Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Anger over green power subsidy cut



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 August 2008
THE Westminster government has been accused of putting the development of green energy at risk, by shelving plans to subsidise projects in the Scottish islands.
It means companies setting up renewable energy schemes in Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles face paying up to 40 per cent of their annual turnover on crippling transmission charges.

The government had planned to bring in a "cap" on the charges to make sure the renewables industry was not put off from developing in these key locations.

But it has come under fire from environment campaigners and the Scottish Government, after announcing it was not intending to go ahead with the plans, which would have cost some £13 million a year in subsidies.

Campaigners said the decision put the development of the renewables industry at risk and the UK and Scottish targets for green energy under threat.

If the subsidy is scrapped, an average-sized 100 megawatt wind farm in Shetland will be hit with an estimated £8 million charge each year.

By contrast, companies building wind farms in the south of England are being paid money to transmit electricity, because the charging system favours schemes that are close to heavily populated areas.

Campaigners say the charging regime must be changed, as it is crucial to attract renewables companies to the Scottish islands which, with their high winds, powerful waves and strong tides, will play a key part in achieving the UK's target of 15 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Jason Ormiston, the chief executive of industry body Scottish Renewables, said it believed Westminster had underestimated the impact of high charges on the islands. He went on: "We are disappointed that the Department for Business is not minded to use its powers to limit the damage that high charges could do.

"We need to be clear that high charges will undermine our efforts to establish a thriving and diverse renewables industry in Scotland.

"They would prevent the deployment of large wind farms in the islands and north of Scotland and threaten the successful deployment of Scotland's first – and therefore most important – fleet of wave and tidal projects."

Renewables currently represent only 2 per cent of "installed" capacity but contribute 16 per cent of total UK transmission charges.

Under the existing system, projects in Shetland face charges of £82 per kilowatt of electricity, compared with £39 per kw in Orkney and £61 per kw in the Western Isles. But companies in parts of the south of England are actually paid £8 per kw for transmitting electricity.

The government had been planning to cap the charges at about £25 per kw for the islands, before changing its mind.

Projects that could be hit include Viking Energy's plans for a 600 megawatt wind farm in Shetland and the Norwegian firm Fairwind and Statkraft's proposals for a 126 MW wind farm in Orkney.

The UK system is the only regime in Europe that varies charges on the basis of location, and there are claims it goes against a European Union directive that bans governments from using charges that discriminate against renewable energy produced in peripheral regions. The renewables sector is lobbying for a flat rate to be paid.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, is due to meet with the industry regulator Ofgem next month to put forward an alternative charging system.

Jim Mather, the enterprise minister, said: "Scotland is united against the National Grid's electricity transmission charging regime, which works against the development of clean, renewable energy in Scotland.

"The Scottish Government, ScottishPower, Scottish and Southern Energy and the Scottish Renewables Forum have already presented an unanswerable case to Ofgem, who responded positively to the need for change.

"The National Grid have told us that they accepted the need for a review of charging."

He added: "We will continue pushing our case for Scotland until we have removed this unnecessary barrier to clean, renewable energy."

Gavin Mackay, senior development manager at Highlands and Islands Enterprise, agreed there must be an overhaul of the transmission charging system. "It discriminates against renewable energy generators," he said. "They are trying to produce power in areas away from demand centres and they are being charged unduly."

He said the issue, as well as the lack of grid capacity, could destroy the UK's chance of meeting its renewable energy targets. "I think we are definitely at risk of not meeting our targets unless we find solutions to these issues," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business said the government could use its power to cap charges only if renewable development in a particular area would be likely to be hindered. He said: "Our evidence base suggests the current level of transmission charges would not prevent otherwise economically viable renewable projects being built – even in the extremities of Scotland – as shown by the significant capacity awaiting connection."

A spokeswoman for Ofgem said: "We are clear that transmission charging levied on a user should continue to reflect the costs that user imposes on the network to get their flow of energy to the end user.

"This is because the further a source of gas or electricity is from its end user, the more it costs to transport that energy to them."

BACKGROUND

THE UK transmission charging regime is so complex some members of the renewables sector say a PhD in maths is needed to understand it.

It is designed on a cost-reflective basis, so the parties that use the system bear the costs that they impose on the network.

The methodology divides the country into zones where different generation and demand tariffs apply.

Due to most demand being in the south, generation tariffs are higher in the north.

The National Grid claims this provides market participants with incentives to guide investment in balancing the benefits of being closer to the demand areas against the associated costs of building plants closer to those areas.

SCOTSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Environmental campaign fury as demands on flight pollution watered down

Report highlights what needs to be done

Clegg calls for a revolution

THE SCOTSMAN DEBATE

Is Scotland making a mess of its renewable energy policy?

Town Hall, Jedburgh, 14 October, 7pm
Panellists include Green MSP Patrick Harvie

To reserve tickets, e-mail scotsmandebates@scotsman.com or write to David Lee, ScotsmanDebates, The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS (please include a phone number and state how many tickets you want)

The full article contains 1074 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

G.Campbell,

22/08/2008 00:08:14
Broon's spielbergian scorched earth policy continues.

