(ROCs) for wave and tidal energy but the shift from support through ROCs to support through the Feed-in Tariff Scheme (FITS) under Electricity Market Reform is felt to be introducing uncertainty for investors. Contributors again emphasised the importance of clear, long term incentives and stated that, in addition to this, grant funding will be necessary to get the first arrays installed.84
151. The Committee believes that marine energy represents a special case. It endorses the Scottish Government’s extra measures that aim to assist the industry in Scotland to take the lead in this developing field. The Scottish Government must also work with the UK Government to ensure that a clear, stable, long-term incentive regime emerges from Electricity Market Reform.
152. The Committee endorses the range of mechanisms that the Scottish Government is deploying in order to get projects off the ground. The Committee regrets the reluctance of some banks to invest in renewable energy projects.
The subsidy regime
153. The UK and Scottish Governments support the generation of energy from renewable sources in several ways.
154. The Renewables Obligation (RO) places an obligation on UK suppliers of electricity to source an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. A Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) is issued to an accredited generator for renewable electricity generated and supplied to customers. The number of ROCs issued for each megawatt hour of renewable output depends on technology, with higher rates being offered for newer technologies. Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting sufficient ROCs. Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to meet their obligations, they must pay an equivalent amount into a fund, the proceeds of which are paid back to those suppliers that have presented ROCs.
155. The Feed-in Tariff Scheme (FITS) encourages investment in small-scale low carbon electricity generation, and requires energy firms to pay a generation tariff to householders or other small-scale generators (whether or not such electricity is exported to the grid) and an export tariff to them where it is also exported to the grid.
156. The table below illustrates ROC Bandings currently set in the UK (as of March 2011)
|
|
Number of ROCs awarded per MWh of electricity generated
|
|
Type of technology used
|
Scotland
|
England/Wales
|
|
Tidal Power
|
3
|
2
|
|
Wave Power
|
5
|
2
|
|
Offshore Wind
|
2
|
2
|
|
Onshore Wind
|
1
|
1
|
Source: SPICe
Subsidy levels
157. In its written submission, Scottish Renewables states that “the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) has been fundamental to the rapid growth in renewable energy capacity over the past five years”. While Scottish Renewables were broadly supportive of the Scottish Government proposals to reform banding levels set out in its 2011 consultation85,it described proposals to cut support for hydro and biomass as “poorly-informed”.86
158. Some question whether, in the most productive areas, subsidy for onshore wind is still necessary, arguing that monies would be put to better use by increasing support for nascent technologies.87 Others cautioned that even a modest reduction in the ROCs level would make some projects – particularly hydro projects - commercially unviable.88
159. Richard Dixon, WWF, Scotland, cited a Bloomberg new energy finance report, which “says that at the windiest sites we do not need subsidies”. Helen McDade, John Muir Trust, concurred, adding: “we now have a mature technology, and I agree that it is time to stop subsidising it”.89
160. In July 2012, the Scottish and UK Governments announced a reduction from 1 ROC to 0.9 ROC for onshore wind with effect from April 2013.
161. The Committee endorses the Scottish Government’s decision to make a modest and proportionate reduction of 10% to Scottish ROCs for onshore wind and welcomes the clarity this will bring for investors. The Committee urges the UK Government to follow suit and put an end to industry uncertainty by finalising its own ROC levels.
162. The Committee welcomes the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism’s announcement that the current ROC band for hydro generation in Scotland will be retained.90 This will have a positive bearing on the business case for potential schemes.
Photograph 3: From left to right, John Park MSP talks with Ian Cartwright and Murdo Fraser MSP on a visit to a Green Highland Hydro energy station near Aberfeldy, Perthshire.
163. Different levels of FIT support are offered for different types and scale of generation. Smaller installations attract higher rates per unit of energy produced.91 FIT support levels are currently under review. Some question whether the scheme incentivises smaller scale devices, leading to underdevelopment of sites and lower efficiency, and poorer value for the consumer bearing the cost of the subsidies.92
164. Maitland Mackie asserted that “you are wasting people’s money supporting these tiny little toys”.93 He expanded on this in written evidence pointing out that—
“The incentivising subsidy, paid for by all electricity users in UK, for the big turbines (1 MW +) is circa four pence per kilowatt. And will not be necessary when the price of electricity doubles. In comparison the subsidy for the smaller turbines, rises to circa 33 pence per kilowatt for the very small toys, and incentivises people to spend a very large amount of money for very small and insignificant output. (Note that photo voltaic solar panels currently require subsidy of up to 43pence per KW produced)”.94
165. Dr Colin Anderson agreed. He said, of the feed-in-tariff, that—
“the scheme tends to put a high premium on small-scale renewables and can encourage people to put in a smaller wind turbine, say, than they would otherwise have done in order to get more per unit. That means that we end up with less energy from the site at a high price, which is a mistake”.95
166. He suggested that a tariff akin to the taxation system where the premium payments were offered for the first units of generation and lower payments of subsidy would kick in for subsequent units. Such a scheme ought to make it worthwhile for developers to opt for the larger installation since they would still benefit from the higher payments for some of the electricity generated.
167. Economies of scale can be achieved using larger devices thereby producing better value for the consumers who provide the subsidy. The Committee recommends that the Scottish and UK Governments review the subsidy regime to ensure that it does not create barriers for community developments which wish to install larger devices. The Committee therefore invites the UK and Scottish Governments to explore whether a more graduated system of subsidy could be introduced which would remove these barriers.
Electricity Market Reform – impact on investment in renewables
168. Electricity Market Reform (EMR) will be brought about by the passage of the UK Energy Bill later this year. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny over the summer and published a critical report on the proposed legislation. It is anticipated that the bill will be introduced in November 2012. The legislation would see the introduction of Contracts for Difference (CFDs) for energy suppliers. CFDs are designed to stabilise returns for generators of low carbon energy at a fixed level, known as the ‘strike price’. The introduction of this draft legislation has raised a number of questions about its impact on the market and the supply of investment.
169. While some feel that EMR will broaden the investor base by providing long term investor security through Contracts for Difference, others lament the hiatus caused by uncertainty in the lead up to the introduction of the legislation. SSE expressed concern that the CFD mechanism may not continue to deliver the same level of investment due to their complexity and a lack of clarity around how they will operate.96
170. Attracting investment for renewable energy generation will involve competing with thermal generation. Concern has been expressed regarding DECC’s current Emissions Performance Standard (EPS), with some suggesting that it is too low and could lead to a “dash for gas”. FoES recommended tightening the EPS to a level that will require new gas fired generation to be equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology or have an element of combined heat and power (CHP).97 RSPB Scotland’s written submission echoed these concerns. Policies within EMR and for renewable energy in general, are predicated on a long term trend of increasing fossil fuel prices. While the majority of respondents believed that this was a sound assumption, it was disputed by Peter Atherton, who argued that this could not be accurately predicted.98
171. A very clear message emerged from respondents to this inquiry that stability and durability of any government support intervention are essential to attract investment. The Committee heard that projects had fallen by the way side due to a lack of certainty in the subsidy regime.99 One witness, speaking of the current mooted alterations to the ROC regime said that “uncertainty…gives big investors worries about whether long-term contracts will stick”.100
172. The damaging nature of uncertainty surrounding market incentives was raised again during discussions on skills. It was pointed out that firms who had invested in training for the installation of solar PV had to lay off staff following the reduction of the Feed-in tariff (FIT) by the UK Government. It was unclear whether this training would be accredited under the green deal.101,102
173. The Committee wishes to see a new support regime that will have both durability and stability and urges the UK Government to set out the detailed terms of the new market regime as soon as is practicably possible.
174. The following list is a checklist of priorities for the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK government over the UK energy bill:
- Importance of clarity, stability and durability of new policies
- A revision of the Emissions Performance Standard that does not create incentives which will lead to investment being unduly diverted from renewables to gas
- Engagement with Ofgem over islands charging regime
- The adoption of technology-specific support mechanisms (feed in tariffs and contracts for difference) which reflect the maturity of the technology.
- A reversal of the decision to support nuclear generation through Contracts for Difference as this represents a subsidy.103
Constitutional questions
175. In relation to Scotland’s constitutional future, a number of commentators raised the issues of subsidies, investment certainty and the export market.
176. In its written submission, SSE stated—
“The forthcoming referendum…increases the risk of regulatory change and legislative change with regard to the electricity and gas industry in Scotland because it means there is additional uncertainty about the future. This additional risk will apply up to the date of the referendum and, should the result be a vote in favour of a change in Scotland’s status, will continue until there is a binding agreement on all of the issues that could affect the electricity and gas industry in Scotland”.104
177. SSE also argued that “investment in new long-term electricity and gas assets in Scotland and England and Wales is effectively remunerated through the bills paid by electricity and gas customers throughout Great Britain”.105
178. The Renewable Energy Foundation also drew attention to the issues around investors continuing to attract the necessary subsidy and infrastructure investment in a post-independence scenario in its written submission.
