Clean Power by 2030: A fair deal for Scotland?

Summary

The Government’s “mission” to deliver a clean power system by 2030, as part of its wider ambition of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, marks a significant acceleration of the UK’s energy transition away from fossil fuels. Scotland is at the forefront of this acceleration, with over 1,000 new renewable energy projects in the planning pipeline at an estimated capacity of 83 gigawatts.

In this report we examine, firstly, whether the Government’s Clean Power by 2030 mission is achievable. We find that this target is extremely ambitious, and that the public’s confidence in the energy transition risks being undermined if targets are missed. This risk is especially acute for communities across Scotland who are being asked to host significant new energy infrastructure. In many cases, these communities—often in rural and remote Scotland—already feel disproportionately affected by the costs and impacts of the transition. In this report, we highlight that clean power targets will only succeed if communities experience the transition as something that is done with them and not to them.

We have also examined the role of Great British Energy in delivering Clean Power by 2030. We find that while Great British Energy has important objectives and the backing of a substantial £8.3 billon capital funding allocation, it remains in its infancy and is yet to become the fundamental driver of clean energy development it is envisioned to be. We call on Great British Energy to now move quickly beyond the initial start-up phase, scale up delivery, and highlight value for money and transparency risks.

We also examined the impact of planned grid upgrades, which are needed to ensure grid capacity can keep pace with the expansion of renewables, following years of chronic underinvestment by successive governments. These grid capacity constraints result in the perverse outcome of Scottish windfarms being switched off—sometimes more frequently than they are generating—while a fossil fuel power station is fired up elsewhere in the UK. Consumers are now footing the bill for these costs, as well as the rapid expansion of renewables, and the transformation of the grid. We call on the UK Government to do more to reduce current levels of wind farm curtailment, and to set out in detail its plans for doing so.

We also call on the UK Government to reform standing charges so that they apply consistently to all regions, leading to a fairer system for consumers in Scotland.

A key concern we have explored throughout our 18-month inquiry, is what ‘fair’ compensation looks like for Scottish communities shouldering the burden of new energy infrastructure. We welcome the UK Government’s commitment to introducing a mandatory community benefits scheme for these communities, but find that the UK Government’s proposed £5,000 per MW community benefit contribution is insufficient, and does not reflect fair compensation for communities. Instead, we call on the Government to consider a minimum compensation level of between £10,000 and £12,500.

We also highlight that for these communities meaningful benefits extend far beyond financial payments. Housing availability, access to skills training, and the creation of long-term local jobs are equally important. We call on the UK Government to seize the opportunity presented by the influx of renewable energy, to leave a transformative legacy of housing, skills and quality employment for Scotland’s rural and remote communities, which have historically seen limited investment.

Finally, we also explore community ownership of clean energy, and find that Scottish communities are disproportionately disadvantaged from benefitting from the Local Power Plan because of Scotland’s low Transmission Impact Assessment thresholds. We also highlight that with the transmission grid effectively fully allocated until 2035, the community energy sector is at a near-standstill. This logjam is at odds with the Government’s renewed ambition to scale up local and community energy and reflects a disconnect between the Government’s aspirations and the practical reality in Scotland. To remedy this, we call on the UK Government to ensure community energy projects can access the full benefits of the Local Power Plan, including grid connection.

Introduction

1. The direction of energy policy has become one of the most fiercely debated issues in British politics. Against a backdrop of geopolitical and economic instability, the UK Government has identified clean energy as its route to energy independence and security.¹ The Government’s “mission” to deliver a clean power system by 2030, as part of its wider ambition of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, marks a significant acceleration of the UK’s energy transition away from fossil fuels.² Whilst the North Sea oil and gas industry has played a central role in meeting the UK’s energy needs for decades, and still has a crucial role to play in the UK’s energy security, energy mix and domestic energy production, Scotland’s capacity for clean power generation has also increased substantially over time and is expected to continue growing.³ Over 90% of electricity generated in Scotland in 2024 was from low carbon sources and, as of the end of last year, Scotland had over 1,000 new renewable energy projects in the planning pipeline at an estimated capacity of 83 gigawatts (GW), positioning it as a cornerstone of the UK’s clean power transition.⁴

Our inquiry

2. We launched our inquiry into Great British Energy and the net zero transition in November 2024, with the aim of exploring Scotland’s role in the UK’s energy transition away from fossil fuels. The inquiry has been our longest continuous piece of work in this Parliament. We have received more than 50 items of written evidence and held 11 oral evidence sessions, in which we heard from industry, policy experts, public bodies and community groups. We also carried out four visits in connection with this inquiry, to Scotland’s East Coast, Norway, Shetland and Loch Sloy.⁵ We would like to thank all those who have contributed to our work.

3. We would have liked to have taken evidence from the Scottish Government and Great British Energy (GBE) again at the close of our inquiry, but it was not possible to identify suitable dates. We are disappointed by GBE’s inability to provide an appropriate witness to reasonable timescales.

4. We published an interim report for this inquiry in October 2025, which made recommendations on the future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry.⁶ In that report we found that clean energy jobs are not being created at the pace or scale required to match the job losses arising from the decline of the North Sea oil and gas industry.⁷ In the second phase of our inquiry, we have turned to look at Scotland’s role in the UK’s clean energy mission beyond the oil and gas transition.

Our report

5. After gathering evidence on this topic for almost 18 months, we have arrived at 22 conclusions and policy recommendations to the UK Government in this report. We have focused on the power sector within the UK Government’s net zero plans, given the central importance of the power transition for Scotland. The first chapter of this report considers Scotland’s contribution to the Government’s clean power ambition and the role of GBE. The second chapter looks at the impact of planned upgrades to Britain’s electricity grid on billpayers and communities in Scotland. The third chapter considers the extent to which those communities most impacted by infrastructure development connected to clean power are getting a fair deal. The final chapter focuses on the opportunities for Scotland in community ownership of clean power projects.

1 Scotland and Clean Power by 2030

6. Throughout our inquiry, we heard about the major contribution Scotland can and does play in the UK-wide transition to clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The UK Government’s clean energy mission, achieving 95% of clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050, is one of its five flagship priorities.⁸ The Government has said that achieving clean power by 2030 (hereafter CP30) will require rapid deployment of new domestic clean power capacity, alongside major new grid and storage infrastructure to move large volumes of renewable electricity across the UK.⁹ The upgraded grid will also move fossil fuel-generated electricity from abroad and brought to the UK via interconnectors.

7. During our inquiry, we heard how Scotland’s existing energy skills base, supply chains and abundant renewable resource sets it up as a key location in driving the UK’s clean energy transition.¹⁰ In terms of delivery, CP30 translates to installed capacity of 43–50 GW of offshore wind, 27–29 GW of onshore wind, 25–47 GW of solar power, and significantly reducing fossil fuel dependency.¹¹ Scotland’s primary asset is its capability to provide wind power, which currently comprises 80% of its total renewable energy capacity.¹² Indeed, the majority of new onshore wind capacity needed to achieve CP30 is located in Scotland.¹³

Is Clean Power by 2030 achievable?

8. Throughout our inquiry, witnesses described the Government’s 2030 decarbonisation targets as “ambitious”, but not unachievable.¹⁴ However, we also heard about barriers and risks to CP30, including the need to upgrade the network to handle renewable generation, the workforce skills gap, the planning system slowing down the pace of development, and the need to ensure meaningful engagement between developers and communities.¹⁵ Dan McGrail, Chief Executive at GBE, told us that these barriers have been the same for several years and the UK is not alone in facing them.¹⁶ From a grid perspective, Guy Jefferson, Transmission Managing Director at SP Energy Networks, said he remained optimistic that CP30 is achievable, but echoed concerns around the UK supply chain and skills capability required. He also highlighted challenges around new projects securing system access in a timely and secure way, and delays caused by the planning and consenting process.¹⁷ Planning is a devolved issue in Scotland.