For tripods read Darling, Browne and Cairns.

Any one with a kilt on or smelling of shortbread instantly vaporised.

That'll teach the SNP-voting jocks.
2

McMadman's third cousin,

The rest of the clan have been censored 22/08/2008 00:12:04
Aye, it must be the SNP's fault right enough, isn't that right AM2, Highland Mighty, Soup itchen, ScottishnBritish, etc and so on. No doubt we can look forward to your spin telling us exactly that this is the case.
3

Castaway,

22/08/2008 00:34:34
Is this to put pressure on the Scottish Government v nuclear power ?
4

Resolutions,

22/08/2008 01:01:43
Sweet caring Labour who play at supporting Green issues, and saving the Planet, strike again!

What are they trying to do? Send the islanders back to crusie lamps and the peat banks to keep warm?

As long suspected, have not a clue about energy. They think flick a switch and it happens.
5

Edward,

22/08/2008 01:06:37
And comment from our Scottish Labour MP's and MSP's?


(wind blows and tumbleweed blowing through for effect)


NOTHING! - ZIP ! - NADA!

Which about sums them up - just empty vessels of air and nothing else
6

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 22/08/2008 01:19:09
Punished again for not voting Labour.
7

Edward,

22/08/2008 01:27:43
#8 Anton Marionette

Thats funny, thats exactly what Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew Brown keeps telling the dear leader Brown. After all Andrew is PR director of Nuclear Energy firm ERF
8

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 22/08/2008 02:09:38
Ah, the latest manifestation of the union dividend.
9

An Beal Bacht,

22/08/2008 04:12:15
Ach !
10

MacGillicuddy,

22/08/2008 07:08:55
The Liebour Party's " Union Dividend" writ large!
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 22/08/2008 07:15:09
It makes better sense (given these variable tariffs) for each area to be self reliant in energy (etc). If the Western Isles can produce reliable cheap power then this might attract power hungry industries to set up there. As wind is not reliable then the grid is needed and so, like road and rail and post, should be appropriately costed and priced.

The grid does cost money. Only last week Shrek wanted to spend £2bn on a connector to Norway! This money would be best spent creating a marine turbine technology that would make us energy self sufficient and a major exporter of sustainable energy technology.
12

Saoghal Beag,

22/08/2008 07:40:22
really isn't fair to give gordie the credit for this, another muck up by the detrr. they have and are running the power supply netwrok to suit southern england. they have failed to recognise specific scottish issues and failed to address them. we can also thank them for not breaking the elcetric off peak monopolies run by SP and SH.
13

Unimpressed one,

22/08/2008 07:41:48
Not only does it not work, but it's economically a dead duck. Still Scotland will have more of it and lead the world. Sounds about right.
14

Hugo of Garven,

22/08/2008 07:49:58
"It is designed on a cost-reflective basis, . . "

"But companies in parts of the south of England are actually paid £8 per kw for transmitting electricity."


Can both of these statements be true?

Perhaps one is true on Monday and the other on Tuesday?
15

Jay Kay,

22/08/2008 08:33:30
#14 rules, right with you there mate, wind is pretty unreliable plus wind speeds in excess of 50mph sees the wind farm shut down so pretty much unreliable, marine turbines far more reliable due to the reliable course of the moon. Nuclear still not convinced Sctoland would become Englands dumping ground. Still convinced independence is the way forward and this is yet another attempt by shrek to p*ss of the voters thereby damaging further the image of Nuliebor, I am however begining to beleive that shrek might after all have a cunning plan up his sleeve.

The way I see it he p*sses of the English so much they want rid of Scotland, we finally get independence and GB produces a note from his solicitor saying that this was his plan all along and has been lodged with him ten years ago. Masterplan disclosed and GB comes home to Scotland a national hero.

Might sound like realms of fantasy but its the only logical explanation I can come up with for a Scot, living in London, surely that man couldn't hate his own country that much?. Im so ashamed to be a Rovers Supported think Im gona go back to the Fife.
16

Miss H,

22/08/2008 09:04:23
18 We all understand the principle that underlies the transmission charge regime, incentivising electricity production as close as possible to where the energy is consumed.

But you will also be aware that the Scottish Government is working with the Irish Government and Northern Ireland Executive on shared grid capacity and you will also be aware of the developments on a North Sea supergrid.

You are not seeing the bigger picture here.
17

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 09:17:58
Some facts SNP supporters should consider beyond just turning this into the usual anti Westminster whinge.

1. The "Westminster government" is not taking money away from Scotland. It has simply refused to overrule the UK regulator OFGEM and so provide EXTRA renewable subsidies to Scotland.

2. Is it not current SNP policy is to support a "united" power system under the current rules, i.e. a UK regulator even if Scotland is independent -i.e. still under "Westminster" in some mysterious way. How on earth would the governance work I wonder?

