YOUR columnist Pinstripe may be a supporter of ever increasing subsidies to
the renewable energy sector (“Time for Salmond to bring Cameron into line
on vital role of renewable energy”, The Herald, December 28), but what he
does not mention is the fact that there was no mention of the cost of these
regressive green levies imposed on energy consumers in Alex Salmond’s
Referendum White Paper.
In addition, Pinstripe made no mention of the fact that 92 per cent of
these regressive subsidies are paid by English and Welsh consumers. He also
failed to mention that had Scotland voted Yes in 2014 then these
arrangements would have been declared illegal under European regulations,
as pointed out by former MP Brian Wilson.
Pinstripe also failed to state that the well-off, the wealthy and the rich
could previously mitigate the costs of these regressive levies by
installing solar panels, biomass units or wind turbines to receive massive
pay-outs from the Feed-in Tariff scheme, the Renewable Heat Incentive
scheme or the Renewables Obligation Certificates scheme. The only group who
pay into the regressive levies and receive nothing in return are the 35 per
cent of Scots living in fuel poverty, but at least they are now shielded
from further increases by the cuts to the renewable sector subsidies.
Again Pinstripe fails to point out that not a single MSP or Scottish MP has
supported the campaign by Michael Riley of Scottish Renewables to scrap
these regressive green levies and use their new powers to transfer the
subsidy bill to the tax-payer. Nor does Pinstripe state the size of the
subsidy bill. Well, in an Agenda article of April 12, 2014, Ms Jenny Hogan
of Scottish Renewables stated that the sector received £2 billion in
subsidies whilst generating 12 per cent of Scottish demand. Scaling up to
100 per cent of demand gives a subsidy bill of £16 billion and all largely
to be paid by those in fuel poverty.
What Pinstripe failed to was whether any political party at Holyrood will
include the aims set put by Mr Riley in its manifesto for the 2016 election
or whether regressive renewable subsidies remain a burden for those in fuel
poverty.
Ian Moir,
79 Queen Street,
Castle Douglas.
8 Comments