179. WWF Scotland and FoES’s written submissions were both optimistic about Scotland’s ability to deliver on its targets as an independent country. WWF Scotland pointed out that—
“The UK and indeed EU ambition on climate change means that it is likely that whatever the outcome of the independence referendum that there will remain a growing market for renewable power generated in Scotland. This market should ensure that there is a strong investment case for infrastructure provision”.106
180. While FoES believed—
“It is likely that whatever the outcome of an independence referendum, there will be a growing market for renewable power generated in Scotland. While it is probable, because of Scotland’s strong resource, that this would be required for UK and EU targets in the medium term (2020), beyond this, and because of uncertainty around fossil fuel prices, one would expect renewables to be even more sought after”.107
181. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Davey, said that “questions would be raised” as to whether it would be fair, post-independence, for consumers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to continue to pay a subsidy on their bills for renewable power generated in Scotland and that Scottish consumers’ bills would be likely to rise.108
182. On the other hand, Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing expressed the Scottish Government’s intention that, in a post-independence scenario, Scotland would continue with the integrated UK energy market, due to the shared objectives of the countries involved. He argued that “continuing with an integrated energy market will be good for consumers”109 and asked, “why on earth would National Grid have agreed with Ofgem to enable a four-fold increase in our capacity to export electricity south of the border unless it was necessary?”.110
183. The Committee is aware of ongoing debate within the UK regarding the future of energy regulation and calls on both the Scottish and UK Governments to continue to cooperate towards the objective of a smoothly operating energy market in the future.
184. The Committee does not believe that there is significant evidence that the current constitutional debate is undermining investment decisions regarding renewable energy.111
185. The Committee notes that the support the Scottish Government can provide to the development of the renewables sector is limited by the current constitutional arrangements.112
Nuclear generation
186. The UK Government, in its programme for government, ruled out subsidy for nuclear generation113, yet CFDs are to be applied to all forms of low-carbon generation, including nuclear.
187. FoES summarised a number of concerns when it stated—
“If nuclear gains at the expense of renewables, as is likely under the proposed package, the electricity system is likely to decarbonise less quickly (since nuclear plants take much longer to construct than, e.g. windfarms); we risk lock-in to a highly centralized electricity system, with concomitant inefficiencies in transmission and distribution; we will fail to support emerging technologies in which the UK could be world leader, e.g. wave, tidal, and the jobs that would accompany such leadership”.114
188. The Committee concludes that the application of Contracts for Difference for nuclear generation, as proposed, represents a subsidy and is therefore at odds with the UK Coalition’s programme for government, which states that new nuclear plant can only be constructed “provided that they receive no public subsidy”.115 We recommend that this proposal is reversed.116
Exports
189. Achievement of the Scottish Government’s targets will be depend on Scotland’s ability to export electricity to the rest of the UK and, ultimately to Europe.
190. FoES’s written submission emphasised the potential for an export market—
“…there will be a growing market for renewable power generated in Scotland. While it is probable, because of Scotland’s strong resource, that this would be required for UK and EU targets in the medium term (2020), beyond this, and because of uncertainty around fossil fuel prices, one would expect renewables to be even more sought after”.117
191. The Committee wished to explore the risk, outlined in a number of submissions, that Scotland, when connected to a European grid, might have to sell excess power cheaply and buy it back at a higher price. Dr Charlotte Ramsay, Ofgem, said that was “the reality of efficient use of interconnection” and pointed out that energy generated from renewables has a green value (in addition to a wholesale value) and therefore “even if your wholesale energy price is zero, or close to zero, renewable generation will still be rewarded by the renewables support scheme”.118 She added—
“If the UK is producing more renewables than it needs, we must ensure that there are other member states that still need to meet their own targets and that are willing to support the green value that comes from that energy.”119
192. The Committee recognises the benefits of Scotland becoming part of an integrated European energy market.
Cost of policies to the consumer
193. The Committee has received a number of submissions which talk of the cost of the governments’ renewables policies to the consumer, with some advocating “cheap” and “clean” nuclear energy generation as an alternative to onshore wind.120 Comparing the costs of different methods of electricity generation is notoriously difficult to do as each form of generation entails different set up costs and decommissioning and the processing and long term storage of nuclear waste has to be accounted for. It is difficult accurately predict fuel costs over the lifetime of an installation.
194. The Committee on Climate Change’s work on the cost to consumers of decarbonising energy supply concluded that the rising cost of wholesale gas accounts for most of the recent rises in consumer bills (£290 between 2004 and 2012)121, while the Renewables Obligation, paid for through consumers’ bills, added £20 to average bills in 2011, and will add an estimated £48 by 2020.122
195. In terms of subsidy via taxation, Friends of the Earth Scotland cited an OECD report which contrasts support for renewables (£1.4 billion) with tax breaks for gas, oil and coal (£3.63 billion) in 2010.123
196. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to accurately predict fossil fuel prices in the future, it believes that energy generated from renewable sources has the potential to offer a high degree of certainty and security that no other source of energy can. It is the Committee’s view therefore that renewable energy represents a safe bet both for energy security and for protection from price shock.
197. It is the Committee’s view that the true cost of nuclear generation is obscured by the way it is paid for. While renewable energy is subsidised through consumer bills, nuclear generation and decommissioning was and is supported through general taxation and, as such, does not inspire headlines such as “environment policy reforms to add £300 to energy bills”.124 It is notable that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’s statement that “more or less half of DECC’s budget goes on nuclear decommissioning”125 did not attract a headline of its own.
Economic benefits
Jobs and GVA
198. The Scottish Government, in its 2020 Routemap for Renewable energy in Scotland126 states that “over the next decade to 2020, renewables in Scotland could provide: up to 40,000 jobs and £30bn investment to the Scottish economy”. The Committee explored these ambitions. Recent work by Scottish Renewables puts the number of jobs currently within the industry at 11,000127.
199. In particular, the Committee was interested to hear views on the opportunity costs of directing public and private resources to support the development of the industry and associated infrastructure and whether economic aims and CO2 obligations could be realised by directing resources in a different way. It is argued by some that an aggressive programme of home insulation could better meet reductions in CO2 emissions responsibilities and provide a greater number of jobs per pound invested. Other witnesses argued that both renewable energy generation and demand reduction are necessary in order to meet the economic aims and CO2 obligations.128
200. Scottish Enterprise, referring specifically to a preferred scenario within Scotland’s Offshore Wind Routemap,129 felt that the projected return investment of renewables projects compared well with projects in other sectors, although it was “always difficult to compare returns on investment in projects across sectors due to the different nature and objectives of each project and the time-frames over which they could deliver impacts”.130
201. John Robertson, Burntisland Fabrications Ltd., commented that the renewables industry offered a stable job market rather than the cycle of highs and lows experienced as a result of oil price fluctuations. He said, “One thing that renewables can bring to Scotland is continuity of employment and investment for a long period. We have never had such an opportunity in the manufacturing industry”.131
202. Only time will tell whether the projected jobs and GVA within the Scottish Government’s routemap and associated documents are realised. The Committee recommends that progress towards this industry estimate of job creation be monitored by the Scottish Government as well as the nature and type of those jobs. The Scottish Government should report regularly to Parliament on the progress towards realisation of job creation projections.
Who benefits?
203. A common refrain from those responding to this inquiry was that the bulk of the economic benefits reaped from the development of renewables go to wealthy landowners and large – often foreign-owned – firms while the cost was borne by bill payers, some of whom were unhappy with the visual consequences of renewable energy generation.
204. The counter argument to this is that we all benefit from the security of meeting our energy needs domestically and being insulated to some degree from the fluctuating price of fossil fuels. Reduced reliance on burning fossil fuels, if this is achieved, produces less local pollution while the challenge of man-made climate change means that we are all likely to benefit from a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the long term.
205. Community benefit payments and the benefits of community ownership are explored elsewhere in this report, as is the Committee’s view that community ownership represents the best and most immediate benefit to communities and individuals.
SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY
Skills
206. If Scotland is to capitalise on everything that an expanding renewables sector can bring in terms of economic growth and prosperity, it must have an appropriately skilled workforce. Competition for skilled workers between the conventional energy sectors and the renewables industries is stiff and the transfer of skilled workers from oil and gas into renewables, anticipated by some, has not been realised. The Scottish Government, its agencies and associated public bodies have a number of plans and initiatives designed to ensure that the skills supply matches demand and the Committee wished to explore whether their aims are being met.
207. The Energy Technology Partnership (ETP) is an alliance of independent Scottish Universities, engaged in energy Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D). The ETP is the largest power and energy research partnership in Europe and promotes collaboration between universities and industry to deliver energy RD&D capability across a range of energy technologies.
208. The Energy Skills Partnership (ESP) is a collaboration of colleges across Scotland. It aims to establish an energy community which can respond to industry requirements through pooling expertise and resources.132
209. Despite the partnership working taking place between industry, government and learning providers, the Committee was concerned to hear that several of its witnesses doubted Scotland’s ability to reach its renewables targets because of skills shortages.
210. Linda Greig, Carnegie College, asserted that “we will not meet the targets because we are not taking into account that people are leaving and the fact that we have a workforce that is skewed over the age of 35”.133
211. Rob Moore, National Skills Academy for Power, said “we have the potential to meet the targets but it will take a lot of work. If we do not do things differently, we will not meet them”.134
212. Professor Sean Smith, Edinburgh Napier University, said that “I doubt that we will meet the targets” adding “My main concern is about other sectors pulling away some of the resources. The likes of green deal will pull away a huge amount of resource – it is a slow car crash waiting to happen”.135
213. Robin MacLaren, Institution of Engineering Technology, added “like the previous witnesses, we have concerns about the availability of skills for the delivery of the policy, given that we are operating in a world market”136
214. The Committee visited North Highland College in June 2012 to tour the campus and find out more about courses on offer. We heard about a pilot scheme which offers apprenticeships in partnership with local employers. North Highland College deliberately recruited for the apprenticeships after local employers had completed their recruitment as the purpose of the scheme was to offer additional capacity. Despite this timing, the 12 places received over 80 applicants. This figure would, arguably, have been higher if the college had recruited at the same time as local employers.