3. The reason for this SNP policy is quite simple. Renewable subsidies are paid for by a levy on final consumer bills, not general taxation. So 90% of the subsidy for renewables in Scotland are paid for by the English. However if the SNP genuinely think the English will continue to pay a subsidy to make Scotland self-sufficient in renewables post independenece then surely they are living in cloud-cuckoo land?

4. Actually I think (OK an opinion, not fact) the SNP are simply playing to the gallery in this regard. No doubt if/once they have achieved their political prime objective they will simply drop pushing for more wind farms in Scotland post independence (along with more Bangladeshi chefs, extra Scottish infranty regiments etc., etc.). And then the wind farms which already despoil our landscapes will become so much scrap metal. Remember there is no large Scottish constituency for wind farms beyond the landowner and developmer subsidy junkies and the greenies. These people have less than 5% of the votes of National Trust Scotland and RSPB Scotland membership slone!

3. Oh, wind farms are still needed to stop global warming? Come on, pull the other one. Most western governments are now rowing back fast on wind farms, both because they are so expensive in the context of rising consumer energy bills accross the board, and make a minimal contribution to CO2 reduction. Also whatever the science, western publics are becoming
18

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 09:34:24
-21 continued. End of my post cut off maybe because it was so long and boring. Was just going to conclude by saying expect the SNP to switch to the much more honest position already held by the Scottish Enterprise Party once the AGW hypothesis becomes dead in the political water.

-22sm753. I would translate Miss H "bigger picture" to say they hope to get the subsidies from somewhere else- e.g. EU money channelled via the Irish under the TEN-E programme. Ha ha. TEN-E budget already has run out and I doubt a Cameron government will put up more English taxpayers money (aka "EU money") in the next budget round.

19

Alan B,

22/08/2008 09:37:42
The answer is surely to devolve the issue of electricity transmission to the scottish parliament.

Currently we have a situation where westminster wants largely nuclear. And the scottish parliament (not just the snp) wants to promote renewables as a priority.

While different people will have an opinion on nuclear or renewables it surely makes sense for the scottish parliament to decide what is in scotlands interests. Electricity policies in scotland have long been different from England (the way it was privatised; vertically, NETA did not apply to scotland, the proportion produced by nuclear). If you have traditional had different policies and priorities on both sides of the border it makes sense that it should be a devolved power. In fact it is silly not to.

If you are arguing for it to be controlled by westminster you are either against devolution, anti snp, or do not believe in renewables and put that above the concept of democracy.
20

tommy M,

SCOTLAND 22/08/2008 09:43:37
Westminster continues to try to thwart Scottish progress. "Bring it on" Gordon Broon and your liebour party, to quote a certain much loved phrase. We won't be fooled again.
21

Alan B,

22/08/2008 09:45:54
#New Town Resident

The big problem with your argument is labour, the lib dems and the snp all want to promote renewables with windfarms a component of that.

Your argument as such confuses the polical with what you would like to personally see.

The real question is who should decide scotland electricity make up. Westminster or Scottish parliament. They then can decide on how it is regulated, subsidised or not, to achieve the goal desired. Because lets face it, it is not just an economic issue, it is a political issue, ie whether the people want nuclear and/or renewables, wether you bother about issues round climate change, should cost be the only factor, what about security of supply etc.
22

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 09:46:32
23. Yes but we could really bore people even more by conducting a real converation on something I suspect we are both experts!

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where the subsidy goes - i.e. the split between landowners, the local tax take, the policy wonk hngers on with their endless publically subsidised conferences and consultancy and research papers, the fabricators, the installers and the generation companies. Actually I think the majority take lies with the landowners and fabricators. The generators are probably close break even and are simply forced down this track by the volume obligation inherent in the ROC. Wouldn't be at all surprised is the second biggest takers are the policy wonks in the quangoes and universities, but hey we are all entitled to some blind prejudices on this board!

So my dumb down "Scottish subsidy" description is reasonably apposite, always assuming you consider the large estate owners and policy wonks Scottish of course!
23

Alan B,

22/08/2008 09:50:23
#22 sm753

fail to see how that makes any sense.
24

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 09:54:27
-25. You haven't addressed my question of where the subsidy will come from if you seperate Scotland. This is why I think the SNP still support NETA and are simply grandstanding. If Scotland was self-sufficient on renewables and paid the infrastructure costs itself then power prices in Scotland would more than triple - agreed? You would get a pretty quick answer then as to the political choice in Scotland methinks?

My mental picture is that serious policy makers at UK level intend to row back on the EU renewable targets, and now German policy is changing too as the greens are losing political ground. You can see this quite clearly in the latest National Grid 7 year power generation projections if you go to their web site.
25

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:04:39
#New Town Resident

You have ignore my point.

Talking about serious policy makers at westminster, as if any policy makers within the scottish parliament are not serious, speaks more of you own political point of view that a proper critique.

There are different arguments for renewables and/or nuclear. With the exception of the tories north of the border all parties are against nuclear. And all of those are pro renewables.

As such the question is political. Who decides within a democracy what that policy should be.