9. Emma Pinchbeck, Chief Executive at the Climate Change Committee, told us that CP30 will require significant alignment across all stakeholders, from generation and supply to the planning and consenting of grid infrastructure projects. Ms Pinchbeck also noted that “more than ever… real coordination” will be needed between the UK and Scottish Governments to achieve the targets.¹⁸

10. Several witnesses told us that the success of CP30, and the UK’s wider energy transition, also hinges on a certain degree of public support for and acceptability of the change.¹⁹ This reflects the Climate Change Committee’s longstanding view that a successful energy transition requires meaningful two-way dialogue and effective engagement with the public.²⁰ While 2025 research from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero found that 78% of the UK public support the use of renewable energy, there are also reports about increasing opposition to net zero policy goals.²¹ This includes concerns about the cost and fairness of the transition—particularly at a time of economic pressure and uncertainty—which are themes we explored in our first report for this inquiry.²² To increase public acceptability of the energy transition, Madeleine Gabriel, Mission Director (Sustainability) at Nesta, said that policymakers need to address questions of fairness head on, and be honest about the deliverability of projects.²³ Multiple witnesses also stressed the importance of securing the consent of communities hosting new energy generation and transmission infrastructure, and emphasised that this depends on communities seeing tangible, long-lasting legacy benefits from the energy transition.²⁴ The Scottish Government agreed this importance “cannot be overstated”.²⁵ The experiences of communities particularly impacted by the transition are discussed in the following chapters.

11. Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, recognised that the Government’s clean power target is “hugely ambitious”, but stressed that energy prices, currently rising due to conflict in the Middle East, underscores the importance of the transition.²⁶ When questioned on the public acceptability of the Government’s clean energy mission, the Minister told us that:

[Consensus] is fractured, but not broken. There are still significant numbers of people, in all political parties, who believe it is the right thing to do. Perhaps even more importantly the public believe it is the right thing to do: poll after poll says that they think the Government should be doing even more to tackle climate change. […] We are doing everything we can to rebuild that consensus.²⁷

Great British Energy

14. When first announced, it was said by the Government that GBE would play an instrumental role in the UK achieving its decarbonisation targets.²⁸ The publicly owned energy company, headquartered in Scotland, was one of the Labour Party’s 2024 general election pledges. At the time, its objective was described as “driving investment into clean, home-grown energy production”.²⁹ After the election, the Great British Energy Act 2025 made GBE an operationally independent Government-owned company, underpinned by statute.³⁰ While the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is the company’s sole stakeholder, the Government told us that the company is owned “100% by and for the British people”.³¹ When questioned on the rationale for establishing GBE as a separate body, and its ability to deliver beyond DESNZ’s functions, the Minister argued that the key difference is that the public retains ownership of GBE, and therefore shares in the success, or any losses, of the projects it invests in.³²

15. At the start of our inquiry, there was uncertainty about precisely what role GBE would play in the energy transition as its remit was, at that point, still unclear. As a result, while witnesses broadly welcomed the establishment of GBE in principle,³³ we heard numerous suggestions about what GBE’s specific role should be:³⁴

• Some witnesses emphasised that it could add most value by minimising the development risk of new projects.³⁵
• Others, including the Scottish Government, told us that GBE would be most impactful in Scotland where it can complement the work of and collaborate with existing public bodies (such as Crown Estate Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and others).³⁶ Similarly, the Scottish National Investment Bank emphasised the importance of avoiding unnecessary overlap and duplications between public bodies in Scotland, to prevent market confusion and uncertainty among developers about the funding support available.³⁷
• Energy UK told us that GBE should work with stakeholders in Scotland to enhance the “social acceptance” of energy projects and ensure that local interests are reflected in decisions.³⁸ Similarly, Richard Hardy, one of Scotland’s Just Transition Commissioners, raised concerns about whether the company’s remit would include “just transition elements”, questioning how—as an owner and developer of projects—it would engage with those affected by its decisions, rather than simply stating that initiatives “will deliver”.³⁹
• BP and Harbour Energy told us that they hoped GBE would support the UK’s domestic supply chain, help attract private investment where it is harder to attract, and be “active on the ground” during the energy transition.⁴⁰
• Derek Thomson, the then-Scotland Regional Secretary at Unite, warned that GBE should not be seen as “some kind of saviour” of the oil and gas industry or to the UK’s domestic supply chain.⁴¹

16. It was when the Government published the ‘Statement of Strategic Priorities’ in September 2025 that there was clarity on GBE’s purpose and remit.⁴² According to the statement, GBE has two core objectives:

i. Drive clean energy deployment across the whole of the UK, as a strategic developer, investor and owner of clean energy projects.

ii. Ensure that UK taxpayers, billpayers, communities and the current energy workforce benefit from the clean energy transition by increasing public ownership involvement in the development of clean energy projects, and by supporting jobs and economic growth across the UK.⁴³

In response to this Statement of Strategic Priorities, GBE published its Strategic Plan in December 2025. In this plan, GBE sets out three priority areas: local power, onshore energy and offshore energy, all underpinned by an ambition to invest in initiatives that boost the UK’s domestic supply chain.⁴⁴

17. From the outset the Government has been clear about its plans for GBE to be based in Scotland,⁴⁵ confirming in September 2024 that it would be headquartered in Aberdeen.⁴⁶ Several witnesses supported this decision, which they said demonstrated an understanding of the importance of Scotland’s existing energy workforce and capability to the Government’s clean energy mission.⁴⁷

18. In the 2024 Autumn Budget the Government allocated GBE £25 million to establish itself as a company, and £100 million of capital funding for 2025–26 for clean energy project development.⁴⁸ In the June 2025 Spending Review the Government then allocated £8.3 billion of capital funding to GBE and GBE-Nuclear⁴⁹ over this Parliament.⁵⁰ While there is not yet a published figure for GBE’s total spend, it has invested in or committed spend on several projects since becoming operational, including a commitment of £1 billion for a domestic clean energy supply chain fund, which GBE labels “energy engineered in the UK”, as part of the UK Industrial Strategy’s clean energy sector plan.⁵¹ GBE is also investing up to £255 million to install roof-solar and complementary technologies, such as batteries, in schools and NHS sites across England.⁵² In addition, GBE is delivering a one-off scheme with Mayoral Strategic Authorities in England and Wales, investing £10 million into projects that focus on renewable power generation.⁵³

19. The Government told us that GBE’s investments will support activity across the whole of the UK.⁵⁴ GBE Chief Executive Dan McGrail confirmed he expects Scotland to receive a disproportionately high amount of GBE investment because of Scotland’s abundant renewable resource and the way the UK’s energy sector is structured.⁵⁵ While GBE funding is not devolved through the Block Grant, a formal agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments sets out that delivery of some GBE funding in Scotland will rely on partnerships with Scottish public bodies.⁵⁶ For instance, GBE and the Scottish Government announced joint funding for community-owned energy projects in May 2025; each contributed £4 million to the Scottish Government’s existing Community Energy Generation Growth Fund, which is delivered by its Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES).⁵⁷ Similarly, in connection with GBE’s roof-solar scheme, devolved administrations received separate funding of £9.35 million (of which Scotland received £4.85 million), intended for community renewable energy schemes or projects on public sector buildings.⁵⁸ The Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, informed the House of Commons that devolved administrations may choose to use this funding to deliver new projects or to expand existing renewable energy schemes.⁵⁹

20. The Minister also told us that the current approach of delivering GBE funding for energy projects through existing Scottish Government schemes is under review. He said GBE is expected to play a more direct role in determining investment across the UK, rather than funding being allocated automatically to devolved administrations. While Scotland may benefit significantly due to its energy resources, the intention is to fund specific priority projects rather than provide additional funding to the Scottish Government.⁶⁰

2 Upgrading the grid for CP30

25. This chapter examines the two main ways in which planned grid upgrades to deliver CP30 affects billpayers and communities in Scotland: through standing charges and network constraint costs passed on to consumer energy bills.