215. While witnesses were in agreement that more skilled workers were required in the marketplace overall – as jobs in oil and gas were not tailing off as expected- the Committee heard differing views on the appeal of careers in engineering to young people. While such jobs are still seen by some as dirty, heavy jobs, other firms reported that they had no trouble with recruitment and that young people found renewable energy an appealing area to work in.137 Many were in agreement that too few women are attracted to careers in engineering and other jobs in the sector more generally.138 Reskilling of existing workers will be essential in order to meet demand.
216. Witnesses called on the Scottish Funding Council to make more funding available for postgraduate courses.139
217. Many respondents to this inquiry regretted the level of take up of STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects in schools and universities. A good level of uptake of STEM subjects will be essential in meeting the Government’s energy targets and also in ensuring Scotland succeeds in a number of other areas in the future.
218. The Committee believes that more work needs to be done to address the lower than desirable take up of STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects in schools, universities and colleges particularly where young women are concerned.
219. The Committee recommends that the Government works with industry to challenge any negative perceptions which may adversely influence career choices. In that regard, school careers advisors have a role to play in encouraging young people, especially women, to consider career opportunities in this sector. We note that the Scottish Government’s updated routemap includes an equalities statement.140
220. The Committee received a number of comments relating to the quality and rigour of some training schemes.141 However, it was pointed out that high quality, hands-on training schemes, which deliver work-ready, experienced and capable workers are more expensive to deliver.
221. The Committee has been impressed by the work it has seen being carried out in partnership with FE colleges, sector skills councils and employers to equip young people for the industry. It particularly endorses hands-on, intensive, accelerated schemes.
222. The Committee believes that lower quality training schemes fail the individual and will, ultimately, fail the industry. It therefore wishes to see a concerted effort by the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland, Scotland’s Colleges and Universities Scotland to drive out of the system courses which do not prepare young people for the workplace and ensure that they are replaced by rigorous, high quality courses.
223. We recommend that the Scottish Government and Scottish Funding Council should engage with the Energy Skills Partnership and the Energy Technology Partnership to ensure that the range of opportunities on offer is relevant and has the confidence of the industry.
224. Later sections of this report explore the role that community benefit funds can play in supporting training opportunities for local people, often in the low carbon sector.
Photograph 4: From left to right: Mike MacKenzie MSP, Patrick Harvie MSP, student Dougie McFarlane and Murdo Fraser MSP are pictured in Adam Smith College’s welding workshop.
Technology
225. While respondents were generally of the opinion that the technology exists to deliver the Scottish Government’s targets, this was set against the financial and planning hurdles which needed to be overcome to install it and the cost to the end-user.
Scotland leading the way on technology
226. Scotland can lay claim to a number of technology firsts – the world’s first deep water offshore wind farm has been consented in the Moray Firth and the world’s first tidal array consented off Islay.
227. Much has been made of the “Danish model” whereby Denmark is said to have stolen a march on other European countries by vigorously pursuing wind technology and grasping the lead on research and development. Aquamarine Power produced a report that explored the issue in some depth.142 Factors which led to Denmark’s success are thought to be: a strong domestic market stimulated by the correct incentives, capital support for early-stage projects, the successful commercialisation of early stage research and the facilities to test devices. Other witnesses spoke of the advantage of scaling up technology in a gradual and sustainable way and avoiding the loss of confidence in the industry which was experienced in the UK and US when large projects failed.143 One witness said “as the technologies develop, there is an opportunity to get world reach”.144
228. The Committee visited a number of firms based in or working in Orkney developing and testing wave and tidal technologies and was impressed by the range of organisations attracted there by the renewable resources and the facility for testing devices in live conditions.
229. The Committee believes that test facilities such as the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) and the proposed European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) provide an important draw for companies wishing to develop and test devices and will be critical in securing Scotland’s edge in the newer offshore wind, marine and tidal technologies.
230. Some contributors commented on the lack of manufacturing of devices taking place in Scotland and questioned whether Scotland could make up ground on manufacturing jobs. While it may be too late to gain a significant market share in the manufacture of wind energy components, it is felt that Scotland could lead the way in newer technologies such as marine energy and energy storage if the conditions were right.
Scale
231. As set out earlier in this report, smaller, less efficient turbines are favoured by both the planning system and the FIT while lenders favour bigger installations. MEG renewables said that “the big problem is that turbines of the scale that are acceptable to the banks for project funding purposes, are generally not acceptable to planners – or at least not when they are presented as single turbine or medium scale developments”.145
232. The Committee recognises that smaller installations offer lower efficiency, and would like to see greater harmony between financial, planning and subsidy systems that would remove the bias in favour of smaller, less productive installations which offer poorer value in exchange for the subsidy provided by the bill payer.
COMMUNITIES
233. The Committee had a particular concern with communities throughout this inquiry, both in terms of the impact of renewable energy development on local communities and regarding communities’ ability to take advantage of local renewable resources to generate financial and other benefits.
Community engagement with developers
234. Communities in certain rural areas are seeing significantly higher levels of deployment of onshore wind. Some of these issues were explored in the planning and consents section of this report. Some community groups and community councils have expressed their concern at a lack of resources to cope with the complexity of technical information provided by developers and complained of an insufficiency of support from local authorities and others such as Planning Aid for Scotland in this.146 Frustration was expressed with the law147 which precludes local councillors from discussing applications with constituents if they sit on the planning committee. Planning Aid for Scotland was praised for its provision of training events.148
235. While National Grid and developers appear to have significantly upped their game in engaging with local communities, a great deal of dissatisfaction clearly remains. Some witnesses noted that there is a perception of a “David and Goliath” scenario of local unskilled community representatives sitting across the table from Queen’s Counsel and highly qualified planning consultants. However, this is not unique to renewable energy development and the Committee has not undertaken a comparison with other forms of development.
236. Many communities feel poorly equipped to deal with planning applications. The Scottish Government should look at how this can be improved perhaps through reinforcing the role of Planning Aid for Scotland.
Community benefit clauses
237. Community benefit payments are voluntarily made by a developer for the benefit of communities affected by development where this will have a long-term impact on the environment. While many community groups welcome the income from community benefit payments, others view them as unacceptable “bribes” which can bias the planning process.
238. Kelly McIntyre, Fintry Development Trust, told the Committee that “benefits can be negotiated by local communities from day one to ensure that they get something that is important to them”.149 Jason Ormiston, Vatenfall, elaborated—
“A range of financial models are available to communities for benefiting from the development of onshore wind. It seems that straight community benefit payments are seen as the least respectable form of benefit in the pecking order. However, such funds are typically generous. They support communities to do what they need to do locally. Communities can gain access to those funds without incurring the risk that is associated with the development”.150
239. However, another witness described the process as follows: “they employ public relations people to campaign and go round the areas trying to persuade people by holding out carrots of making a certain amount of money if the developers are supported”.151 Another described the clauses as “beads and mirrors”.152 Maureen Beaumont, in her written submission, argued that the payments “undermine the impartiality of the planning process”.
240. Community benefit payments do not compare well with the income realised by a community generating its own energy, or taking a stake in a large project. A community-owned scheme 1% of the size of a large development can generate the same income for the local community as the usual community benefit payment attached to such a scheme153 (this would clearly contribute less energy to the grid). Murdo MacDonald, of Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust described the community benefits from commercial schemes as “a pittance”.154
241. The Committee learned that there is a broad range in the scale of community benefits offered, depending on the developers e.g. SSE who offer up to £5000 per megawatt installed capacity per annum155. When the Committee asked larger firms about the scale of community benefits they offered in relation to profitability, they were reluctant to give hard figures, claiming commercial confidentiality. This contrasted with smaller generators, some of whom were very open about their community partnership work which could involve a generous slice of profit (10%) or a community turbine, with the developer taking on all the risk.156
242. The Committee believes that the generation of community owned energy brings benefits beyond financial ones. The income can increase the sustainability of fragile communities, lead to greater social cohesion and provide work for local people in areas such as energy efficiency.
243. When it comes to community benefit, the Committee wishes to see larger firms emulate the example of the best smaller firms. We believe that community engagement should be a genuine two-way street and a fair exchange rather than a token payment representing a small portion of profit. Developers should adopt a code of practice which will set out a minimum profit share or ownership stake for the local community.
244. Furthermore, the Scottish Government should give consideration to whether developers of schemes over a certain threshold should be required to provide a community stake.
245. The Committee notes that the First Minister launched a register of community benefits from renewables in September 2012. The Committee hopes that the register will provide greater transparency and encourage some developers to make fairer payments.
Community developers
246. The Committee views community ownership as a way of ensuring that wealth derived from generating renewable energy remains within communities and can be put to good use for training and for funding low carbon measures for local households.