It is like you remark that the snp on independence would drop its support for renewables. I would think that unlikely given that so many of their supporters are so against nuclear. As are the other major parties outwith the tories up here.

So I ask you the quesiton again. Putting aside your views on what it the best method of electricity generation and given that scotland voted overwhelming in a referendum for devolution who should decide the policy.


26

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:20:19
#sm753

"it is the market - and that is how it should be. "

Both parts of that statement are wrong.

The market decides within the regualatory environment decided by government, subsidies given, taxation etc.

If you are letting the market decide then you would not have nuclear.

The dash for gas which the market decided on was barmy, using up uk supplies so quickly so was are now a net importer.


"and that is how it should be"

That is your political opinion. The fact is scotland does not tend to be (rightly or wrongly) as bought into that philosophy. As such a government has to decide somewhere if you take a free market approach or more regulated to achieve environmental targets and security of supply (ie not depend on imports of gas).
27

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 10:21:10
-32. By serious policy makers I didn't mean Westminster politicians anymore than Holyrood politicians, but rather the work led by the DBERR and the NG company in long term energy planning.

I agree with your point that democratically an independent Scotland should decide its own energy policy. What I am saying is that no way could this be based on renewables because it would be economic (and indeed ruling party political suicide), and so more renewables would be dropped. What I was trying to point out to you is that its the SNP who are being inconsistent in pretending they can go on with an English subsidy for renewables post independnece so they can try and keep the renewables lobby in their big tent.

The likes of Dave from Barra's vote would decide this in an independent Scotland. Good.
28

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:27:13
#33 sm753

The problem purely with the transmission charges is: the government in westminster want to encourage generation near use. The scottish government want to encourage renewables (rightly or wrongly) which can mean being based on more remote areas.

As I see it if you devolved transmission charges in scotland then transmission charges would have to cover costs. The government in scotland would then be free to set the transmission charges as it sees fit. Westminster would do the same for england. (tramission charges would be set by both governments to cover costs).

Electricity should not have add addition cost for travelling over the border. It would just have the associated costs for that part of the jouney so to speak.
29

MoClana,

22/08/2008 10:31:39
Let this dispicable act by Westminster be turned into the biggest stick in which to beat those trecherous Unionist politicians out of this country once and for all.

There is now a concentrated effort by Labour to strangle the progess of the democratically elected goverment of Scotland. Our future prosperity and our environment is beinbg sacraficed for Londons dirty litle games. They should all go down in history as the most corrupt politicians since 1707....shame on them !
30

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:33:17
#New Town Resident

I was not talking so much about independence, more about within a devolved uk. Who should decided the regulatory environment north of the border for transmission charges. No matter your opinion or mine on renewables, nuclear, climate change it is policical.

While you claim it would be electral suicide for parties. Labour and lib dems set a 40% target by 2020 and the snp upped that to 50%.

I do not know how others feel (i have little problem with nuclear) but it used to be seen as electral suicide to support nuclear in scotland.

The fact is if you devolved transmission charges to the scottish parliament as part of devolution, then if your views on renewables are correct then scotland would quickly fall into line with the wider uk policy anyway and drop renewables.
31

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 10:36:40
37. Alan B. wrong I think. The costs of extra transmission lie wholly within Scotland - e.g. the highly contoversial Beauly link - 50,000 objections (votes) wasn't it? There is already spare capacity on the English link, and anyway I thought Salmond was arguing Scottish self-sufficiency based on renewables, not exports to England?
32

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 10:46:00
39. Alan B. See Hutton's recent paper on the impact of renewables on UK electricity prices post 2015. They are already worried about the impact of renewable costs even smeared across the whole UK, yet alone refocussed on a 10:1 ratio in Scotland. I meant Scottish electoral suicide if the smearing (i.e. english subsidy) came to an end.

My view would be that an independent Scotland would probably simply import power from England. This is because its unlikely that gas or nuclear investors would take on a what would likely be a highly problamatic planning process in an independent Scotland. But a democratic decision. Would help to have an honest debate though before making it?
33

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:49:32
#New Town Resident

"and anyway I thought Salmond was arguing Scottish self-sufficiency based on renewables, not exports to England?"

My reply was referring to #sm753 who said

"So the result would be like pre-2005 where "English" Nat Grid would levy a large charge at the border "

The last time i looked scotland exported electricity to England anyway (and northern ireland).


Why is it wrong to say the issue is about transmission charges? The main issue as far as I can see is that the uk government through the regulatory body want to encourage generation near use. Scotland for other reasons wants a more flat charging transmission charges so that remoter areas are not disadvantaged as they are the areas thay may be used for windpower generation.

Tried to do a quick google on cost make ups for renewables. And came across this

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/environment/economics/story/634419.html

"Twenty-five states now have renewable standards, but many are states with abundant wind power, which is rapidly becoming cheaper than some fossil fuels"

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants a 25 percent standard by 2025."

So the idea there is a complete row back from renewables is not necessarily correct.