The need for electricity grid upgrades

26. We heard from multiple witnesses about the need for significant upgrades to Great Britain’s electricity grid infrastructure to meet CP30.⁶¹ The National Energy System Operator (Neso)⁶² advised the Government in November 2024 that the UK would need to build roughly twice as much transmission infrastructure as was built in the past decade to connect increasing levels of low-carbon generation, and meet rising electricity demand. These upgrades would require £60 billion of investment up to 2030.⁶³ Great Britian’s three transmission operators—Scottish Power’s SP Energy Networks (SPEN), SSE Networks (SSEN) and the National Grid—have all since outlined five-year plans to 2030 to develop the grid, although only SPEN and SSEN operate in Scotland.⁶⁴ In evidence, Guy Jefferson, Transmission Managing Director at SPEN, told us they are investing £11 billion to reinforce the network in southern Scotland to deliver the infrastructure required for CP30.⁶⁵ SSEN told us that its ‘Pathway to 2030’ programme involves £20 billion of investment in the north of Scotland’s transmission network,⁶⁶ which Scottish Renewables described as “unprecedented investment”.⁶⁷

27. There was a clear consensus in our evidence that the UK has underinvested in the grid for many years and now needs to catch up.⁶⁸ The energy market regulator Ofgem is responsible for licensing network companies and setting network price controls, which determine the level of investment network companies must make, as well as their returns.⁶⁹ Reflecting on how Ofgem has historically regulated network investment, Steve McMahon, Director for Network Price Controls and Head of Scotland at Ofgem, told us:

If we look back, there are probably decisions that we would have taken differently. The decision on investment, for example. […] In hindsight, we under-invested in the networks. […] We were able to connect a phenomenal amount of renewables from 2010 to 2020, but the pace of investment never stayed on course with that, so now we are catching up. That is absolutely the case.⁷⁰

28. We heard that there is also now a mismatch between transmission and generation capacity.⁷¹ Julian Leslie, Director of Strategic Energy Planning at Neso, told us this mismatch was due to ‘Connect and Manage’—a policy first introduced in 2009 to allow wind farms to connect before the transmission network infrastructure had been developed to accommodate them. Mr Leslie explained that the policy priority at the time was achieving the then-target of 20 GW of renewables by 2020. He said the policy worked “tremendously well” for a long period of time, as it achieved the 20 GW target.⁷² However, as generation capacity has continued to increase in the years since, it has left a legacy of insufficient transmission capacity.

29. This mismatch is exacerbated because Great Britian’s transmission capacity no longer aligns with the locations of its generation capacity. Several witnesses emphasised that, broadly speaking, the grid was originally developed to move electricity from major power plants close to population centres towards more remote locations, whereas today the reverse is true.⁷³ This shift towards generation in more remote locations, further away from demand, is a major driver of the need for significant transmission investment today. The system is now, as the Western Isles Council put it, “back to front”.⁷⁴ Moreover, at a national level, more electricity is generated in Scotland than is consumed, meaning some electricity is exported south of the border where demand is greater.⁷⁵ The impact of limited network capacity on this north-south transmission is explored later in this chapter.

30. We heard that the need for an upgraded grid is also driven by an expected rise in electricity demand overall. As the economy electrifies, for example, with the anticipated increased uptake of electric vehicles and heat pumps, electricity demand is set to rise and increased transmission capacity will be necessary to accommodate it.⁷⁶ According to Neso’s analysis, electricity demand could rise by approximately 11% by 2030⁷⁷ and this trajectory is forecast to increase further between 2030 and 2035.⁷⁸

Impact of grid upgrades on bills

31. The costs associated with upgrading the electricity grid are recovered from households and business through standing charges on energy bills.

Box 1: What are standing charges?

Standing charges is an umbrella term for the fixed charges applied to energy bills to cover network, operating and policy costs. As of January 2026, they made up 24% of an electricity bill and 22% of a gas bill. Network charges fund the maintenance and upgrading of grid infrastructure. These charges vary by region to reflect differences in the cost of building and maintaining networks across the country. Given that gas infrastructure is more centralised, standardised and simpler than electricity infrastructure, the gas standing charge is roughly comparable in all regions.

Source: Ofgem, Benchmark maximum charges for the charge restriction period 14b, 22 August 2025

32. Standing charge price caps are set by Ofgem,⁷⁹ and have risen significantly, due to high inflation and changes to how network costs are recovered.⁸⁰ For instance, electricity standing charges increased from an average of 22p per day in October 2019⁸¹ to 57p per day from April 2026.⁸² However, as the amount that customers pay for standing charges varies to reflect the costs of delivering that electricity, residents in rural areas with low density populations and complex topographies often experience higher-than-average electricity standing charges.⁸³ While Scotland does not have the highest electricity standing charges in Great Britain, they are roughly 8% higher than the GB average, according to Ofgem’s standing charge price caps between January and June 2026. This difference is even starker when compared with London, where standing charges are 31% cheaper than in Scotland.⁸⁴

33. This disparity has led some to call for standing charges to be applied consistently, across the country, to remove the regional difference.⁸⁵ Ofgem conducted a review of energy system cost allocation and recovery in July 2025, gathering views on the current system (including how costs are recovered via standing charges). The review’s broad aim was to address concerns about fairness and affordability, especially for lower-usage households, while still recovering essential network and policy costs. As part of this, Ofgem considered ways that standing charges could be reformed, including an option for them to apply consistently to all regions, rather than varying as they do now. Ofgem acknowledged that regional differences are not passed on to the consumer in other sectors, such as the postal sector, where the cost of a stamp is the same across the UK regardless of how far the item travels.⁸⁶ Ofgem has said it expects to consult on specific policy options following this consultation, in spring 2026.⁸⁷

34. Prior to this consultation on the wider energy system’s cost allocation and recovery, Ofgem also consulted, in August 2024, specifically on standing charges alone. This consultation resulted in a new one-year pilot for suppliers to offer their customers at least one lower standing charge tariff, beginning in April 2026.⁸⁸ Ned Hammond, Deputy Director for Customers at Energy UK, told us that Ofgem’s lower standing charge tariff pilot could mislead consumers into thinking it is the preferred option, despite posing a risk of higher costs for some consumers. Instead, Mr Hammond recommended that Ofgem should focus instead on the broader cost allocation review to deliver properly considered, long-term solutions for making standing charges fairer.⁸⁹

35. The debate around standing charges is particularly pertinent as the increasing cost of network charges will continue to be passed on to consumers.⁹⁰ The standing charge element for the transmission system increased by 65% in the second quarter of 2026.⁹¹ In December 2025 Ofgem approved £28 billion of upgrades to the national grid,⁹² which it said was likely to increase to £90 billion by 2031 as further investments to connect new wind farms are approved.⁹³ While the work is estimated to add £108 to energy bills by 2031, the regulator emphasised that electricity grid expansion will ultimately reduce bills by ending constraint costs (see the following section) and connecting more renewable capacity. Based on these cost-reducing effects, Ofgem predicts an overall net increase to bills of about £30 a year by 2031.⁹⁴

36. Throughout our inquiry, several witnesses recognised Ofgem’s rationale that upgrading the grid to enable a higher proportion of renewables in the power mix will ultimately have the effect of lowering bills.⁹⁵ For example, Guy Jefferson, Transmission Managing Director for SPEN, told us that network upgrades and the resulting promise of cheaper bills can sound like “jam tomorrow”, but that network transformation is a long-term investment to enable the scaling up renewable capacity, which will ultimately reduce customers’ bills.⁹⁶ Mr Hammond from Energy UK similarly told us he expects bills to come down significantly as a result of the shift to renewables by the 2030s. Emma Pinchbeck, Chief Executive at the Climate Change Committee, echoed this when she told us that bills will be lower if the UK delivers net zero than if the UK retained a fossil fuel-based system.⁹⁷

37. Currently, the UK has some of the most expensive energy in Europe, with only three EU countries experiencing higher electricity prices than the UK.⁹⁸ The high price of energy is strongly linked to policy costs and the wholesale price of gas, which has driven up energy prices due to wholesale market volatility—an issue that is particularly salient given recent price spikes following conflict in the Middle East.⁹⁹ Because of the marginal pricing model, whereby gas almost always sets the price of electricity, gas-fired plants contribute to around 30% of UK power, yet set the price about 90% of the time.¹⁰⁰