247. Locally produced power reduces grid distribution costs and can empower and enrich communities. The money generated is likely to be spent in the community, providing employment for local people. In some cases, it can be the key to the sustainability of a remote community. The Scottish Government has set a target for 500MW of “community and locally-owned” of energy by 2020157 and has a number of schemes in place to support it. Recent work by the Energy Saving Trust estimated that, of 147MW of community and locally owned energy generation, only 13 per cent of it is community-owned.158
248. The Committee wished to explore whether this target is meaningful and helpful. Dr Nicola McEwen, University of Edinburgh, said that “the target would be more transparent if it was unpacked”.159
249. The Committee finds that it is unhelpful to lump “community and locally owned” under one target. Communities and local entrepreneurs are likely to have very different needs and the benefits that will accrue from a local, privately owned installation are likely to be very different from one owned by the community. It is important to have clarity about the definition of community given the renewable energy investment fund (REIF) will regard public bodies as able to bid for community energy funding.160
250. In order to support and monitor the 500MW target, the Committee recommends that it is broken down into separate targets for community and locally owned developments. Specific measures should be identified to support the achievement of each strand.
Support schemes
251. The Scottish Government’s Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) is administered by Community Energy Scotland and aims to mitigate the risk of community renewables development by funding pre-planning costs through loans. Loans are issued to fund planning proposals and are repaid, with interest, back into the fund if the scheme is successful.
252. The Renewable Energy Investment Fund (REIF),161 mentioned earlier in this report will have a particular emphasis on supporting communities and rural businesses to develop their own local renewable projects. One witness described finance for community projects as “a major obstacle, particularly to smaller developments”, compounded by the withdrawal of some banks from this sector162. Witnesses hoped that the REIF and the Green Investment Bank would be able to step in to “break through the logjam”.163
253. Witnesses were very enthusiastic about CARES, describing it as a “great facility”, “highly effective” and “the only way to get into the game”.164 Witnesses did feel that the rate of interest, at ten per cent, was high and would rather see interest start to accrue at the point when planning permission is gained rather than from the point at which funds are drawn down, which is the case now. It was also felt that it would be more helpful if the community element of contribution to the project (10%) could be made at the end of the planning process rather than at each draw down, to ease cash flow.
254. There was very broad endorsement for the work of Community Energy Scotland from those responding to the inquiry.
255. The Committee strongly endorses CARES (Community and Renewable Energy Scheme) and believes it should be extended further. It recommends that the Scottish Government considers devoting greater resources to CARES in future budgets and looks at restructuring repayments to enable greater participation and enhanced benefits.
A role for local authorities
256. Local authorities have a role to play in providing advice and support to developers on planning issues but also in terms of local economic development. Experiences of community developers and would-be developers vary across Scotland.165 In 2012, DECC removed barriers to local authorities (across the whole of the UK) selling energy.166
257. The Committee recommends that local authorities should be encouraged to provide a baseline level of support, complementary to the support offered by Community Energy Scotland, which would help local groups get their own projects off the ground as rapidly as possible. Local authorities should explore whether they could play a greater role in the transition to a low carbon economy, for example by participating in district heating schemes.
Community generation and planning – a special case?
258. The Committee believes that the benefits of community-generated renewable energy – in addition to contributing to the Scottish Government’s targets – are enormous. This being the case, the Committee would like the Scottish Government to consider making adjustments to planning policy that would include clearer consideration of the local economic benefit of projects through the planning system.
Community scale developments
259. As discussed earlier in this report, a planning policy, finance and subsidy bias against medium scale projects exists and, as such, could put the community target at risk. The Committee recommends that the Scottish and UK Governments examine biases within the subsidy and planning regimes towards smaller scale devices with a view to ensuring that community-scale projects are not discouraged and communities are enabled to produce the greatest amount of energy they are capable of.
RENEWABLE HEAT
The target
260. Heat accounts for over half of energy demand in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s target on renewable heat is to produce 11% of heat demand from renewables by 2020. This target presents specific challenges. An estimated 2.8% of heat demand was met from renewable sources in 2010; of this, the combustion of biomass provided 90%. Renewable heat can be produced in a range of ways: on a micro-scale by burning wood or wood chips in the domestic setting, through solar hot water and through ground and air source heat pumps. Larger heating schemes for commercial and domestic use involve the combustion of biomass.
Subsidies
261. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) operates in the manner of a feed in tariff and provides a payment per unit of heat produced. It was launched by DECC in November 2011 for commercial premises and a long-awaited domestic version is now expected to be launched in 2013. Uptake of the commercial scheme has been very low in Scotland to date.167 Witnesses felt that the delay in the introduction of domestic RHI would impact on Scotland’s ability to meet its target.168
262. Support for renewable CHP produced by burning biomass is available under the ROCs scheme. Large scale biomass plants have the potential to make a major contribution to the Scottish Government’s target, but the combustion of biomass is not without controversy.
District heating
263. There is no heat network akin to the electricity and gas networks and, therefore, no straightforward market place for heat. Those wishing to install district heating schemes face problems in attracting financial support, in part due to the lack of a clear market place and an established relationship with end users. Developers wishing to build district heating into house building schemes cannot conclude contracts for heat supply in advance of building the homes and such plans are therefore deemed high risk. District heating schemes find it hard to compete on cost where homes are connected to the gas grid and retrofitting is, in any case, expensive.
264. The Scottish Government produced a renewable heat action plan in 2009, updated in 2010 and 2011,169which was subsumed into the 2020 Routemap. The Scottish Government also established the Expert Commission on the Delivery of District Heating, which will be made up of academics, industry leaders, local authorities and environmental groups. The Commission began meeting earlier this year and is expected to make recommendations to “ensure a major shift to district heating in Scotland”.170
265. Witnesses spoke of the investment hurdles faced by those wishing to install renewable heating systems and district heating schemes, stating that “banks are not lending”.171 Witnesses felt that CHP schemes were unlikely to be successful unless a large customer – such as a school, swimming pool or hospital was involved, to provide an “anchor load”. It was felt that the public sector, by committing to such schemes, would promote public confidence.172
266. The Committee believes that local and national government have a role to play in leading the way in investing in renewable heat and district heating schemes, producing local heat maps and also in creating a culture in which heat is a valued commodity and by raising awareness of RHI.
267. The Committee recommends that planning authorities produce heat maps and try to coordinate planning decisions on new industrial and domestic developments in order to identify potential synergies.
Biomass
268. It is estimated that just 15 large biomass facilities provided 74% of Scotland’s renewable heat output in 2008/09.173 The Government has stated that it would prefer to see biomass deployed in heat-only or Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes, off gas-grid, at a scale appropriate to make best use of both the available heat, and of local supply174 and, accordingly, set Scottish ROCs at a level which disincentivises larger scale schemes. Ironically, larger schemes are more likely to remain viable as electricity generators following the loss of a heat client and, as such, are commercially attractive to investors.175
269. Stuart Reid, (HWEnergy Ltd) estimated that, to achieve 6% of heat from renewable sources, “between 1,500 and 2,000 high-school-sized building [would need to] convert to biomass heating”.176
270. The combustion of biomass is controversial for a number of reasons. Some dispute the carbon savings claimed for this form of generation177 while others are concerned that, if it becomes popular, fuel costs will rise, cancelling out any financial savings. The Fraser of Allander Institute states that it would be “highly unlikely” within the current policy and commercial environment for Scotland to meet the 11% target using purely indigenous wood resources.178
271. The wood panel sector is a major generator of renewable heat via biomass (through the combustion of by-product), yet there is a risk that promoting renewable heat could put pressure on the viability of those businesses by creating a greater demand for feedstock and pushing prices up. This would, ironically, place the renewable heat target at greater risk of not being met. A written submission from the Wood Panel Industries Federation states that “the UK wood market will not be able to meet the demands of large-scale biomass developments” and argued that “It is far more environmentally sound to process wood than it is to burn it for energy generation.”179 There is also the potential for wood fuel price increases to impact on fuel poverty in areas off the gas grid, where householders rely on wood to heat their homes.
272. During oral evidence, Biofuelwatch pointed out that certification schemes, such as the sustainable forestry initiative, are owned by the companies that are contracted to use the land and, therefore, “we dispute the suggestion that reliance on certification schemes necessarily ensures sustainability”.180 Biofuelwatch also highlighted concerns over the emissions which are released when biomass is burned and the fact that these are repaid only when trees (for example) are replaced, which can take from 20 to 200 years. The potential human rights impact of some types of large-scale wood production were raised by Biofuelwatch and it was pointed out that it is difficult to measure this type of impact.181 Biofuelwatch also argued that “if Scotland is to meet its own stated target for heat we need to consider stronger efficiency requirements for biomass power stations”.182
273. The Committee shares the concerns of the Scottish Government and the wood panel industry with regard to the potential distortion of the wood market caused by increasing biomass generation. We are further concerned that sustainability criteria and certification schemes for feedstock fail to take account of issues of human rights, indirect land use change and emissions debt. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Scottish Government’s proposals183 not to incentivise new, large scale plants dedicated solely to the generation electricity. The Committee would wish to see substantive improvements in the efficiency of proposed biomass plants before they could attract subsidy.
274. The Committee supports the Scottish Government’s intention184 to remove ROC support for large wood-fuelled stations which do not offer combined heat and power.
275. If the Scottish Government’s ambition for biomass (i.e. deployed in heat-only or CHP schemes, off gas-grid, at a scale appropriate to make best use of both the available heat, and of local supply) proves to be economically unattractive for investors, then efforts will need to be focused on the domestic sector. This places an even greater urgency on the finalisation of domestic RHI, in order to improve consumer and installer confidence in the domestic heat sector.
Domestic, off-grid
276. Around 8% of households in Scotland are not connected to the gas grid185 and rely on more expensive oil, electricity or solid fuel to heat their homes. This, in combination with older housing stock, more likely to be a single dwelling, produces high levels of fuel poverty in rural areas.
