cheap nuclear power presented itself as an alternative, particularly in Scotland.

The last two hydro schemes to be built were Pumped Storage Hydro projects at Cruachan, which was opened by the late Queen in 1965, and at Foyers which opened a decade later. By then, with abundant alternatives for base-load generation, the demand for either hydro generation or storage had receded.

My current concern is that Pumped Storage Hydro is suffering from two mindsets – to policy makers in Whitehall it is both out of fashion and out of sight, in spite of being by far the most proven and obvious technology to contribute to a storage solution. No one technology can provide that, and Pumped Storage Hydro is not dependent on the exclusion of any other. However, it is difficult to see why UK Government policy should obstruct Pumped Storage Hydro’s place in the mix when it is the technology which, world-wide, accounts for over 90 per cent of existing storage.

While Pumped Storage Hydro does not carry the fashionable allure of new technologies, some of which have been around since I was Energy Minister without much evidence of delivery, it offers a degree of certainty which is urgently required to facilitate the growth of intermittent renewables generation. It is difficult to understand why Government has not yet embraced it.

This takes me to “out of sight”.  Most, though not all, of the Pumped Storage Hydro schemes which are already shovel-ready or close to that status are in the north of Scotland for obvious reasons of topography. From my own experience, I believe there is a tendency to regard hydro as something that happens “up there” rather than treating it as a valuable component in the overall UK energy mix. This has led to it being given low priority in its quest for a supportive financial mechanism.

Another consideration that the Committee might consider is employment and skills. By and large, there has been a massive failure (particularly in Scotland) to deliver on the grandiose promises that were made about the number of jobs the transition to renewables would create. This has led to understandable scepticism about the likelihood of the “just transition” delivering what it promises. People need to see evidence.

The go-ahead for Pumped Storage Hydro Electric schemes offers, as far as I am aware, the only short-term prospect of the transition to renewable energy offering a major boost to employment, both in the construction industry and also in a supply chain which already largely exists within the UK – which is not the case with other renewable technologies.

As referred to in the UK Pumped Storage Hydro Group’s submission, there are obvious parallels with interconnectors – as well as the nuclear industry – in terms of the funding mechanism required. Just as with these two technologies, the costs with PSH schemes are heavily up-front and there needs to be some security to attract investment. By comparison with other commitments made by Government in pursuit of net zero, the application of this principle would be very low risk with disproportionately high rewards.

I would be pleased to elaborate on this submission in oral evidence if requested to do so.

8 September 2023