The latest news on community energy within the Scottish Political arena is a very positive one. Recent activity has resulted in a confirmation of cross party support of locally owned energy. More information about the debate is available here but this is our summary. The first bit is very political, scroll down for the views of different parties.
Motion approved by Scottish parliament 29th March 2012
That the Parliament reaffirms Scotland’s ambitious targets on climate change and renewable energy; considers that the private, public and third sectors, including co-operatives and community bodies, all have a role to play in developing a clean energy future for Scotland; is concerned by the growing perception that the renewables agenda is benefiting only big business, instead of serving the common good; believes that great public benefit could be achieved through the work being done by the Scottish Futures Trust in partnership with COSLA to help local authorities realise this ambition, highlighting opportunities to provide exemplary community benefits from renewables schemes on the public estate, publicly owned renewables and the lease of public assets to appropriate renewable energy developers; believes that public sector involvement in the renewables sector can generate clean energy as well as revenue for valuable new public services such as energy efficiency investment and support for community-owned renewables projects and that the shared and community benefits would help to foster public support for renewable energy, and calls on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust to continue to work with COSLA, local authorities and other organisations in developing proposals, and asks that the Scottish Government reports back to the Parliament on progress.
Patrick Harvie (green party) “There is the opportunity for a transformational vision, not just of meeting our renewable energy targets in Scotland but of local, public and community ownership
Sarah Boyack (labour) “The motion talks about the perception of renewables as being all about the benefits to big companies. It is vital that local communities and individual members of society are able to get direct benefits from the renewables revolution.”
Mark Griffin (labour)“I am glad that the Green party lodged the motion, because it has given us the chance to debate public ownership and the change in public perception that could be achieved if the renewables revolution was being driven by the public sector to benefit communities and not big business, with profits being reinvested in reducing fuel consumption and fuel poverty rather than electricity bill premiums delivering dividends for shareholders.”
Liam McArthur (Liberal democrats) “I, too, congratulate the less spiky, new-style Patrick Harvie on bringing the debate to the chamber, and confirm that his motion and Sarah Boyack’s amendment will enjoy the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at decision time”.
Mary Scanlon (Conservative) “There are undoubtedly benefits and merits in local energy companies”
Fergus Ewing: SNP Minister for Energy
“We clearly and explicitly want to encourage communities to own renewables schemes. There is no dubiety about that so far as I am aware. That is the best model—in which there is ownership, and not just the receipt of a cheque, albeit a bigger cheque than used to be the case, because the tariff is now moving up to £5,000 per megawatt. The best model—the one to which we aspire—is one in which communities have a stake in the ownership, such as Falck Renewables in Fintry. We want Scotland’s communities to benefit as owners and not just as recipients of cheques, no matter that that in itself creates great benefit. Once again, Mr Harvie and I are in agreement.
The SFT and COSLA have been working to highlight examples of public sector involvement in renewables and the main commercial structures for local authorities to take forward those schemes. We welcome that work and we will support it where possible.
We are driving up the tariff and companies are following. From meetings and discussions that I have had with companies, and not just big companies, I can report that many—probably not all, but many—desire to move away from paying as little as possible and want communities to feel that they are involved and valued, not exploited and abused. That is a very good thing and I strongly welcome it.”