The energy secretary Ed Davey has rejected Scottish government calls for the UK to continue subsidising Scottish energy projects after independence, warning he would withdraw billions of pounds in investment.
Davey accused Alex Salmond's government of wanting to "have its cake and eat it" by calling for the UK's single energy market to continue intact and still fund Scottish energy investment while also campaigning to break up the UK via independence.
Speaking in Edinburgh, the energy secretary said that following a yes vote Scotland would instead have to fund its wind, wave and tidal projects on its own rather than spread the costs between 30m households and businesses UK-wide.
That could boost annual household energy bills by up to £189, and add £608,000 on to power bills for medium-sized businesses if Scottish ministers decide to carry on with the UK's investment plans – raising significant doubts about its affordability.
"Alex Salmond shouldn't be gambling with the energy bills of the people of Scotland," Davey said, as he published a new analysis paper on independence by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Davey's stance, which has strong echoes of the UK government's refusal to agree a sterling currency union, appears to be a severe blow to Salmond's ambition for Scotland to meet 100% of its domestic electricity needs from renewables by 2020.
Salmond has put Scotland's oil wealth and its substantial green energy potential at the heart of the independence referendum campaign, while knowing that his 100% target would be unaffordable without continued UK investment.
Scottish ministers argue that retaining the UK's entirely integrated energy system after a yes vote would benefit both governments and allow the UK to avoid reopening mothballed power plants or risk power black-outs in the coming years.
Arguing that Scotland was "richer and more secure as part of the [UK] family", Davey denied he was being negative or contradictory by playing up Scotland's contribution to the UK's energy supply but then refusing to allow it to do so post-independence.
He said that keeping the UK intact would ensure all parts of it collaborated successfully in tackling global warming and meeting its CO² targets. "The issue is climate change. Climate change is a huge challenge to our way of life, our economy," he said.
"My point is in doing it with the whole of the UK, we can go green more cheaply together. If we pull apart, going green will be more expensive."
He insisted he "fervently shared" Salmond's ambition of reaching 100% green electricty by 2020, but he added "If Scotland became an independent state, the current integrated energy system couldn't survive in its current state.
"Both the independent Scottish state and the continuing UK government would be focused on serving the best interests of their citizens. For the continuing UK, the energy relationship with an independent Scotland would become purely commercial."
If Scotland did become independent, Davey said UK ministers and energy companies would search for the most competitive European energy sources to supplement UK production.
Scotland could win some contracts, that power could easily come more cheaply from Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark or Norway, with new interconnectors now being built.
If Scotland voted no to independence UK taxpayers would help fund new offshore wind, wave and tidal schemes likely to power 8m homes, in addition to the Scottish projects already on track to supply 4.3m homes with clean energy.
Although Scotland produced 10% of the UK's electricity, it receives 28% of current renewables support. The UK investment plans for Scotland include up to £6bn on upgrading power cables by 2021, and about £560m was spent on Scottish renewables subsidies last year; another £146m is earmarked for distributing gas and hydro power around remote Scottish communities.
The energy secretary also hit out at warnings this week from Scotland's energy minister, Fergus Ewing, that the rest of the UK would face black-outs and miss its climate targets without Scottish renewables. That, said Davey, was the "negative politics of fear and bullying".
Davey said that the UK could easily absorb the consequences of Scotland leaving the UK. Although Ewing argues that Scotland exports a quarter of its electricity, Davey said that that meant Scotland supplied less than 5% of the rest of the UK's energy needs. France and Belgium already supplied more electricity to the UK than Scotland.
Both were closer to south-east England and cheaper to supply at the current market price. "Why should we pay over and above the market price for Scottish power?" he said. Ewing replied: "Only a Westminster politician could fail to see the huge benefits of Scotland's abundant energy wealth to consumers across these islands.
"Instead of accessing Scotland's reliable energy resources [Davey] is talking of importing energy over interconnectors that don't yet exist from the European mainland where many countries face similar energy supply concerns as the UK.
"We remain in favour of a single GB market post-independence because we recognise its merits for consumers across these islands – but that can't be at the expense of security of supply.