277. Oceanflow Energy estimate that if half of these off-grid properties were to switch over to a renewable form of heating – such as a wood chip boiler – then the Scottish Government’s target would be met.186
278. The domestic RHI must be designed in such a way that it will enable householders who are not connected to the gas grid to make the switch to renewable heat affordably. The Committee notes the proposal in DECC’s consultation to “target the incentive where the opportunities to switch are cheapest i.e. those households that can make the greatest savings both financially and environmentally”, and is supportive of this approach. 187
Other technologies
279. Air and ground source heat pumps and solar hot water are gaining popularity. The installation of air and ground source heat pumps costs more than installing a traditional boiler but the domestic RHI, when it is introduced, must make it possible for individuals to recoup this investment.
280. Questions have arisen over the effectiveness and efficiency of ground and air source heat pumps, with some claiming that costs and carbon savings are marginal.188 The Energy Saving Trust point out that air and ground source heat pump technology is widely deployed in countries such as Sweden but warn that “failure to adequately insulate homes could lead to heat pump efficiency values not being achieved and undermine medium to long term renewable heat targets”.189 In a recent report, Consumer Focus Scotland found that “Both landlords and tenants believe the systems do deliver affordable warmth, when properly installed and with appropriate support”.190 More data is required to give investors confidence. In the future, when technology is installed under the domestic RHI, it will be monitored via a heat meter, in order to assess payments under the scheme. This will build up a data set to assist with investment decisions.
Overall finding
281. Taking account of the on-going delay of the introduction of domestic RHI, the controversies surrounding the combustion of biomass, and the hurdles associated with district heating schemes, there is a risk that the target for renewable heat may not be met. However, we note that the interim target has been exceeded.
282. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government considers whether there are ways of assisting domestic off grid households to move towards renewable sources of heating.
TOURISM
283. Whilst care always needs to be taken in terms of the planning process and decisions on the siting of individual projects in areas popular with tourists and in our more rural and remote rural areas, no witness has provided the Committee with robust, empirical evidence, as opposed to anecdotal comment and opinion, that tourism is being negatively affected by the development of renewable projects.
284. A study commissioned by the Scottish Government and published in 2008 found that “the Scottish Government should be able to meet commitments to generate at least 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 with minimal impact on the tourism industry’s ambition to grow”. Approximately three-quarters of tourists felt wind farms had a positive (39 per cent) or neutral (36 per cent) impact on the landscape.191 A study carried out by Wild Scotland in 2006 found that 61% of wildlife tour operators felt that the impact of wind farms on Scottish tourism would be negative.192 In a more recent survey by VisitScotland, UK respondents were asked whether the presence of a wind farm would affect their decision about where to visit or where to stay on a UK holiday or short break. 80% stated their decision would not be affected
285. It is worth noting that a number of wind farms have become tourist attractions in their own right. It was reported in June this year that Whitelee wind farm was set to reach a total visitor number of a quarter of a million.193 These visitor numbers are for the visitor centre itself, and do not include those who come to the farm for recreation.
286. Professor Cara Aitchison, of The University of Edinburgh, provided an analysis for the Committee of previous research on the impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland, England and Wales. This analysis also critically evaluated the sampling methodologies deployed in the various studies. Taking all of this into account, the submission concluded that there was “an emerging consensus within the research examining the actual and potential impact of wind farms on tourism. The clear consensus is that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism”.194
287. Some witnesses called for the Scottish Government’s survey work to be repeated on an annual basis.
288. While some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the wider deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind.
289. Whilst care always needs to be taken in terms of the planning process and decisions on the siting of individual projects in areas popular with tourists and in our rural and wild land areas, no one has provided the Committee with evidence, as opposed to opinion, that tourism is being negatively affected by the development of renewable projects. However, given the importance of this issue, the Committee recommends that VisitScotland and the Scottish Government continue to gather evidence on this from visitors to Scotland.
RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR TRANSPORT
290. The Scottish Government has set a target of 10% of all transport fuels to come from renewable sources by 2020, with electric vehicles being a particular policy focus.
291. Electrification of the transport system has the potential to have a major impact on GHG emissions but before there can be widespread adoption of electric vehicles, a public and work-place charging infrastructure will need to be created. Management of peaks in demand created by large numbers of consumers charging their cars overnight will present challenges, although there is scope for car batteries to assist in balancing the grid by storing energy produced at times of high output and / or low demand. These effects are unlikely to be felt within the 2020 timeframe. A potential market exists in deploying the same battery technology in homes to balance demand in the same way.
292. Electric vehicles are currently more expensive than petrol or diesel equivalents, although this is offset, to a degree, by cheaper running costs. Wider adoption would lead to economies of scale and cost reductions. As with electricity generation, as fossil fuel prices increase, the alternative becomes more financially compelling. There are examples of local authorities (using financial support from the Scottish Government) which have made savings by replacing some vehicles with electric vehicles.195
293. The Committee notes that there is a risk that the target may not be met and that further effort is needed in order to achieve this. The Committee wishes to see more local authorities taking the lead and demonstrating the savings to be made by switching to electric vehicles. Local authorities should also work together to produce a national network of charging points which would allow long journeys to be made in electric vehicles.
Jobs and skills
294. Scotland is home to leading designers and manufacturers of electric vehicles (e.g. Allied Vehicles) and batteries (e.g. Axeon) and these are seen as areas where the country could provide the lead for manufacturing. Although government support for the industry is available, anecdotal evidence suggests it is not working in a joined-up way. Referring to a recent withdrawal of an R and D grant from Scottish Enterprise, (due to funding from the Technology Strategy Board), Paul Nelson reported that “our company ended up being £120,000 out on the project because joined-up government does not work”.196
295. The Scottish and UK Governments’ approach to incentivising the uptake of electric vehicles should have the dual aims of decarbonising transport and capturing an emerging global market for battery technology which will promote manufacturing and research and development jobs and skills within Scotland.
ANNEXE A: LIST OF ACRONYMS
Note – All acronyms are fully explained when first mentioned in the text of the report. This list is provided for ease of reference.
CARES – Community and Renewable Energy Scheme
CCGT – Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
CCS – carbon capture and storage
CFD – Contracts for Difference
CHP – combined heat and power
COSLA – Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
DECC – Department of Energy and Climate Change
GHG – greenhouse gas
GIB – Green Investment Bank
EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
EMEC – European Marine Energy Centre
EMR – Electricity Market Reform
EOWDC – European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre
EPS – Emissions Performance Standard
EU – European Union
EU ETS – EU Emissions Trading Scheme
ESP – Energy Skills Partnership
ETP – Energy Technology Partnership
FIT – Feed in Tariff
FiTS – Feed in Tariff Scheme
GVA – Gross Value Added
ICRP – Incremental Cost Related Pricing
kW – kilowatt
MW – Megawatt
MWh – Megawatt hour
NRIP – National Renewable Infrastructure Plan
OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Ofgem – Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets
REIF – Renewable Energy Investment Fund
RHI – Renewable Heat Incentive
RO – Renewables Obligation
ROC – Renewables Obligation Certificate
STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths
ANNEXE B: REMIT AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The following remit and terms of reference formed the basis of the Committee’s inquiry.
Remit
“An inquiry into the achievability of the Scottish Government’s 2020 renewable energy targets, the merits of the targets and what the risks and barriers are to realising them.”
Terms of Reference
Targets
- Are the 2020 renewables targets (for electricity and heat) achievable? If not, why not?
- What contribution will achievement of the 2020 renewables targets make to meeting Scotland’s CO2 emissions targets (a reduction of at least 42% by 2020 and an 80% reduction target for 2050) under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009?
- Will increase in demand from electric heat and transport be offset by efficiencies elsewhere?
- Has the Scottish Government made any estimation of the overall costs of achieving the targets, and identified which parties will bear them?
Challenges
(a) Technology
- Is the technology to meet these targets available and affordable? If not, what needs to be done?
- Are electricity generating or heat producing technologies compatible with the need for security of energy supplies?
- Are our universities and research institutes fully geared up to the need for technological development, innovation and commercialisation?
(b) Supply chain and infrastructure
- Is the supply chain in Scotland in place to meet the targets?
- What further improvements are needed to the grid infrastructure or heat supply networks both at a national and a local level? Additionally, are we confident that the necessary infrastructure can be developed and financed so that Scotland can export any excess electricity generated to the rest of the UK and/or the EU? What is the role for the Scottish Government here?
(c) Planning and consents
- Is the planning system adequately resourced and fit for purpose?
- How can national priorities be reconciled with local interests?
(d) Access to finance
- Will sufficient funds be available to allow investment in both the installation and the development of relevant technologies? What can the Scottish Government do to influence this?
- What will the impacts be on consumers and their bills?
(e) Skills and workforce development
- Will Scotland have sufficient home-grown skills to attract inward investment? Are current policies producing the desired move towards Science Technology Engineering and Maths subjects at schools and universities? Is the skills transfer from the oil and gas sectors being realised?
(f) Energy market reform and the subsidy regime
- Are the reforms of the energy markets and subsidy regimes at both UK and EU level sufficient to meet the challenge of the Scottish Government’s renewable targets?
ANNEXE C: EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM COMMITTEE
2nd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 18 January 2012
Achieving the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee agreed the draft remit, terms of reference and call for evidence for its inquiry.
