National Emergency Plan for Fuel (NEP-F)

The request was refused by Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Dear Department of Energy and Climate Change,

Please provide a copy of the National Emergency Plan for Fuel (NEP-F).

Yours faithfully,
Seth Mowshowitz

FOI Requests,

Ref: 10/0285

Dear Mr Mowshowitz,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 11
February. Your request has been passed on to the appropriate official at
the Department of Energy and Climate Change to deal with.

Best wishes,

Kay Wilson | Freedom of Information Advisor | Information Rights Unit |
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | Bay 351, 66-74 Victoria
Street, London, SW1E 6SW | [1]

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) is building a
dynamic and competitive UK economy by creating the conditions for business
success; promoting innovation, enterprise and science; and giving everyone
the skills and opportunities to succeed. To achieve this we will foster
world-class universities and promote an open global economy. BIS -
Investing in our future

show quoted sections

WOOLLEY Christopher (Resilience & Risk), Department of Energy and Climate Change

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mowshowitz

Please find attached our reply to your request dated 11^th February 2010

<<FOI 0285 Seth Mowshowitz.doc>>

King Regards

Chris Woolley

Emergency Planning Officer

Department of Energy and Climate Change

Phone: 0300 0685794

Email: [email address]

Seth Mowshowitz

Dear Christopher Woolley (Resilience & Risk),

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the reasons you have cited for not providing a copy of the NEP-F and will not be making an appeal.

As a matter of interest to you and your department, having done some research before making my request I was able to learn quite a lot about the contents of the NEP-F. I was easily able to view documents intended for numerous emergency services through everyday Google searches including several from NHS trusts and fire departments. The structure of the plan and its various schemes (the BDS, MPS, ESS, CS, US, etc) seems quite sensible. I did find a few apparent issues that may be worth highlighting in case they aren't dealt with elsewhere in the plan as of yet.

1. The security of some documents intended for emergency services is poor. For instance, some of these contain specific information as to the location of materials to be used under the temporary logo scheme for a particular emergency service. That's not the sort of thing the general public ought to have access to during an emergency.

2. Pay at the pump is an effective measure enabling the prevention of multiple payments with the same credit or debit card over pre-defined periods in the event of an emergency. However, if you are to prevent repeat visits from the same vehicle you either have to integrate cctv license plate recognition and tracking into the pay at the pump system or you need a crack team of dedicated law enforcement officials manning the DFSs 24 hours a day until further notice. Neither of these solutions will be cheap. However, this situation will arise. During the Amber Glass event of 2008 I was in Cornwall with my wife attempting to drive home. We managed to fill up easily by driving in and out of the forecourt a few times at the suggestion of the lady behind the till. She knew that the distributor hadn't anticipated the situation and had made no provision for dealing with it.

3. Most importantly, without genuine transparency as to why these disruptions are occurring the general public will find it very hard to accept these impositions. I stress this as it will get to the point where being vague about the reasons for our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will no longer be adequate. By not being transparent about energy security I firmly believe that the government is making this situation worse and worse for themselves and for everyone else.

Finally I'd just like to say that whether the government openly accepts peak oil or not is irrelevant. What is coming inevitably over the next decade and beyond is an increase in the cost of fossil fuels as they become more and more scarce and are in greater and greater demand. The IEA is also convinced of this. There hasn't been sufficient investment to prevent their WEO 2009 reference scenario and investment is still going down. There will be supply disruptions, they will get worse and the trend is not temporary.

Yours sincerely,

Seth Mowshowitz