"Mr Davey's scaremongering today, and his mismanagement of energy policy, only adds to energy uncertainty at the very time when it is least needed, to continue to attract investment in new plant as capacity constraints bite."
theguardian.com
Davey accused Alex Salmond's government of wanting to "have its cake and eat it" by calling for the UK's single energy market to continue intact and still fund Scottish energy investment while also campaigning to break up the UK via independence.
Speaking in Edinburgh, the energy secretary said that following a yes vote Scotland would instead have to fund its wind, wave and tidal projects on its own rather than spread the costs between 30m households and businesses UK-wide.
That could boost annual household energy bills by up to £189, and add £608,000 on to power bills for medium-sized businesses if Scottish ministers decide to carry on with the UK's investment plans – raising significant doubts about its affordability.
"Alex Salmond shouldn't be gambling with the energy bills of the people of Scotland," Davey said, as he published a new analysis paper on independence by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Davey's stance, which has strong echoes of the UK government's refusal to agree a sterling currency union, appears to be a severe blow to Salmond's ambition for Scotland to meet 100% of its domestic electricity needs from renewables by 2020.
Salmond has put Scotland's oil wealth and its substantial green energy potential at the heart of the independence referendum campaign, while knowing that his 100% target would be unaffordable without continued UK investment.
Scottish ministers argue that retaining the UK's entirely integrated energy system after a yes vote would benefit both governments and allow the UK to avoid reopening mothballed power plants or risk power black-outs in the coming years.
Arguing that Scotland was "richer and more secure as part of the [UK] family", Davey denied he was being negative or contradictory by playing up Scotland's contribution to the UK's energy supply but then refusing to allow it to do so post-independence.
He said that keeping the UK intact would ensure all parts of it collaborated successfully in tackling global warming and meeting its CO² targets. "The issue is climate change. Climate change is a huge challenge to our way of life, our economy," he said.
"My point is in doing it with the whole of the UK, we can go green more cheaply together. If we pull apart, going green will be more expensive."
He insisted he "fervently shared" Salmond's ambition of reaching 100% green electricty by 2020, but he added "If Scotland became an independent state, the current integrated energy system couldn't survive in its current state.
"Both the independent Scottish state and the continuing UK government would be focused on serving the best interests of their citizens. For the continuing UK, the energy relationship with an independent Scotland would become purely commercial."
If Scotland did become independent, Davey said UK ministers and energy companies would search for the most competitive European energy sources to supplement UK production.
Scotland could win some contracts, that power could easily come more cheaply from Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark or Norway, with new interconnectors now being built.
If Scotland voted no to independence UK taxpayers would help fund new offshore wind, wave and tidal schemes likely to power 8m homes, in addition to the Scottish projects already on track to supply 4.3m homes with clean energy.
Although Scotland produced 10% of the UK's electricity, it receives 28% of current renewables support. The UK investment plans for Scotland include up to £6bn on upgrading power cables by 2021, and about £560m was spent on Scottish renewables subsidies last year; another £146m is earmarked for distributing gas and hydro power around remote Scottish communities.
The energy secretary also hit out at warnings this week from Scotland's energy minister, Fergus Ewing, that the rest of the UK would face black-outs and miss its climate targets without Scottish renewables. That, said Davey, was the "negative politics of fear and bullying".
Davey said that the UK could easily absorb the consequences of Scotland leaving the UK. Although Ewing argues that Scotland exports a quarter of its electricity, Davey said that that meant Scotland supplied less than 5% of the rest of the UK's energy needs. France and Belgium already supplied more electricity to the UK than Scotland.
Both were closer to south-east England and cheaper to supply at the current market price. "Why should we pay over and above the market price for Scottish power?" he said. Ewing replied: "Only a Westminster politician could fail to see the huge benefits of Scotland's abundant energy wealth to consumers across these islands.
"Instead of accessing Scotland's reliable energy resources [Davey] is talking of importing energy over interconnectors that don't yet exist from the European mainland where many countries face similar energy supply concerns as the UK.
"We remain in favour of a single GB market post-independence because we recognise its merits for consumers across these islands – but that can't be at the expense of security of supply.
"Mr Davey's scaremongering today, and his mismanagement of energy policy, only adds to energy uncertainty at the very time when it is least needed, to continue to attract investment in new plant as capacity constraints bite."
theguardian.com
No comments:
Post a Comment