8th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 7 March 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee discussed its choice of witnesses, potential visits and the management of the written evidence received for its inquiry.
9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 14 March 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The Committee took evidence from—
Graeme Blackett, Director, Biggar Economics;
Richard Marsh, Director, 4-Consulting;
Niall Stuart, Chief Executive, Scottish Renewables;
and then from—
Richard Dixon, Director, WWF Scotland;
Stan Blackley, Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland;
Helen McDade, Head of Policy, The John Muir Trust;
Aedán Smith, Head of Planning and Development, RSPB Scotland.
10th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 21 March 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Chris Norman, Chair, Heads of Planning Scotland, West Lothian Council;
Simon Coote, Head of Energy Consents and Deployment, and Lindsey Nicoll, Chief Reporter and Director for Planning and Environmental Appeals, Scottish Government;
Keith Winter, Head of Enterprise, Planning and Protective Services, Fife Council;
Cllr Roger Grant, Chair of Housing, Planning and Environment Services Committee, Dumfries and Galloway Council;
Cllr Carolyn Riddell-Carre, Executive Member for Planning and Environment, Scottish Borders Council;
Jim MacKay, Planning Unit Manager, SEPA;
Andrew Thin, Chair, Scottish Natural Heritage;
David Palmer, Head of Marine Planning and Policy, Marine Scotland.
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 28 March 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Linda Greig, Director of Business and Sponsorship, Carnegie College;
Jim Brown, Director, Scotland's Colleges Energy Skills Partnership;
Professor Sean Smith, Director, Institute for Sustainable Construction and
Professor of Construction Innovation, Edinburgh Napier University;
Gordon McGuiness, Skills Development Scotland;
Rob Moore, Operations Manager Low Carbon, National Skills Academy of Power;
Andrew Scott, Senior Project Development Manager, Pelamis Wave;
John Robertson, Managing Director, BiFab;
Martin McAdam, Chief Executive Officer, Aquamarine Power;
Robin MacLaren, Institute of Engineering and Technology;
Simon Forrest, Director, Nova Innovation Ltd.
12th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 18 April 2012
1. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Dave Morris, Director, Ramblers Scotland;
Gordon Ball, Chairman, Cameron Community Council;
Kelly McIntyre, Project Manager, Fintry Development Trust;
Stephen Leckie, Chair, Scottish Tourism Alliance;
Walter Inglis, Convener, Grangemouth Community Council.
3. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee reviewed the evidence it has heard to date and discussed future witnesses.
13th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 25 April 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Donald Trump Sr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and George Sorial, Executive Vice President and Counsel, The Trump Organisation;
J Mark Gibson, and Graham Lang, Communities Against Turbines Scotland.
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 9 May 2012
1. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Dr Colin Anderson, Consulting Engineer;
Ken Hunter, Business Development Manager, MEG Renewables;
Steven Watson, Corporate Manager, Community Energy Scotland;
Dr Nicola McEwan, Co-Director, Institute of Governance, University of Edinburgh;
Murdo MacDonald, Convener, Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust;
Alan Hobbet, Director, Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd.;
Mike Pitman, Director, Boyndie Windfarm Cooperative Ltd.;
John Booth, Director, Eigg Electric Ltd.
3. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee reviewed the evidence heard to date and agreed future witnesses.
16th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 16 May 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The Committee took evidence from—
Lesley McInnes, Chief Executive, West Highland Housing Association;
Stuart Reid, HWEnergy Ltd.;
Neville Martin, General Manager, Shetland Heat Energy and Power Ltd.;
Emilia Jane Hanna, Biomass Campaigner, Biofuelwatch;
Calum Wilson, Managing Director, Forth Energy;
Ian Booth, General Manager, Aberdeen Heat and Power;
Professor Paul Mitchell, Director, Institute of Energy Technologies, University of Aberdeen.
17th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 23 May 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Duncan Burt, Head of Customer Service, National Grid;
Ian Funnell, Managing Director, Transmission, SSE;
Ronald Peddie, AMEC Power & Process Europe, Project Director of the Lewis Wind Farm Project;
Scott Mathieson, Regulation and Commercial Director, Scottish Power, Energy Networks;
Dr Richard Blanchfield, Deputy Project Manager and Head of Technical Department, NorthConnect KS;
Jeremy Baster, Grid Consultant to Orkney Islands Council;
Paul Nelson, Managing Director, Allied Vehicles;
Rebecca Trengove, Head of Marketing and Corporate Affairs, Axeon;
Shane Slater, Director, elementenergy.
18th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 30 May 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's Renewable Energy Targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Peter Atherton, Head - European Utility Sector Research, Citigroup Global Markets;
Andrew Buglass, Managing Director, Head of Energy Structured Finance, Corporate and Institutional Banking, Royal Bank of Scotland;
Dr Maitland Mackie, Chairman, Mackies;
Paul Lewis, Managing Director Operations - Sectors and Commercialisation, Scottish Enterprise;
Sir Donald Miller;
Dr John Constable, Renewable Energy Foundation;
Guy Doyle, Chief Economist, Energy & Carbon, Mott MacDonald Ltd;
Andrew Faulk, Policy Manger (Energy), Consumer Focus Scotland;
Duncan Carter, Policy Manager for Energy Regulation, Consumer Focus.
19th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 6 June 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The Committee took evidence from—
Steve Salt, Planning and Development Director, West Coast Energy;
Graham Brown, Managing Director, Burcote Wind Limited;
Jason Ormiston, Head of Public and Regulatory Affairs, Vattenfall;
Ronnie Quinn, Senior Policy Manager, Crown Estates Commission;
Gavin McCallum, Investment Director, Clyde Blowers Capital;
Jamie Glackin, Managing Director, Renewable Energy Consultants Ltd;
Andrew Jamieson, Policy and Innovation Director, ScottishPower Renewables;
Jim Smith, Managing Director, SSE Renewables.
20th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 13 June 2012
2. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Ian Marlee, Senior Partner, Smarter Grids and Governance (transmission), Charles Gallacher, Director of GB External Relations, and Dr Charlotte Ramsay, Head of European Strategy, Ofgem;
David Odling, Energy Policy Manager, and Alix Thom, Employment and Skills Issues Advisor, Oil & Gas UK.
3. Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered its approach to this report.
21st Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 20 June 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's Renewable Energy Targets: The
Committee took evidence from—
Edward Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and
Jonathan Brearley, Director Energy Markets and Networks, UK Government;
Fergus Ewing, Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, David Wilson,
Director of Energy, and Graham Marchbank, Principal Planner, Scottish
Government.
22nd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 5 September 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the draft report to its next meeting.
23rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 12 September 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee agreed to defer consideration of its draft report to its next meeting.
24th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 19 September 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered a draft report.
26th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 3 October 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered a draft report.
27th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 24 October 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered a draft report. Several changes were agreed to, three by division.
Note of divisions in private:
Patrick Harvie proposed the inclusion of paragraph 184. The proposal was agreed to by division: For 6 (Patrick Harvie, Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance and Marco Biagi), Against 2 (Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant), Abstentions 0.
The Committee does not believe that there is significant evidence that the current constitutional debate is undermining investment decisions regarding renewable energy.
Murdo Fraser proposed that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph 184. The proposal was disagreed to by division: For 3 (Rhoda Grant, Murdo Fraser and Patrick Harvie), Against 5 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance and Marco Biagi), Abstentions 0.
The Committee believes that there are issues regarding the subsidy regime in light of the constitutional debate that require to be addressed and calls on Ministers to continue to update the Committee on these matters.
Rhoda Grant proposed that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph 184. The proposal was disagreed to by division: For 3 (Rhoda Grant, Murdo Fraser and Patrick Harvie), Against 5 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance and Marco Biagi), Abstentions 0.
The Committee believes that there are significant issues regarding the subsidy regime in light of the constitutional debate that require to be addressed and calls on Ministers to continue to update the Committee on these matters.
28th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 31 October 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered draft report.
Marco Biagi indicated that close family members intend to lodge formal objections to a proposed planning application for a windfarm development by Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust.
29th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 7 November 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private): The Committee considered a draft report. Various changes were agreed to (one by division).
Marco Biagi proposed that the following paragraph to be inserted after paragraph 184. The proposal was agreed to by division: For 6 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance, Marco Biagi, Alison Johnstone), Against 3 (Murdo Fraser, John Park, Rhoda Grant), Abstentions 0.
The Committee notes that the support the Scottish Government can provide to the development of the renewables sector is limited by the current constitutional arrangements.
31st Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 21 November 2012
Inquiry into the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (in private):
The Committee agreed its report and the arrangements for its publication.