38. Analysis by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) highlighted that due to the expansion of renewables in the UK, the link between wholesale gas and electricity prices is set to weaken in the next three years. UKERC states that the proportion of gas setting the electricity price will fall from 90% to 60%, thus reducing the overall price of electricity over time.¹⁰¹ However, in order for bills to be lower by the end of decade, Energy UK told us that the pace of generation development would need to align with grid upgrades; timely planning approval and consenting of these projects would be equally necessary.¹⁰²

39. While there is widespread agreement that more renewables in the UK’s energy mix may bring prices down over time, there are differing views as to whether the pace and scale of the network upgrades needed to connect them in the meantime warrants the short to medium term increase in consumer bills.¹⁰³ For example, Rachel Fletcher, Director of Regulation and Economics at Octopus Energy, in evidence to another Committee, said that while it is “undoubtable” that more transmission capacity is needed, there are “huge questions marks” about the proposed scale and speed of the upgrades.¹⁰⁴

40. Ms Fletcher also said there is considerable uncertainty about how quickly electricity demand will increase, and there may be a cheaper way of delivering grid infrastructure over a longer timeframe.¹⁰⁵ Madeleine Gabriel, Mission Director (Sustainable Future Mission) at Nesta, argued that the large amount of grid development needed for the energy transition could also be seen as a one-off investment to move to a new type of energy system, a so-called “transitional cost”, and suggested there is a case for a greater share of these upfront costs to be funded by the Government rather than passed directly to billpayers.¹⁰⁶

41. Justifying the scale and pace of work underway to transform the grid, the Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, told us that regardless of clean power ambitions, the grid requires major upgrades due to connection backlogs and ageing infrastructure, making investment unavoidable as a matter of national resilience.¹⁰⁷ He said the Government is addressing this with unprecedented national investment and pointed to the anticipated Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP), currently being developed by Neso and due to publish in Autumn 2027. The SSEP is intended to strategically plan what the grid should look like in future, beginning with 2050 and working backwards.¹⁰⁸

42. When asked whether the Government is considering reforming standing charges to address regional variations, the Minister said the Government is working on bringing standing charges down as and on how to make them as fair as possible for consumers, while reflecting the increased cost of getting electricity to rural and island communities. The Minister also pointed to the long-standing Hydro Benefit Replacement Scheme, which provides targeted support to households in the north of Scotland by reducing electricity distribution costs, thereby helping to offset higher standing charges for the most remote billpayers in the Highlands and Islands.¹⁰⁹

Why are wind farms paid to switch off?

45. The curtailed output from wind farms due to a lack of network capacity is another key focal point in the debate about upgrading the grid for CP30, and the fairness of billpayers shouldering extra costs while renewable electricity is not produced.

46. As part of this inquiry, we heard that the electricity grid cannot always accommodate the amount of power generated during periods of high wind. When there is insufficient network capacity to handle this energy, this is termed a constraint. The National Energy System Operator (Neso), responsible for managing network constraints, then takes balancing actions to resolve that constraint; this typically involves paying wind farms to reduce their output, while gasfired power stations are paid to increase theirs. These socalled balancing costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through their energy bills.¹¹⁰

47. Balancing costs due to constraints have risen in recent years and are expected to increase further.¹¹¹ Neso spent £2.7 billion on balancing the system in 2024/25, a 10% increase on the year before. This increase is attributed to the rise in constraints, which alone cost £1.78 billion last year, up from around £0.5 billion before 2020,¹¹² and comprises roughly 70% of total balancing costs.¹¹³ In its most recent report, Neso estimated that constraint costs would continue to rise over the next four years and drive total balancing costs to £8 billion by 2030.¹¹⁴

48. Think-tank Carbon Tracker estimated that these constraint costs added around £40 to the average annual UK electricity bill in 2023 (the latest available figures).¹¹⁵ Mr Leslie similarly told us constraint contributed to roughly 3.4% of electricity bills for an average domestic consumer in 2024–25, which translates to about £3 a month on a typical electricity bill.¹¹⁶

49. In evidence to us, Mr Leslie acknowledged that the current and projected levels of constrained renewables on the system are “far too high”.¹¹⁷ In 2025 96% of Britian’s curtailed renewable power took place in Scotland.¹¹⁸ Illustrating the scale of the problem, analysis by UKERC indicates that Scotland’s largest wind farm, SSE’s Seagreen, located off the east coast of Scotland, was reportedly paid to switch off roughly 65% of the time it was due to generate in 2025.¹¹⁹

50. Neso has advised the UK Government that there is a particular “pinch point” on the network affecting Scotland, and that the UK needs roughly another 10 GW of transfer capacity across the England-Scotland boundary to meet current demand.¹²⁰ In evidence to our inquiry, renewable energy developer RWE called for stronger Scotland-England interconnection to reduce the extent of constraints during high wind, and to improve flexibility during low-wind periods.¹²¹

Reducing curtailment of renewables

51. Multiple witnesses told us that increased grid capacity should reduce the curtailment of renewables and constraint costs over time.¹²² In particular, we heard that a number of subsea links due in 2029 are expected to double transfer capacity and significantly reduce balancing costs.¹²³ There are also three additional Eastern Green Links projects, which have been announced for delivery in the mid-2030s to help accommodate the vast amount of new wind capacity expected to connect in Scotland to meet the clean power goals.¹²⁴

Flexibility

52. While large-scale transmission projects will alleviate some constraints, we also heard that local flexibility could be vital too.¹²⁵ Flexibility in the context of alleviating curtailment levels means storing excess clean energy, shifting consumer demand away from peaks, and boosting interconnection. A greater degree of flexibility in the system could alleviate constraints on the system, both on the supply and demand-side. On the supply-side, grid-scale batteries and pumped hydro storage projects mitigate constraint by storing surplus renewable generation and reducing the need for new capacity and network upgrades.

53. For example, Neso told us that long-duration energy storage (LDES) is the answer for curtailment in Scotland.¹²⁶ Similarly, Glen Earrach Energy, a pumped-storage hydro project near Loch Ness, told us that the anticipated high proportion of wind power connected to the electricity grid will require a significant amount of LDES to ensure grid stability and security of supply, particularly when the wind is not blowing. They said that storage solutions, such as pumped-storage hydro, which stores excess energy and releases it during peak demand, can reduce consumer bills because it avoids the need for costly gas-generation.¹²⁷

54. However, we also heard that battery storage sites in Scotland are frequently not used during periods of high constraint despite being available, with so-called “skipping” occurring on some sites 80–90% of the time.¹²⁸ James Basden, Founder and Director at battery-storage firm Zenobē, argued that the failure to store surplus renewable energy results in unnecessary network upgrades, and that reducing skips could deliver faster progress towards CP30 than expanding network capacity.¹²⁹ He said that solutions to reduce curtailment therefore already exist, and called on Neso to act with greater urgency.¹³⁰

55. Demand-side flexibility can also contribute to alleviating constraints by shifting consumer consumption to periods of abundant Scottish wind.¹³¹ Examples of demand-side flexibility include smart electric vehicle charging, timed heat-pump use, smart appliances and industrial load shifting. These approaches would require suppliers to offer incentives for customers to reduce or defer usage during peak periods. Witnesses also highlighted how demand-side flexibility could be cheaper for the consumer, in cases where discounts are available for using off-peak energy.¹³² Making the case for greater flexibility and a demand-led system to bring down grid reinforcement and system balancing costs, Scott Somerville, Director of External Affairs at E.ON UK, told us:

When I started working in energy 15 years ago, it was, “Build the generation, connect it up and there will always be demand there”. We have to look at it the other way around. That is the only way that we are going to tackle the problem of unaffordability.¹³³