For wind, i alway wonder what makes it dearer and if that is likely to change. Generating cost nothing. So the cost must come from land, buying the windmill and maintainence. And also be effected by their effectiveness ie do not work if winds too high.
34

Alan B,

22/08/2008 10:53:36
#New Town Resident

"My view would be that an independent Scotland would probably simply import power from England."

England is not even self sufficient herself, importinf from both france and scotland. Scotland also exports to Northern Ireland.

I do not know the current situtation but about a decade ago we exported 40% of our electricty produced. (think it is much less now)
35

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 11:17:25
43. Was talking long term (i.e post 2020)and a seperation context. Assume England will build new Nukes and CCGTs whereas Scotland won't replace our nuclear and coal for reasons I set out above.

If you go to the DBERR website, energy section, energy review papers you will find detailed supporting analysis from their consultants (Redpoint from memory?) - anyway these analytical papers give very detailed cost break downs for different typrs of generation if you are interested in getting to the bottom their relative costs. Location (transmission) is only a small part of why wind farms are hopeless uncompetitive. OK you could argue the gas price will go on rising, but actually the energy industry consensus view is that this is unlikely. Currently the gas price is linked to oil. But actually there is plenty of gas globally compared to oil, so expect the link to be gradually broken.
36

Montgomery Flange,

Soho 22/08/2008 11:20:25
Dave from Barra, I totally agree that wind farms should be near the towns and cities they support. It would me more economic in the long run.

I also think you should have a wind farm on your island, right next to your house to provide you with your electricity.

Whats good for the goose, eh?
37

Andra, Dundee,

22/08/2008 11:25:40
This is the first sensible energy policy I've read in the Scotsman for a while.
Wind power gets grants from the government; they expect transmission subsidies; they get paid higher price.
Where does all the money come from - (a) taxpayers and (b) consumers.

There should be a little note on our electricity bills to say how much renewable subsidy is included in our bills.

I'm not against wind power - I'm just against the subsidy cover up.
38

Miss H,

22/08/2008 11:26:01
22 The bigger picture is quite simple as I see it. We do not benefit from being part of the UK in respect of the transmission charge regime. No-one can really argue with that can they? You can make an argument that the transmission charge regime does not exist to benefit Scotland but the UK as a whole, which is a totally fair point. But that being the case maybe we ought to look at what would benefit Scotland.
39

Miss H,

22/08/2008 11:29:25
43 Scotland will not need to import any electricity from England and if we were independent we would not have to export any to England either unless it was economic to do so.
40

Montgomery Flange,

Soho 22/08/2008 11:29:47
The depressing thing about this whole arguement isnt that it's turned into a Scotland v England debate. No, it's that we are having this at all. The UK and every other countries need to get serious about renewable energy.

I'm no tree-hugging hippy green, but even I realise the irony in spending billions on Oil wars in the middle east while not having the money to invest in the future.

Everyone must feel the burn from the latest increase in Gas prices.....here is a wee shock to you all...they wont be coming down anytime soon by a considerable amount. Thats it. It's over. The days of cheap gas and oil are over. Get used to it.

What we can do on these islands is decide: do we want to forego some areas of beauty for wind farms or do we want to be held to ransom by gas producing nations like Russia (oh, and it will come by the way, make no mistake about that - they havent even started on us yet) or do we want to sit and look out our windows admiring the view as we shiver our ar$es off nine months out of the year. no contest really, is it?

We also need to litter the firths and estuaries of this island with electricity generating devices that use wave power....the silly thing is, it will cost some, but in the long run we'll benefit.

Do we have any potential leaders with the neccessary vision,not to mention the cahones to take us there?
41

Montgomery Flange,

Soho 22/08/2008 11:33:19
44 - "OK you could argue the gas price will go on rising, but actually the energy industry consensus view is that this is unlikely. Currently the gas price is linked to oil. But actually there is plenty of gas globally compared to oil, so expect the link to be gradually broken."

NTR, expect those who have the gas to sell it to those who havent or dont have enough of it, at as a high a price as they can. Expect nothing less, as this goes beyond what the experts say. This is human nature.
42

Miss H,

22/08/2008 11:35:58
49 It's the UK Government which has turned it into a Scotland versus England thing.

The will exists in Scotland to capitalise as much as possible on the vast renewable resources that exist, which comprises a lot more than just onshore windfarms.

The will exists across the different political parties and throughout the industry and also has the support of the vast majority of the public.

It is not Scotland that has a problem here.
43

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 11:38:01
Shouldn't it be the other way round? The consumers should have to pay more if they live a long way from the source of power? That's the argument the petrol companies use for their pricing in the highlands.
44

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 11:44:22
# 45 Montgomery Flange

No point in having a wind farm where its not windy. May as well drill wells where there is no oil.
Renewable energy has to be harvested at source - if people live a long way away from it they should have to pay the transmission costs. Or build a nuke in Battersea?
45

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 11:47:08
#43 Alan B,

It is much less now because the nuclear stations are hardly ever both working at the same time or on a much reduced output?
46

Saoghal Beag,

22/08/2008 12:08:52
54 and france is in almost perpetual overproduction since they rely on too much nuclear.

