Magnus Gardham
Political Editor
THE last week before Holyrood’s Christmas break is always a headache for
political journalists.
It is not that MSPs are not busy, but the mad scramble to clear the decks
before the halls can be decked means it is rarely a time for big Government
announcements or eye-catching activity from the opposition parties.
The week has not been completely news-free, however, and the let-up in pace
at Holyrood did at least allow proper attention to be paid to two important
stories about Scotland’s renewable energy sector.
New statistics showed Scotland remains on course to meet its ambitious
target to generate the equivalent of its total energy needs from renewable
sources by 2020: the figure for last year was an encouraging 40.3%, up from
24.1% in 2010.
That was the good news. It came after we learned of a delay in energy
regulator Ofgem’s Project TransmiT, an already long-awaited plan to cut
transmission charges for renewable energy schemes in the north of Scotland
(and Wales and parts of northern England), which is designed to make them
more cost-effective and encourage future investment. The announcement was
greeted with frustration by politicians on all sides, who recognise the
merit in rebalancing the UK’s energy market in favour of renewables. Fergus
Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, said the “long-term discrimination”
against electricity generators in Scotland had just got longer.
The delay, caused by energy suppliers threatening to put up prices if they
were not given longer to adjust to the proposed new structure, means a
final announcement on Project TransmiT will not now be made until March
next year. That timing surely increases the chances of energy generation
becoming an issue in the independence debate. To date energy has played
only a walk-on part, while equally technical subjects such as the currency,
EU membership and pension provision have been pored over in minute detail.
Strange, you might think, given the competing claims made by the Yes and No
camps.
The SNP’s big offer on energy is a pledge to cut energy bills by about 5%
per year – worth £70 or so to the average household – by relieving
suppliers of some green costs which are currently passed on to consumers
and meeting them from Government budgets instead.
When Nicola Sturgeon announced the plan during the SNP’s conference in
October, aides said the cash would come from EU funds, so taxes would not
have to rise. Since then, however, it has been claimed the money available
through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would cover only a small
fraction of the cost of cutting bills by 5%. The EU ETS did not appear in
the SNP’s White Paper on independence.
More generally on energy, the SNP wants to maintain the existing UK-wide
market, with a few regulatory tweaks here and there. The pro-UK parties
believe that is a great idea, of course, arguing that the present set-up –
in which Scottish generators receive a third of all the UK’s subsidies for
green power – is part of their positive case for the Union. Bills would
come down/bills would go up: that sums up the fairly limited public debate
on energy and the impact of independence so far. The issue is being
considered behind the scenes, though.
Earlier this month, The Herald revealed the findings of a new report which
concluded that prospects for renewables would be better in an independent
Scotland pursuing its own energy policies. Under that scenario, said lead
researcher Dr David Toke, of Aberdeen University, Scotland could deliver
its 2020 renewables target with a 7.2% rise in bills. By contrast, bills
would have to rise by 10.4% if Scotland remained part of a UK-wide energy
system committed to costly new nuclear power stations. Pro-UK politicians
dismissed the report as “highly misleading”. The SNP welcomed it, saying it
highlighted “some of the options” for an independent Scotland”
(conveniently ignoring the fact the SNP Government is not pursuing the
option of withdrawing from the UK energy market.)
A debate about the possible impact of independence on energy and prices has
begun, then, even if it is not making headlines yet. That may change next year.
1 Comment