56. The UK Government announced in March 2026 that it would launch a trial bill discount scheme to enable suppliers to offer households and businesses in areas with constrained renewable generation discounted power during these periods. It said this will mean more surplus electricity will be used rather than wasted. While the Government has not released much further information beyond this, we know that it will apply predominantly in Scotland and the East of England.¹³⁴

57. The Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, described current levels of constraints as a “disgrace” and far too high.¹³⁵ On the proposed bill discount scheme, he told us that while consumer flexibility alone will not resolve constraints, it will play an important part.¹³⁶ The scheme remains at an early stage of design, but the Government aims to take it forward this winter.¹³⁷ More broadly, the Government’s Clean Power Action Plan identified greater flexibility as key to integrating renewables into the system, with the aim of 23–27 GW of grid-scale storage by 2030 up from 5 GW in 2024.¹³⁸ In July the Government published a Clean Flexibility Roadmap, together with Neso and Ofgem, setting out its plan for increasing system flexibility.¹³⁹

3 Ensuring fairness of CP30 for Scotland

60. Throughout our inquiry, witnesses stressed that the communities in Scotland shouldering the greatest impacts of the energy transition by hosting renewable energy infrastructure must also share in its benefits. However, we have heard consistent concerns about whether this is happening.¹⁴⁰ A number of respondents linked these challenges to broader structural issues, including depopulation and housing shortages.¹⁴¹ There was also broad acknowledgement of the importance that the clean power transition leaves a positive legacy for host communities. Dr Lynda Mitchell, from the Argyll, Lomond & Islands Energy Agency (ALIEnergy), told us how Highland communities currently respond to new onshore wind developments:

What they see is that the turbines are generating lots of revenue for somebody but not for them. Indeed, they are paying some of the highest prices for electricity in the whole of the UK, and suffer from the highest levels of fuel poverty as well with almost one in every two households across north-west Scotland suffering from fuel poverty.¹⁴²

61. Our evidence also reflected concerns about the cumulative scale and pace of development. Finley Becks-Phelps, UK Country Head of Development at developer Nadara, acknowledged that some communities feel a “sense of overwhelmingness”.¹⁴³ Similarly, the Western Isles Council emphasised how the scale of development has impacted the character of the Highlands and Islands. They argued that communities that “suffer the disbenefits of commercial-scale energy development and a semi-industrialised environment” in the interests of national energy security should be adequately compensated.¹⁴⁴

62. The following sections consider CP30 and how it affects Scotland. This includes the extent to which affected Scottish communities—which are often fuel poor—stand to benefit from community benefits schemes, and shared ownership models.

Fuel poverty in Scotland

63. Households that spend a high proportion of their income to keep their home at a reasonable temperature are considered to be fuel poor. The high levels of fuel poverty in Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands and the North East, where the majority of energy development is under way, is a key driver of the sense of unfairness amongst communities.¹⁴⁵ While fuel poverty rates across the UK cannot be directly compared due to differences in methodology, the latest estimates show that fuel poverty rates are highest in Scotland, with around 34% of households classed as fuel poor, compared with 11% of households in England, 14% in Wales and 24% in Northern Ireland.¹⁴⁶ There is also some evidence to suggest that the fuel poverty rate in Scotland has not returned to pre-energy crisis levels. Consumer Scotland analysis suggests that in the pre-2022-energy crisis period, 25% of households in Scotland were classed as fuel poor, compared with 34% in 2025.¹⁴⁷ Meanwhile, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel’s (SFPA) most recent annual report found the fuel poverty rate increased by 3% on the previous year.¹⁴⁸

64. According to the SFPA, rural homes experience the highest levels of fuel poverty in Scotland and have on average higher levels of energy debt.¹⁴⁹ Stephanie Mander, Social Justice Policy Manager at Citizens Advice Scotland, explained that rural homes are often harder to heat, primarily because they have less or no access to the gas grid; higher levels of electricity consumption; are dependent on unregulated fuels and have old meter types which can be difficult to replace. Ms Mander said people who live in rural areas also often face higher costs associated with food and transportation, which compounds high living costs, which are exacerbated if people are elderly or have disabilities.¹⁵⁰

65. Several witnesses told us, in particular, about the higher energy costs faced by those—mainly in rural Scotland—not connected to the gas grid, who are reliant on electricity to heat their homes.¹⁵¹ The price of electricity is roughly four times the price of gas per kilowatt hour, therefore, those reliant on electricity to heat their homes will have significantly higher energy bills. While approximately 19% of households in Scotland are not connected to the gas grid, this is skewed heavily to Highland and Island communities. For instance, 100% of residents in both Shetland and Orkney are not connected to the gas grid; 61% in the Highlands, and 56% in Argyll and Bute.¹⁵² Madeleine Gabriel, Mission Director (Sustainable Future Mission) at Nesta, told us that not only are those on electricity only more likely to be in fuel poverty, but that they are in greater fuel poverty than the average dual-fuel household, which uses both gas and electricity.¹⁵³ Dr Mitchell described the situation as creating a “disconnect” for Scotland’s rural communities who suffer higher-than-average electricity bills, while hearing that cheap electricity is being generated “all around them on the hilltops”.¹⁵⁴

Community benefits schemes

66. For the most part, we heard that community benefits schemes are seen as the way developers of energy infrastructure should and do address feelings of unfairness felt by communities.¹⁵⁵ These benefits are packages of financial payments provided by developers to residents that experience an increase of development in their area. Community benefits can be both cash and in-kind contributions, such as funding to support local tourism, education and skills-development opportunities. Community benefits are already delivered on a voluntary basis in most energy sectors, but it is not consistent across sectors and parts of the UK. Community benefits are delivered according to two main categories—network infrastructure and energy generation infrastructure—each of which is covered by distinct policy approaches.¹⁵⁶ Around £30 million in community benefits was provided last year to groups across Scotland hosting large-scale energy infrastructure developments, with about £9.1 million in the Highland Council area.¹⁵⁷

67. There is cross-government agreement that communities should see tangible and long-lasting benefits for hosting nationally significant energy infrastructure.¹⁵⁸ The Scottish Government told us that it is determined to ensure the energy transition brings benefits to communities, stressing that there should be “substantial legacy benefits” such as investment in local infrastructure. In written evidence, the Scottish Government highlighted the longstanding work it is already doing in this area.¹⁵⁹ Indeed, the UK Government acknowledged that Scotland is widely recognised as a leader in this policy area, on account of its guidance for onshore renewable developers—its Good Practice Principles—which have been in place since 2015.¹⁶⁰ The Scottish Government recently published a working paper on these principles, which proposed increasing the current recommended rate by £1,000 for onshore wind projects to £6,000 per MW per year. The paper also proposed recommendations for other technologies beyond onshore wind, including a new recommendation of £700-£1,000 per MW per year for solar projects and a new recommended funding level of at least £150 per MW per year for battery energy storage projects.¹⁶¹

68. As energy policy is reserved, any decision to introduce legal requirements for developers to provide community benefits would rest with the UK Government.¹⁶² The Government told us at the beginning of our inquiry that as part of the Clean Power Action Plan, it will ensure that communities living near new clean energy infrastructure will benefit from it.¹⁶³ This commitment resulted in a working paper, published in May 2025, outlining proposed reforms to introduce UK-wide mandatory community benefits in most power generation sectors, as well as a mandatory community shared ownership offer requirement. The Government said the former could come into force by the end of 2027 at the earliest, and neither would apply retrospectively. Both schemes would apply to projects with at least 5 MW installed capacity. The paper proposed a benchmark contribution of £5,000 per MW installed capacity per year, with an alternative option to set benefits based on actual generation. A response to the working paper is yet to be published.¹⁶⁴

69. The Government also made two announcements, in March 2025, on network infrastructure. Firstly, a mandatory electricity bill discount scheme, which aims to improve community acceptability of new transmission infrastructure and reduce delays, whereby eligible households living near new transmission network upgrade projects would receive an electricity bill discount, with a proposed amount of up to £2,500 over 10 years. The Government has said it aims to establish the scheme by the end of 2026.¹⁶⁵ Secondly, the Government announced guidance on community funds for electricity network infrastructure, setting out common principles on how communities hosting transmission infrastructure should benefit. The guidance sets a funding level of £200,000 per km of overhead line and £530,000 per substation but, unlike the scheme for generation infrastructure, it is not mandatory.¹⁶⁶ The Government proposed that the bill discount scheme would be funded by an obligation on electricity suppliers, who would likely recoup these costs by passing them on to customers; and the community funds would be funded by infrastructure developers, which would likely also be recouped through consumer bills.¹⁶⁷

What is fair compensation?