The transmission cahrges are not a renewable generation subsidy, they do not differentiate between generation types.
47

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 12:25:44
#55 Saoghal Beag,

Quite so - but my point was that you have to build renewable generators where the energy source exists.
Nuclear or fossil stations can be built close to the demand - subject of course to the nimby effect. Tidal stream generation will obviously not work where there is no tide.
48

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 12:50:16
-47 Miss H. Complete tosh if i may say so.

The current regime is that Scottish transmission (existing and new build) is charged to all GB consumers. Thus English consumers pay 90% of the costs of Scottish transmission, including the higher costs in Scotland, which are not fully cost reflective anyway. Similarly Scottish consumers pay 10% of the English bill.

So your point of no benefit would surely only be correct if there were the same number of electricity consumers in both countries, there was the same percentage of renewables in both and that charges were fully cost reflective in both. Same point applies to the renewables generation subsidy (the ROC).

If you were correct then you (i.e. the SNP) would be happy for Scottish consumers to pick up the full costs of new Scottish transmission and renewable general subsidy plus UK government subsidy guarantees to existing Scottish renewables, less the 10% Scottish contribution to those items in England and Wales - right?

1. Are you happy to do this? If not, please explain why not.
2. If you are happy to do this then please tell us what effect you think this would have on Scottish power bills? Specifically how much do you disagree with my rough assessment that Scottish power prices would triple on this basis if the SNP self-sufficiency in renewables target was to be met?
49

Tris,

22/08/2008 13:09:01

Sad.

It seems to me that the British government (I use the term loosely) sits around in Wastemonster, trying to find ways to spike the Scottish economy.

Labour has always taken us for stupid poodles that will follow them to the ends of the earth, and now they assume we are too stupid to see how they attempt to sabotage every good thing Alex Salmond' government tries to do.

Note to Brown, Browne, Alexander, Darling, and wee Cairns: We have your number. We sussed you. You're making a point and hurting us in the process. You'll pay for it.
50

Andra, Dundee,

22/08/2008 13:23:06
#49 Montgomery Flange
If you think the recent oil/gas prices hikes are bad - it would be a lot worse if we were relying on wind.
Oil / Gas prices could double or triple and they still produce cheaper electricity than wind.
The Oil wars as you describe them are costing us less per kWh than the subsidy for wind.
51

Andra, Dundee,

22/08/2008 13:29:05
#51 Miss H
I'd say it is the SNP that has turned this into a Scotland vs England thing by trying to lumber is with an unreliable and very expensive energy policy.
They seem to expect England to subsidise expensive wind power. They are trying to be all things to all people when this policy is completely incompatible with independence since we'd be left high and dry with expensive unreliable electricity and we'd end up being dependent on imported English Nuclear.
Independent or not, we need a responsible energy policy.
52

Miss H,

22/08/2008 13:30:16
58 Of course power generators are not charities, they are private sector operators. And I am sure that they would continue to sell to the English market. But that's not the end of the story is it? We are moving to a single European energy market are we not?

The question is whether it will benefit Scotland - by which I mean Scottish companies, Scottish consumers and Scottish taxpayers - to operate in that market under the regulatory regime set by Westminster or under a regulatory regime set in Scotland.

That's the choice is it not?
53

Miss H,

22/08/2008 13:32:22
61 You are wasting your time plugging nuclear - it is not going to happen.
54

,

22/08/2008 13:34:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Number 6,

Germany 22/08/2008 13:45:12
Just more Nasty, Malicious, childish, clumsy, Spiteful, panic drenched obstruction from Brown and his dreadful party.

THIS IS why we need to rid ourselves of these selfish
pigs, who have no qualms about holding Scotland back
in a forlorn effort to cling on to power.

Stay in the "union" that will always always put englandshire first, means we will never develop in the way we could if left to make our own decisions about our own futures. At the moment we are at the mercy of
the biggest Scotland hater since King William.

What do the unionistas think of this move ?.
56

Peter A,

London 22/08/2008 13:49:03
Dear all,

I am an analyst working in the City covering energy and utilities (and many years ago I worked for National Grid). I scan all media stories that touch on my sector, hence reading this article. I enjoyed reading the debate but thought you might find it useful if I provided a bit of factual clarity in a few areas:

1. Transmission charges for power stations come in two forms: Connection, and Use of System. Connection charges are the most significant for new generators - especially wind farms. These charges are for the specific investment required to connect a new power station to the Grid. The connection investment required for wind farms is often high as they are usually remote from the existing infrastructure. Recognising this would be a barrier to new build, wind farms are actually only required to pay for the very local investment - ie at their particular site. The rest of the costs of connection gets wrapped into Use of System charges that all generators pay. For example, a recent wind farm development required National Grid to invest £32m to connect it. Only £6m was charged directly to the developer with the other £26m going into UoS chargers which are spread across all generators. So wind farms get a very good deal from the connection charge methodolgy

2. UoS charges are zonal. As noted above this is to encourage power stations to be built closer to where the demand for power is and thereby reduce the overall cost of Transmission. Power stations in some zones in the South are actually paid a fee (a positive UoS) by National Grid - this is because if those stations were not there the transmission system would need to be reinforced. The current charging system was set up in 1990. UoS chargers are not always higher in the North - a power station built close to Glasgow doesn’t pay any more than one close to Birmingham - it is the proximity to demand that matters.