ANNEXE D: ORAL AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Please note that all oral evidence and associated written evidence is published electronically only, and can be accessed via the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s webpages, at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/.aspx
9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 14 March 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Graeme Blackett, Director, Biggar Economics;
Richard Marsh, Director, 4-Consulting;
Niall Stuart, Chief Executive, Scottish Renewables;
Richard Dixon, Director, WWF Scotland;
Stan Blackley, Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland;
Helen McDade, Head of Policy, The John Muir Trust;
Aedán Smith, Head of Planning and Development, RSPB Scotland.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
4-Consulting (129KB pdf)
Scottish Renewables (441KB pdf)
WWF Scotland (199KB pdf)
Friends of the Earth Scotland (358KB pdf)
The John Muir Trust (456KB pdf)
RSPB Scotland (423KB pdf)
10th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 21 March 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Chris Norman, Chair, Heads of Planning Scotland, West Lothian Council;
Simon Coote, Head of Energy Consents and Deployment, Scottish Government
Lindsey Nicoll, Chief Reporter and Director for Planning and Environmental Appeals, Scottish Government;
Keith Winter, Head of Enterprise, Planning and Protective Services, Fife Council;
Cllr Roger Grant, Chair of Housing, Planning and Environment Services Committee, Dumfries and Galloway Council;
Cllr Carolyn Riddell-Carre, Executive Member for Planning and Environment, Scottish Borders Council;
Jim MacKay, Planning Unit Manager, SEPA;
Andrew Thin, Chair, Scottish Natural Heritage;
David Palmer, Head of Marine Planning and Policy, Marine Scotland.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Heads of Planning Scotland (121KB pdf)
Fife Council (924KB pdf)
SEPA (159KB pdf)
SNH (301KB pdf)
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 28 March 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Linda Greig, Director of Business and Sponsorship, Carnegie College;
Jim Brown, Director, Scotland's Colleges Energy Skills Partnership;
Professor Sean Smith, Director, Institute for Sustainable Construction and Professor of Construction Innovation, Edinburgh Napier University;
Gordon McGuiness, Skills Development Scotland;
Rob Moore, Operations Manager Low Carbon, National Skills Academy of Power;
Andrew Scott, Senior Project Development Manager, Pelamis Wave;
John Robertson, Managing Director, BiFab;
Martin McAdam, Chief Executive Officer, Aquamarine Power;
Robin McLaren, Institute of Engineering and Technology;
Simon Forrest, Director, Nova Innovation Ltd.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Aquamarine Power (163KB pdf)
Alliance of Sector Skills Councils in Scotland (239KB pdf)
Skills Development Scotland (174Kb pdf)
Joint submission from Professional Engineering Institutions (178KB pdf)
12th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 18 April 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Dave Morris, Director, Ramblers Scotland;
Gordon Ball, Chairman, Cameron Community Council;
Kelly McIntyre, Project Manager, Fintry Development Trust;
Stephen Leckie, Chair, Scottish Tourism Alliance;
Walter Inglis, Convener, Grangemouth Community Council.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Ramblers Scotland (186KB pdf)
Fintry Development Trust (197KB pdf)
Cameron Community Council (83KB pdf)
Grangemouth Community Council (78KB pdf)
13th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 25 April 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Donald Trump Sr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Trump Organisation;
George Sorial, Executive Vice President and Counsel, The Trump Organisation;
J Mark Gibson, Communities Against Turbines Scotland.
Graham Lang, Communities Against Turbines Scotland.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
The Trump Organisation (16.95MB pdf)
Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS) (2861KB pdf)
CATS Annexe 1 (1410KB pdf)
CATS Annexe 2 (142KB pdf)
CATS Annexe 3 (32KB pdf)
CATS Annexe 4 (30KB pdf)
J Mark Gibson (2.13 MB pdf)
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 9 May 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Dr Colin Anderson, Consulting Engineer;
Ken Hunter, Business Development Manager, MEG Renewables;
Steven Watson, Corporate Manager, Community Energy Scotland;
Dr Nicola McEwan, Co-Director, Institute of Governance, University of Edinburgh;
Murdo MacDonald, Convener, Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust;
Alan Hobbet, Director, Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd.;
Mike Pitman, Director, Boyndie Windfarm Cooperative Ltd.;
John Booth, Director, Eigg Electric Ltd.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Colin Anderson (95KB pdf)
MEG Renewables (306KB pdf)
Community Energy Scotland (115KB pdf)
Dr Nicola McEwan (211KB pdf)
Rosneath Peninsula West Community Development Trust (73KB pdf)
16th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 16 May 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Lesley McInnes, Chief Executive, West Highland Housing Association;
Stuart Reid, HWEnergy Ltd.;
Neville Martin, General Manager, Shetland Heat Energy and Power Ltd.;
Emilia Jane Hanna, Biomass Campaigner, Biofuelwatch;
Calum Wilson, Managing Director, Forth Energy;
Ian Booth, General Manager, Aberdeen Heat and Power;
Professor Paul Mitchell, Director, Institute of Energy Technologies, University of Aberdeen.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Forth Energy (253KB pdf)
Biofuelwatch (249KB pdf)
Aberdeen Heat and Power (150KB pdf)
17th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 23 May 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Duncan Burt, Head of Customer Service, National Grid;
Ian Funnell, Managing Director, Transmission, SSE;
Ronald Peddie, AMEC Power & Process Europe, Project Director of the Lewis Wind Farm Project;
Scott Mathieson, Regulation and Commercial Director, Scottish Power, Energy Networks;
Dr Richard Blanchfield, Deputy Project Manager and Head of Technical Department, NorthConnect KS;
Jeremy Baster, Grid Consultant to Orkney Islands Council;
Paul Nelson, Managing Director, Allied Vehicles;
Rebecca Trengove, Head of Marketing and Corporate Affairs, Axeon;
Shane Slater, Director, elementenergy.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
National Grid (134KB pdf)
Scottish Power (277KB pdf)
18th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 30 May 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Peter Atherton, Head - European Utility Sector Research, Citigroup Global Markets;
Andrew Buglass, Managing Director, Head of Energy Structured Finance, Corporate and Institutional Banking, Royal Bank of Scotland;
Dr Maitland Mackie, Chairman, Mackies;
Paul Lewis, Managing Director Operations - Sectors and Commercialisation, Scottish Enterprise;
Sir Donald Miller;
Dr John Constable, Renewable Energy Foundation;
Guy Doyle, Chief Economist, Energy & Carbon, Mott MacDonald Ltd;
Andrew Faulk, Head of Corporate Resources, Consumer Focus Scotland;
Duncan Carter, Policy Manager for Energy Regulation, Consumer Focus.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Maitland Mackie (78KB pdf)
Sir Donald Miller (108KB pdf)
Scottish Enterprise (500KB pdf)
Consumer Focus Scotland (112KB pdf)
Renewable Energy Foundation (343KB pdf)
19th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 6 June 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Steve Salt, Planning and Development Director, West Coast Energy;
Graham Brown, Managing Director, Burcote Wind Limited;
Jason Ormiston, Head of Public and Regulatory Affairs, Vattenfall;
Ronnie Quinn, Senior Policy Manager, Crown Estates Commission;
Gavin McCallum, Investment Director, Clyde Blowers Capital;
Jamie Glackin, Managing Director, Renewable Energy Consultants Ltd;
Andrew Jamieson, Policy and Innovation Director, Scottish Power Renewables;
Jim Smith, Managing Director, SSE Renewables.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
West Coast Energy Ltd (308KB pdf)
Burcote Wind (259KB pdf)
Vattenfall (244KB pdf)
Renewable Energy Consultants (Scotland) Ltd (272KB pdf)
Scottish Power (277KB pdf)
20th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 13 June 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Ian Marlee, Senior Partner, Smarter Grids and Governance (transmission), Ofgem;
Charles Gallacher, Director of GB External Relations, Ofgem;
Dr Charlotte Ramsay, Head of European Strategy, Ofgem;
David Odling, Energy Policy Manager, Oil & Gas UK;
Alix Thom, Employment and Skills Issues Advisor, Oil & Gas UK.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Ofgem (461KB pdf)
Oil & Gas UK (262KB pdf)
21st Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Wednesday 20 June 2012
ORAL EVIDENCE
Rt Hon Edward Davey MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, UK Government;
Jonathan Brearley, Director, Energy Markets and Networks, UK Government;
Fergus Ewing, Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Scottish Government;
David Wilson, Director of Energy, Scottish Government;
Graham Marchbank, Principal Planner, Scottish Government.
ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE
The Committee received over 174 unique written submissions and 451 in similar terms. These can be viewed at: -
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/.aspx
Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group
AES Wind Generation
Association for the Conservation of Energy
Barreiro, Julio Cesar
Beaumont, Maureen
Birkett, Derek G
Bower, Professor D Jane
Brown, John and Denise
Brown, William
BSW Timber
Burns, W K
Caithness Windfarm Information Forum
Calor Gas
Cameron, Alan
CATS video
CBI Scotland
Chalmers, David
Chopping, Dr B M
Consumer Focus Scotland
Consumer Focus Scotland (2)
Cross, Michael
Dales, Mike
Diageo
Dickson, Malcolm
Duff, Marion
Dunbar Community Energy Company
Durie, Nick
E-ON
EDF Energy
Ellen, Chris
Energy Saving Trust
Falck Renewables Wind Ltd
Fells, Ian
Fraser of Allander Institute
Fraser of Allander Institute 2
Fuller, Adam
Gall, Avril
Galloway Landscape and Renewable Energy
Galloway Static Gear Fisherman’s Association
Gibson, Janet
Gleneagles Hotel
GL Garrad Hassan
Grave, Alison
Green, Morag
Greenheat Systems Limited
Hampson, Jim
Haseler, Mike
Hay, Frank
Herraghty, George
Herrick, Brenda
Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Hill, Brian
Hobbs, Bruce
Hobbs, Celia
Hurry, May
Institute of Energy Technologies
Islay Energy Trust
Keith, Alan and Tricia
Kerr, Philip
King, David
Landscape Institute Scotland
Langlands, Angus
Lauderdale Preservation Group
Laycock, Adrian
Lincoln, Carole
Maciver, Angus
MacKay Consultants
Mackay, John
MacLeod, Alastair
Mahoney, Cairn
Mcintosh, Bruce
McKee, Penelope Ann
Mcoustra, Archie
Meehan, Professor Tony
Metcalfe, Christine
Millar, David
Minto Hills Conservation Group
Monreith and District Action Group
National Farmers Union Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates
No Tiree Array
Nova Innovation
Oceanflow Energy
Osspower Limited
Ouldcott, Malcolm
Paddison, Mr John and Dr Jackie
Planning Aid for Scotland
Ponton, Professor Jack W
Procter, Trevor and Elaine
Pritchard, Heather
Pumfrett, Sarah
Quartermaine, Ronald
Rampen, Dr Win
Reform Scotland
Reeve, A
Rigg, Trevor
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Royal Town Planning Institute
Scott, Mark
Scott, Mary and Eppel, Herbert
Scientific Alliance
Scottish Chambers of Commerce
Scottish Climate and Energy Forum
Scottish Council for Development and Industry
Scottish Engineering
Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
Scottish Government
Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network
Scottish Wildlife Trust
SCVO
Smith, Douglas
Stevenson, Struan
Stewart, G.W
Stop Climate Chaos Scotland
Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign
Strachan, Professor Peter A
Stuart, Francis
Telford, David
Terry, Kim
Thrapapland International Retreat
The Scotch Whisky Association
Thompson, D.H
Travers, Mike
Trewavas, Professor Tony
UK Energy Research Centre
UNISON Scotland
University of Edinburgh, The
VisitScotland
VisitScotland report
Watson, Dave
Watson, George
West Highland Housing Association
Wilderness Scotland
Wilson, Gordon
Wood Panel Industries Federation
Woollen, Ian
Young, Stuart
Similar submission – number 1
Similar submission – number 2
Supplementary evidence
CATS1
CATS2
CATS3
CATS4
Consumer Focus Scotland
Friends of the Earth Scotland
Friends of the Earth Scotland - YouGov Poll
John Constable
NorthConnect1
NorthConnect - Skills
Pelamis Wave
RSPB Scotland pt 1
RSPB Scotland pt 2
RSPB Scotland pt 3
Scottish Enterprise
Scottish Government
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Power
Scottish Renewables
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
WWF Scotland
Footnotes:
3 Letter from Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, 1 October 2012.
4 Letter from Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, 28 September 2012.
5 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 30 May 2012 Col 1593.
6 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 20 June 2012 Col 1765.
7 Agreed to by division: For 6 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance, Marco Biagi, Patrick Harvie), Against 2 (Murdo Fraser, Rhoda Grant).
8 Agreed to by division: For 6 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance, Marco Biagi, Alison Johnstone), Against 3 (Murdo Fraser, Rhoda Grant, John Park).
10 Murdo Fraser MSP dissented from this conclusion and recommendation.
13 Letter from Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, 1 October 2012.
14 Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and Minister for Local Government and Planning. Letter to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, 19 June 2012.
15 Aberdeenshire Council in May 2012 and Fife Council in June 2012.
16 Fife Council, June 2012.
18 Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and Minister for Local Government and Planning. Letter to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, 19 June 2012.
19 Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and Minister for Local Government and Planning. Letter to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, 19 June 2012.
21 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 21 March 2012, Col 1168.
23 Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and Minister for Local Government and Planning. Letter to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, 19 June 2012.
24 YouGov, ICM/Guardian, Daily Mail, cited by Scottish Renewables. Written submission page 13.
25 Kim Terry. Written submission.
26 Scottish Renewables. Written submission. page 6.
27 Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and Minister for Local Government and Planning, letter to COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland, 19 June 2012.
28 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 9 May, Col 1426; [28] SSE. Written submission, page 6, and Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 9 May 2012, Col 1426.
29 MEG renewables. Written submission, page 2.
30 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1438.
31 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1457.
35 Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Written submission.
37 E.on. Written submission, page 6.
39 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 20 June 2012, Col 1758.
40 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 13 June 2012, Col 1711.
41 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 20 June 2012, Col 1759.
43 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1537.
44 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1538.
45 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1264.
46 Community Energy Scotland. Written submission, page 6.
48 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1533.
49 Adrian Laycock. Written submission.
50 Adrian Laycock. Written submission.
51 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1547.
53 Stop Highland Windfarms; Joint Submission from Professional Engineering Institutions; Brenda Herrick; The Scientific Alliance; Communities Against Turbines; Sir Donald Miller.
54 Maureen Beaumont. Written submission.
55 Institution of Engineering and Technology. Written submission.
56 Joint submission from professional engineering institutions. Page 4.
57 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1542.
58 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1542.
60 Communities Against Turbines Scotland. Written submission.
61 The Institution of Engineering and Technology. Supplementary written submission, page 1.
62 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1543.
63 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 14 March 2012 Col 1124.
64 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1559.
65 Ofgem. Written submission, page 5.
66 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 6 June 2012, Col 1667.
67 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2012, Col 1598.
68 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2012, Col 1595.
72 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 May 2012, Col 1257.
73 Aquamarine Power. Written submission, page 4.
74 Scottish Renewables. Written submission, page 7.
75Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1452.
76 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1453.
77 MEG Renewables. Written submission, page 2.
78 MEG Renewables. Written submission, page 2.
79 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2012, Col 1591.
80 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1453.
81 Friends of the Earth Scotland. Written submission, page 8.
82 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1256.
83 Vattenfall. Written submission, page 8.
84 Aquamarine Power. Written submission, page 7.
86 Scottish Renewables. Written submission, page 4.
87 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 14 March 2012, Cols 1140-1141.
88 SSE. Written submission, page 7.
89 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 14 March 2012, Col 1140.
90 Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Column 11437.
92 MEG Renewables. Written submission.
93 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2012, Col 1588.
94 Maitland Mackie. Written submission.
95 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1438.
96 SSE. Written submission.
97 Friends of the Earth Scotland. Written submission.
98 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 30 May 2012, Col 1611.
99 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1452.
100 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1256.
102 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1244.
103 Murdo Fraser MSP dissented from this conclusion and recommendation.
104 SSE. Written submission.
105 SSE. Written submission.
106 WWF Scotland. Written submission.
107 Friends of the Earth Scotland. Written submission.
108 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 20 June 2012, Col 1782.
109 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 20 June 2012, Col 1789.
110 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1796.
111 Agreed to by division: For 6 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance, Marco Biagi, Patrick Harvie), Against 2 (Murdo Fraser, Rhoda Grant).
112 Agreed to by division: For 6 (Dennis Robertson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, David Torrance, Marco Biagi, Alison Johnstone), Against 3 (Murdo Fraser, Rhoda Grant, John Park).
114 Friends of the Earth Scotland. Written submission, page 10.
116 Murdo Fraser MSP dissented from this conclusion and recommendation.
117 Friends of the Earth Scotland. Written submission, page 7.
118 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 13 June 2012, Col 1721 - 1722.
119 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 13 June 2012, Col 1722.
120 John and Denise Brown; Jane Bower. Written submissions.
125 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 20 June 2012, Col 1785.
127 http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glance/#jobs
128 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2012, Col 1148-1150.
130 Scottish Enterprise. Supplementary written evidence.
131 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1270.
133 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1251.
134 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 28 May 2012 Col 1251.
135 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 28 May 2012 Col 1251.
136 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1252.
137 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1269.
138 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1237.
139 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1243.
141 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1239.
143 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1253.
144 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 28 March 2012, Col 1256.
145 MEG renewables. Written submission, page 2.
146 Grangemouth Community Council. Written submission; Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 18 April 2012, Col 1311.
147 Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.
148 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 18 April 2012, Col 1313.
149 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 18 April 2012 Col 1283.
150 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report6 June 2012 Col 1671.
151 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 18 April 2012, Col 1311.
152 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1461.
153 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1462.
154 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1680-1.
155 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 6 June 2012,Col 1680.
156 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 6 June 2012, Col 1670.
159 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1429.
160 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 22 March 2012 Col 7669.
162 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 9 May 2012, Col 1451.
163 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 9 May 2012, Cols 1451-1452.
164 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 9 May 2012, Cols 1454-1455.
165 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 9 May 2012, Col 1426.
167 Scottish Renewables. Written submission.
168 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1488.
171 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1508.
172 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1486.
173 Sustainable Development Commission. Renewable Heat in Scotland. 2009
175 The Fraser of Allander Institute. Written submission, page 1.
176 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1488.
177 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1496.
178 The Fraser of Allander Institute. Written submission, page 1.
179 Wood Panel Industries Federation. Written submission.
180 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1499.
181 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 16 May 2012, Col 1515.
182 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report 16 May 2012 Col 1500.
184 Scottish Parliament, Official Report, 13 September 2012, Col 11437.
186 Oceanflow energy. Written submission. Page 1.
188 The Fraser of Allander Institute. Written submission, page 4, citing Getting warmer: a field trial of heat pumps – Energy Saving Trust –September 2010
189 Energy Saving Trust. Written submission. Page 5.
190 Consumer Focus Scotland. 21st century heating in rural homes Social landlords and tenants’ experience of renewable heat. February 2012.
193 Scottish Power Renewables, June 2012. Available at: http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/press_releases.asp?article=151&date_year=2012
194 The University of Edinburgh. Written submission, pages 16-17.
195 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Col 1563.
196 Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Official Report, 23 May 2012, Cols 1569-70.
Back to top