70. Although there is widespread agreement on the need for community benefits, there is debate about what amounts to fair and proportionate compensation, while ensuring projects remain competitive for developers. We heard different views on what constitutes an appropriate amount and type of benefits, the degree of flexibility in the scheme, and the conditions for eligibility.

71. Several witnesses, including the Scottish Government, told us they supported the UK Government’s proposal to introduce a mandatory scheme for generation developments.¹⁶⁸ Gail Anderton, Community Benefits Manager at Highland Council, told us the Council supported a mandatory scheme because the current voluntary scheme can be inconsistent and lacks transparency.¹⁶⁹ Similarly, Crown Estate Scotland described the current voluntary approach as “piecemeal” and “inequitable” in its distribution of funds to local groups.¹⁷⁰

72. However, several witnesses in favour of mandatory community benefits also cautioned that it is vital that any scheme is flexible, and can be delivered in a way that benefits the different and individual needs of each community.¹⁷¹ Highlands & Islands Enterprise told us there is a balance to be struck between maximising the number of communities that receive benefits, and ensuring that communities hosting infrastructure still receive sufficient compensation.¹⁷² Dr Mitchell from ALIEnergy considered there can sometimes be unfairness in the distribution of community benefits funds, and a mandatory scheme would improve consistency.¹⁷³ She made the case for widening the definition of community to ensure flexibility. She told us that many developers define the local community as the area within sight of their development, but highlighted the imbalance when some communities have sight of many windfarms. The disparity this approach creates within a single council area means some communities can tackle issues such as fuel poverty, while neighbouring ones cannot. As a result, ALIEnergy is in support of a scheme in which some of the funds go to a regional pot.¹⁷⁴ She said a regional approach is particularly useful to target and deal with fuel poverty.¹⁷⁵ Mr Becks-Phelps from Nadara disputed that developers today draw a radius around their projects and deem that to be the relevant community. He told us that “that world has come and gone”.¹⁷⁶ Ms Anderton from Highland Council made the case for being more strategic about how community benefits funding is distributed across a region:

If each of the individual developers putting pots of money into different projects and different initiatives—apprenticeships, training, development, housing and everything else—pooled it in one strategic pot with a governance model that sits with private sector, public sector and communities, we could probably be more effective and transformational in what we are trying to achieve.¹⁷⁷

73. We have also explored concerns as to whether the £5,000 per MW per year figure the UK Government is consulting on, and the Scottish Government’s proposed increase to £6,000 per MW per year (from the current rate of £5,000), is a fair and proportionate level of community benefit for generation developments. There has been no inflationary uplift to the Scottish Government’s current recommended figure of £5,000 per MW since it was first introduced in the Scottish Government’s Good Practice Principles in 2015, meaning it is now worth around 40% less in real terms.¹⁷⁸ For this reason, the Highland Council has called for an uplift of £7,500 to the current £5,000 figure—making a total benefit of £12,500 per MW per year—in its Social Value Charter for Renewables Investment, which it adopted in June 2024.¹⁷⁹ Ms Anderton from the Highland Council explained the £7,500 uplift would go towards a central strategic fund that would support the economic development of the Highlands.

74. On the other hand, we were warned by some developers that an increased and mandatory amount of community benefits could make some projects un-investable, and impact Scotland’s competitiveness as an investment destination.¹⁸⁰ Analysis by Biggar Economics found that the Highland Council’s Social Value Charter could reduce the number of new onshore wind projects by 80% because it impacts the financial viability of projects.¹⁸¹ Similarly, renewable developer Ocean Winds emphasised that all large-scale clean energy projects are underpinned by the competitive Contracts for Difference (CfD) process,¹⁸² and highlighted the need for a community benefit arrangement to be applied universally regardless of geography, and not just in Scotland’s Highlands and Islands, so as not to introduce a competitive disadvantage for those developers.¹⁸³

75. Regarding the specific amount to be mandated through such a scheme, Mr Becks-Phelps from Nadara, while supporting the principle of mandatory schemes, told us that determining the specific amount is difficult.¹⁸⁴ He said that when the £5,000 recommendation was first introduced by the Scottish Government, the cash-pool profile for developers was very different. With the introduction of the CfD scheme, he told us return rates have “reduced by almost half”.¹⁸⁵ He emphasised that mandatory community benefit schemes at a higher rate could make Scotland a less attractive place to invest in, and was therefore in favour of retaining £5,000 per MW per year.¹⁸⁶ However, he also emphasised the in-kind contributions made by developers, such as Nadara, including community ownership elements, skills training and ESG funding, which a higher headline figure might detract from.¹⁸⁷

76. The landscape differs for community benefits related to network infrastructure, where there is no Scottish Government guidance. The UK Government last year proposed its non-binding guidance on community funds, alongside a mandatory bill discount scheme, on the basis that:

Bill discounts and community funds target communities in complementary yet different ways, and we believe that both approaches are essential to achieve the impact we need to shift community acceptability.¹⁸⁸

77. There are different views as to whether these benefits should be mandatory. For instance, Christianna Logan, Director of Customers and Stakeholders at SSEN Transmission, told us that SSEN welcomed the guidance-based approach for transmission infrastructure benefits, owing to the difference in communities and their needs.¹⁸⁹ Community Energy Scotland, however, has called for community benefits linked to network infrastructure to also be mandatory, to provide “security of income”.¹⁹⁰ Meanwhile, think tank Regen welcomed the bill discount scheme and said that it supported a voluntary approach underpinned by government guidance as an initial step, in order to allow the sector to adjust and make progress as soon as possible; however, it strongly recommended that the scheme is made mandatory eventually.¹⁹¹

78. Another key area of debate around community benefits is the balance between cash benefits and in-kind investment such as housing, jobs and infrastructure. The Scottish Government told us there should be substantial legacy benefits from the energy transition for communities, such as investment in affordable housing and community amenities.¹⁹² Crown Estate Scotland said it saw “great potential” for community benefits schemes to tackle the issues facing communities in Scotland such as rural depopulation, fuel poverty and housing shortages.¹⁹³ Highlands & Islands Enterprise told us about the acute housing shortage in the Highlands and Islands and called for developers to build housing that can be used by locals once the workforce has moved on, also known as legacy housing.¹⁹⁴ These types of in-kind benefits are a key part of the Highland Council Social Charter.¹⁹⁵ SSEN Transmission became the first company to formally sign up to the Highland Council’s charter in November 2025.¹⁹⁶ By signing up, SSEN committed to delivering community benefits as part of its £22 billion programme of investment to the grid in the north of Scotland, including £1.8 billion of contracts for local businesses, £200 million of spending on roads and bridges, and developing 500 permanent legacy homes.¹⁹⁷

Shared ownership models

79. During our inquiry, we explored the debate about whether community benefits schemes for generation infrastructure or shared ownership models deliver better outcomes for communities.¹⁹⁸ Shared ownership is where communities take a stake in a commercially owned energy asset, investing in the project and entering into an agreement to share ownership of that asset with the private developer.¹⁹⁹ While UK-wide uptake is patchy, shared ownership arrangements are far more common in Scotland and Wales where guidance has been in place for longer. The Scottish Government expressed ambition for scaling up shared ownership of private renewable energy as part of its 2015 Good Practice Principles.²⁰⁰ In 2017 it then set a target that by 2020 at least half of newly consented renewable energy projects would have an element of shared ownership.²⁰¹ According to Local Energy Scotland, as of April 2026, 27 community groups have entered into an operational shared ownership arrangement in Scotland.²⁰² At the end of December 2024, Energy Saving Trust reported that a further 110 shared ownership installations were in the development pipeline.²⁰³