3. However building a large power station in the very north of Scotland well away
57

Peter A,

London 22/08/2008 13:50:20
Cont...

3. However building a large power station in the very north of Scotland well away from demand centres does incur higher UoS charges - as it costs more to move the power to the demand. The impact that this might have on wind farm developments has been kept under close review and National Grid and Ofgem have been looking at this and are due to report in the Autumn.

4. Separately Defra also said many months ago that it could step in and cap UoS charges if it felt that they were making wind farms in certain parts of the country uneconomic - eg Cornwall, North Wales, Scottish Highlands etc. However, at the time they said this, UK electricity prices were around £40 per MWh. They are now around £90. At £40/MWh the higher UoS charges may have made a difference to some of the more economically marginal wind farm developments. But at today's electricity prices UoS charges make little difference to the economics of wind. I talk to just about every wind farm developer of note and not one mentions UoS charges as a key determining factor. This is merely what Defra are saying - ie at this time there is no reason to step in and cap charges. The review of the underlying methodology used for UoS charges is however continuing.

5. Bye the way, National Grid also levies UoS charges on the electricity supply companies - who take power from the Grid. These are also zonal so work in reverse to generation UoS charges. So those regions with excess generation over demand (parts of Scotland) pay less than those with excess demand (parts of Southern England). Therefore Scottish electricity consumers pay less for their power than those in Southern England.
58

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 14:10:59
-62. Miss H. No thats not the choice because regualtory policy is now set at the European level. Currently we do have a veto, hence there is some negotiation over local application, but we would lose that under Lisbon.

-63. Miss H. Please read 61's point properly. New nuclear is going to happen in England. If Longannet, Cockenzie Torness and Hunterston are not replaced then Scotland will simply end up importing English nuclear. The idea that an independent England will pay the subsidies necessary to install 65GW of wind farms in Scotland is ridiculous, and also requires the wind to blow all the time to avoid imports.

In fact I would say "it is not going to happen." with a lot more chance of being right than you have.

Still waiting for an answer to my questions in my post 57 by the way.

59

Miss H,

22/08/2008 14:11:26
65 What I have said is very simple. UK locational charges see the highest charges to generators in more remote areas therefore disadvantage Scotland.

Does not look like this is going to change does it?

So we are tied into a system which will permanently disadvantage us (unless millions of people decide to move from the south east of England to the north of Scotland).

The consequence of that is inevitably that much of the potential of off shore as well as on shire wind will not be realised.

If I have got that completely wrong then stand to be corrected.
60

Miss H,

22/08/2008 14:12:34
68 You are saying that the charging regime is decided by the EU?
61

Miss H,

22/08/2008 14:13:57
69 I am not asking any English taxpayers to pay any subsidies. What are you going on about?
62

David MacVicar,

web 22/08/2008 14:14:00
Ofgem: "We are clear that transmission charging levied on a user should continue to reflect the costs that user imposes on the network to get their flow of energy to the end user. This is because the further a source of gas or electricity is from its end user, the more it costs to transport that energy to them."

So, wthey built a 1200KM gas pipeline from Norway to the South of England, it has had problems and Scots pay for the GAS price hike.

One rule for North South exchanges
Another for South North.

Union dividend.
63

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 14:35:27
58 sm753
""Two Dinners" Salmond, "Hapless" Swinney and "Who?" Mather already have devolved powers to hand out enterprise support grants to renewable generators, underwater basketweavers and anything else they want to."

Shouldn't you be sending this sort of arrogant, patronising guff to the Daily Mail instead?

We don't get enough pocket money from our betters in Westminster to subsidise transmission.
64

danielrober,

22/08/2008 14:38:56
# 31 Dave from Barra

I quite agree, though more from an energy efficiency piont of view. Transmitting power over long distances is actually rather wasteful. Unless your transmitting absolutly massive amounts.
65

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 14:44:11
#68 Peter A,London

"Therefore Scottish electricity consumers pay less for their power than those in Southern England."

That's interesting - would you have at your fingertips the difference in £/kwh between S&SE charges to consumers in Southampton e.g. relative to say Perth?
66

dude,

wishaw 22/08/2008 14:48:50
This charging system that they use is criminal, yes the initial cost of the network and maintenance is high but is that not what the company is for ie. to transmit electricity to and from the grid and to maintain these links.

The thing is Mr brown wanted more windfarms etc, who pays on top of sky high fuel rates, yup you got it us the consumers.

So on top of the money that is spent installing and maintaining the windfarms we have to pay extortionate transmission charges (when other company's down south get paid for it, therefore we are subsidising English consumers)

Not fair i say, just another union dividend, and a fair amount of brown envelopes being passed about. If the companys south of the border paid their way then the costs could fall for producers up here.
67

Miss H,

22/08/2008 14:54:12
74 You are not really arguing against me, you are just lecturing to no purpose.