80. Currently, commercial developers may offer shared ownership but are not required to. As part of the UK Government’s consultation on mandatory community benefits schemes, it also consulted on a policy change to require renewable developers to include a community shared ownership offer.²⁰⁴ This would use an existing power in the Infrastructure Act 2015, known as the community electricity right, which has not yet been exercised through secondary legislation. The Government’s consultation paper advised that a mandatory scheme would require a new regulatory framework and enforcement regime. The Government stated its overarching aim would be to increase community benefit and accelerate delivery of clean energy infrastructure.²⁰⁵

81. Community Energy Scotland said that shared ownership models can improve stakeholder perception, resulting in fewer legal objections and delays, and faster delivery of projects.²⁰⁶ Similarly, developer Ocean Winds told us that communities with a genuine financial stake in projects are more likely to be supportive of them.²⁰⁷ While shared ownership arrangements are a form of community-owned energy, the co-ownership with a private developer is a key difference. Both Ocean Winds and Nadara told us that there could be a role for GBE in building communities’ financial capacity to explore the possibility of shared ownership, and supporting groups to get the timing right as projects come through.²⁰⁸ However, Highlands & Islands Enterprise told us that the greatest socio-economic impact and benefit is derived not as a minority stakeholder, but from 100% community ownership.²⁰⁹ They argued that community benefits schemes should be used to invest in full community ownership or shared ownership of energy projects, which they said would maximise the overall benefit for the community.²¹⁰

82. In terms of the current barriers to expanding shared ownership models, Nadara told us there is a need for clearer incentives for developers to offer shared ownership. Mr Becks-Phelps told us that Nadara operates at a scale where they can offer shared ownership arrangements, but they also do it because they “genuinely believe it is the right thing to do”.²¹¹ However, some developers will lack both the scale and will to do the same. Indeed, Energy Saving Trust research found that there is currently a lack of clear incentives for project developers to offer it. They also highlighted that there may a lack of community interest or awareness of community shared ownership opportunities.²¹² Some of the witnesses we heard from also felt that an increase in shared ownership now could already be too late, given the extent of development that has taken place to date or is in the planning pipeline.²¹³

83. GBE’s Statement of Strategic Priorities outlined a clear commitment to promote shared ownership in existing or soon to be developed renewable generation.²¹⁴ GBE and the UK Government’s joint Local Power Plan, published in February, then committed to boosting shared ownership.²¹⁵ The Plan stated that the Government would develop detailed proposals on how a mandatory shared ownership offer could work and will consult on it in 2026.²¹⁶

4 Community ownership of clean power

92. Community-owned renewable energy (hereafter community energy) raises important questions about how equitably the energy transition is being experienced across Scotland. Evidence to our inquiry suggests that genuine community-owned energy projects could help address perceived unfairness in the transition.²¹⁷

93. Community energy can be defined broadly as projects involving groups of people coming together to purchase, manage, generate or reduce the consumption of energy within a specific locale. It typically involves small-scale generation such as roof solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes or battery storage.²¹⁸ Proponents say community energy delivers lasting value by keeping profits in communities, strengthening public support for renewable projects and creating social and economic benefits that extend beyond power generation.²¹⁹

Community energy in Scotland

94. According to Energy Saving Trust, there are 42,990 community and locally owned renewable energy projects in Scotland as of December 2024, with 1.1 GW of operational capacity.²²⁰ In 2017 the Scottish Government set a target of 2 GW of operational community and locally owned renewable energy capacity by 2030.²²¹

95. While responsibility for community energy is devolved in Scotland, the powers to address many of the barriers to it are reserved to the UK Government.²²² At UK-wide level, the Local Power Plan, jointly owned by GBE and the UK Government, sets out a shared vision for the local and community energy sector.²²³ The plan, published in February 2026, committed to spending £1 billion during the current spending review period, with grant and loan schemes for local and community energy due to launch later this year.²²⁴ The Scottish Government has received funding for community energy from GBE, including nearly £5 million in March 2025, £4 million in May 2025, and a further £5.5 million in December 2025.²²⁵ As discussed earlier, a formal agreement between both Governments outlines that delivery for some GBE funding relies on partnerships with some Scottish public bodies.²²⁶

96. The Scottish Government is supportive of expanding community energy and does so primarily through its Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES).²²⁷ The scheme provides financial support and advice to communities looking to develop their own renewable energy projects. The scheme has advised roughly 1,300 organisations in Scotland and offered approximately £67 million in funding since its introduction in 2014, resulting in 990 projects and 66 MW of renewable energy.²²⁸ In the Scottish Government’s 2026–27 Budget, the scheme was allocated £8.5m.²²⁹

A case for community energy?

97. Proponents of community energy emphasise the financial returns for local communities, the boost it can provide to public support for renewable projects, and the wider benefits it brings to the energy system.

98. In terms of financial benefit, we heard that community energy projects can provide healthy returns to communities that have the capacity to invest in and build such projects.²³⁰ Community Energy Scotland told us these projects have a significantly more positive impact on local economies, businesses and supply chains compared to private developments. According to the group, on average 70% of community energy projects’ expenditure is spent locally.²³¹ Development Trusts Association Scotland told us that fully community-owned windfarms generate 34 times more income for communities than the benefit payments typically offered by private developers. The group makes the case that community ownedprojects reinvest income in community assets and services, which can create jobs and generate further economic benefit.²³² GBE’s Chief Executive, Dan McGrail, also acknowledged the wider economic benefit of expanding the sector, describing it as currently an untapped market.²³³

99. As part of our inquiry, we travelled across Scotland to hear directly from community energy groups about their experiences establishing projects. We met with the Galson Estate Trust (Urras Oighreachd Ghabhsainn) on Lewis in December 2024 and with the North Yell Development Council on Shetland in May 2025.²³⁴ The Galson Estate Trust’s three 900 kW onshore wind turbines is a £5 million development, established in 2015 and funded by a combination of bank loans and community shares. We heard how the revenue generated is now used to fund community initiatives, such as regeneration projects, tourism facilities and a launderette. The Trust told us the project is expected to generate an £8 million net income over 20 years.²³⁵ Similarly, during a visit to the Shetland Islands, we heard how income from the North Yell wind farm allowed the community group to make significant investment in the community, such as large-scale capital investment in community rental housing, a community shop and an industrial estate and marina, totalling approximately £3.9 million.²³⁶

100. Several witnesses told us that community energy can have a positive impact on the public perception and acceptability of the energy transition.²³⁷ According to YouGov polling last year, commissioned by Common Wealth, 62% of people would support community energy projects compared with 40% if it was a private development.²³⁸ Some witnesses also linked community ownership to delivering a “just transition” for workers and communities in the Highlands and Islands.²³⁹ The trade union Prospect, for example, said community energy could be transformational and a sensible answer to the “contradiction” of fuel poverty for many Highlands and Island communities hosting high levels of national energy infrastructure.²⁴⁰

101. We also heard about the additional benefit of locating smaller local projects where there are constraints on the electricity network. Smaller power generators (not connected to the transmission network) can reduce the amount of power drawn from the transmission network, thus reducing the amount of constraint on the system, and therefore potentially reducing the amount of future investment required into the network.²⁴¹ Mr McGrail described this as an “indirect benefit” of local energy.²⁴² Similarly, EDF Renewables said greater community access to establishing their own renewable energy projects could ultimately reduce pressure on grid networks.²⁴³ On the other hand, Neso’s Director of Strategic Planning, Julian Leslie, told us additional community energy could exacerbate UK-wide grid capacity challenges, because every additional MW of renewable energy on the network adds to constraint pressures.²⁴⁴ This is a key issue in Scotland, in particular, where the thresholds requiring projects to connect to the transmission network are much lower than elsewhere in the UK.²⁴⁵