You acknowledge that the transmission regime disadvantages Scotland. You are arguing about why the transmission regime is set up the way it is.

Fine we all know that. But it still disadvantages Scotland because it means it costs more to make electricity in Scotland than it does in England.

What to do about that is something that the Scottish Parliament and Government must decide because clearly Westminster is not going to budge.

In the short term the Scottish Government could just stump up the extra but in the long term as more renewable production in the north gets going it is going to be a serious problem unless we can find a way out. Which could be about working more closely with Ireland, Norway etc.

Incidentally my question to 68 was actually a mistake - it should have been 69 who said that the regulatory regime was set at European level. I was asking if it was an EU decision to charge on that basis because that is at odds with the statement that the UK is the only country in the EU to charge on a locational basis.
68

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 14:55:41
#68 Peter A,London

"a power station built close to Glasgow doesn’t pay any more than one close to Birmingham - it is the proximity to demand that matters."

Presumably, then, the windfarm currently being constructed on Eaglesham Moor will receive a positive UoS as it is so close to the centre of demand in Greater Glasgow. Can you confirm?
69

nolimits,

Kamloops BC 22/08/2008 14:56:19
OK,Just so I am clear here. It seems as if Scotland, with its current and future electricity production will be a surplus energy exporter. Well now, IF southern England needs/wants that energy, then the end users should be liable to pay for the costs of extra transmission length and final distribution, not the energy generators.
70

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 14:58:41
#80 Miss H

SM "just lecturing to no purpose"?

Shurely shome mishtake?
71

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 15:09:50
#82 nolimits,

Spot on.! If the cost of the energy to the CONSUMER reflected the distance from the generating plant it might dispel the nimbyism, and would also provide an incentive to development in the re-newable energy rich Highlands.
72

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 15:12:29
There would also be an argument for building nuclear generating stations in cities where distribution costs would be negligible and the waste heat could be used for district heating. After all it is safe isn't it? I'm sure there will be a spare site in the east end of London after summer 2012.
73

Peter A,

London 22/08/2008 15:14:55
73 I agree re your BETTA point.

Miss H -

You say that the UoS charging methodology will prevent wind power being fully exploited in Scotland. This has certainly been a concern to the authorities and that is why Ofgem, National Grid and the Government have been looking closely at this. Indeed it is partly why Defra originally stated that it might cap UoS charges to wind developers - although as I pointed out earlier, given the current levels of electricity prices UoS charges are not material to the economics of wind developments.

What I find odd is your proposal - that the Scottish Government should take over Transmission charging and that this would somehow solve the problem. I'm afraid it would not. 96% of the UK's transmission network is in England and Wales. It is the charging methodology that applies to these assets that count to wind developers whether they are in Scotland or anywhere else. Scotland could decide set UoS charges to zero but it would make no difference to the economics of a new power station in Scotland unless E&W also changed the methodology. At the moment Ofgem and the UK government has to take full account of lobbying from Scotland. Indeed, my own guess is that the UoS methodology will be altered in favour of remote wind largely because of the pressure from Scotland. It strikes me that Scotland's influence would be much less if it just went its own way.

76 -

It is not a lot. Transmission accounts for only around 3% of end user bills for electricity - an average of £13 per year for each household. There are also benefits in Distribution charges which account for around 12.5% of end user bills. In total the difference is probably about £10-15 per year in total for an average consumer. My point was to highlight that zonal charging favours consumers where there is excess generation. If zonal charges are scrapped for generation, then they may also be scrapped for demand which would actually hit Scottish consumers - although th
74

New Town Resident,

22/08/2008 15:29:35
-72. Miss H. Yes, you are continuing to ask for English subsidies, unless my post 57 is wrong. I was asking you to explain why it was wrong. This is what I'm "going on about". If you put a reasoned argument then there is a debate, but if you just sloganise back to me then you must understand why I think the SNP are simply grandstanding to the uninformed.

-68 Miss H. Yes, which is why the wind lobby are complaining to Brussels that UK regualatory policy on locational charging is discriminatory. The UK defence is that it is not commercially material. By the way I've sat in meetings where the UK negotiating positions regarding charging regulation has been discussed with the energy trade bodies so I guess this is why I have formed this view, but maybe you can convince me that it was just a bad dream!
75

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 15:37:45
If we were to go our own way, we would be responsible for our own generating and distribution costs. If we were to chose to offer power for export, then the price at the point of exit would reflect our cost in getting it there. The importer, if they choose to buy, would then be responsible for onward transmission costs.
How could it be fairer or simpler?
76

Guga II,

Rockall 22/08/2008 15:46:51
#4.

"Turning waste into energy could be the way forward."

Isn't there some law against burning down Westmiddenster and everyone in it?

77

Embra Don,

22/08/2008 15:52:08
# 89 New Town Resident

If its "not commercially material" why bother with it?

"I've sat in meetings wher