Challenges facing Scotland’s sector

102. Although local and community energy enjoys cross-government support, our inquiry heard that Scotland’s sector differs markedly from the rest of the UK and faces several distinct challenges.²⁴⁶ Community Energy Scotland’s Chief Executive, Zoe Holliday, told us that Scotland’s sector differs in three main ways:

• Technology used: Community energy projects in Scotland are two-thirds wind projects, unlike south of the border where solar dominates.
• Governance type: Projects in Scotland tend to be local development trusts, which are normally registered charities, whereas projects tend to operate as a cooperative model outside of Scotland.²⁴⁷
• Financing model: Communities in Scotland tend to finance projects through a combination of bank finance, grants and loans, whereas the co-op model is more common in the rest of the UK.²⁴⁸

UK Government policy support

103. The distinct character of Scotland’s sector is particularly relevant given how community energy is defined in the Local Power Plan. The Plan defines community energy as a local organisation that works to benefit its community through energy projects. However, the UK Government is also developing a separate definition, which it says requires legislation.²⁴⁹ Within the sector, a distinction is often drawn between local and community energy, to distinguish the typically democratic governance structure of community energy projects. We heard that community-led energy projects are considered to be “more than profit” because they reinvest income generated to benefit the wider local community and should not be confused with an “investor club model” of residents, which may be described as local energy.²⁵⁰

104. Mr McGrail told us that GBE is looking to build a standardised model for community energy, with “better simplification and modularity” through the Local Power Plan.²⁵¹ However, Community Energy Scotland highlighted concerns that this could result in an English approach being forced on Scotland, despite its different context and model.²⁵² It is also notable that the UK Government’s Clean Power Action Plan’s commitment to 8 GW of local and community energy by 2030 does not feature in the Local Power Plan. When asked about this, the Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, said the Local Power Plan omits the 8 GW target because it focuses on what can be delivered within this Parliament; while 8 GW is not seen as achievable in the short term, it remains the Government’s long-term ambition.²⁵³ There is also no breakdown within the Local Power Plan of how its £1 billion funding allocation will be distributed across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The plan includes a commitment to work with devolved administrations to ensure GBE’s approach is “complementary”.²⁵⁴

Connections reform

105. Our inquiry heard that grid connection is a significant barrier for community energy groups across the UK, but particularly for projects in Scotland.²⁵⁵ Another key difference between Scotland’s community energy sector and the rest of the UK is the difference in Transmission Impact Assessment (TIA) thresholds (see Box 2), which determine how easily community energy projects can connect to the grid. Neso’s recent connections reforms introduced a “first-ready, first-connected” system designed to clear out so-called “zombie projects” from the grid queue and instead prioritise genuinely ready-to-build schemes. This clearing allowed Neso to rebuild the queue around projects able to meet 2030–2035 delivery timelines, but means grid queue places for onshore wind, solar and battery projects are now effectively fully allocated until 2035.²⁵⁶ For Scotland, where the TIA threshold is lower than elsewhere in the UK, the community-energy sector has warned this means that a higher proportion of community projects in Scotland will not be developed for the next decade, potentially resulting in a sector standstill until 2035.²⁵⁷ For example, the Galson Estate Trust, which had ambitions to build a 43 MW wind farm on Lewis halted, told us:

In the islands here, we have major investment coming in the grid in about five years or so. […] However, unfortunately, because of the waiting list here over many years, there is no capacity left now and so we are left in the queue. The connections reform process that was completed recently has effectively ruled out onshore wind for most of Scotland, particularly in the islands here.²⁵⁸

Box 2: What is the Transmission Impact Assessment?

When a new electricity generator connects to the distribution network, it can affect the national transmission system. A Transmission Impact Assessment checks whether the new connection will cause issues. Not every project needs a Transmission Impact Assessment as this would be slow and costly, so wattage thresholds are set. Projects below the threshold are assumed to have negligible impact.

106. As part of its connections reform, Neso raised the threshold at which connections must be assessed in England and Wales from 1 MW to 5 MW, to allow easier access for smaller energy projects. However, thresholds remain much lower in Scotland, at 200 kW on the mainland and 50 kW on the islands. Julian Leslie, Director of Strategic Planning at Neso, explained that this is because Scotland’s network is very different to that of England and Wales as it has developed differently over time. He told us Scotland’s network developed originally to capture hydro-electricity and move it along the valleys and therefore lacks the same “meshed interconnectedness”.²⁵⁹ As a result, we heard that connecting community energy projects to the grid today would present a greater risk to the overall security of supply than it would south of the border.²⁶⁰

107. However, there are concerns that this disparity puts Scotland’s community energy sector at a relative disadvantage.²⁶¹ Community Energy Scotland highlighted the scale of the difference between thresholds in England and in Scotland, which limits the size of project a Scottish community can take forward.²⁶²

108. To address this, the community energy sector has called for Neso to increase the TIA thresholds in Scotland (to 5 MW where feasible, and 1 MW everywhere else) to improve parity with England and Wales.²⁶³ While SSEN Transmission recognised that grid capacity for community energy is now full, it does not support increasing thresholds as the solution, because increasing levels of community energy connection without necessary capacity could risk security of supply by overloading assets. Instead, Christianna Logan, Director of Customers and Stakeholders at SSEN Transmission, told us that the best thing to do to get more community energy projects on the system in Scotland is to build out the additional network capacity required, which she said SSEN is doing with its ‘Pathway to 2030’ projects.²⁶⁴ She added that SSEN is keeping the thresholds under review, and that with increasing network capacity there would be an opportunity to consider raising thresholds in future. However, a timeline for when this might be feasible was unclear.²⁶⁵ Mr Leslie from Neso similarly indicated that increasing network capacity will eventually help the Scottish network to resemble the meshed interconnected network of England and Wales, with greater transmission capacity.²⁶⁶ The Local Power Plan sets out the UK Government’s aims to make the grid connections process easier, including promising action to address additional barriers presented by lower transmission impact thresholds, but it is not yet clear what this will entail.²⁶⁷

109. We have also heard calls for community energy ‘designation’, to prioritise community energy within the grid connection queue.²⁶⁸ Zoe Holliday, Community Energy Scotland’s Chief Executive, expressed her support for designation and described it as the number one issue for the sector.²⁶⁹ Similarly, SSEN similarly described itself as a “strong advocate” for introducing designation through the connections process. It told us these changes would be crucial if the Government is to meet its target of 8 GW of community energy by 2030. They emphasised that currently all network operators must treat all projects equally, meaning SSEN cannot currently prioritise one project over another.²⁷⁰ When questioned on why Neso had not agreed to a recommendation from Community Energy Scotland to add criteria for designating community energy projects, Mr Leslie said Neso is not permitted to give priority treatment to projects based on their ownership model. He reiterated that for this to be possible a policy decision, including a “robust definition of community energy”, is required from the UK Government and Ofgem.²⁷¹ Mr Leslie told us that currently connection decisions are made in alignment with the Clean Power Action Plan, but in future alignment will be assessed using Neso’s forthcoming Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, which is expected by the end of 2027.²⁷²

Repowering and decommissioning

110. Finally, our inquiry heard about the challenges surrounding repowering and decommissioning in Scotland’s community energy sector. Repowering in this context refers to replacing or refurbishing energy assets at the end of their initial working life, which typically means owners must reapply for leases and planning consents and, if the capacity is higher, reapply for grid connection. Planning is a devolved issue in Scotland. In coming years, an increasing number of commercial windfarms will need to be decommissioned or repowered as they reach the end of their lifespans of roughly 20–30 years.

111. The Galson Estate Trust on Lewis has ambitions to repower its ageing wind turbines and told us about the planning issues it encountered during the repowering process. They told us that the way the market has moved means that turbines are now much larger so the smaller ones in their community are no longer on the market, which means they will need to start again with the planning process.²⁷³ Similarly, Alan Roseweir, the Community Project Lead at the Wallacetown Community Energy Project in South Ayrshire, told us about challenges his project faced related to decommissioning preparations. In partnership with the council and with around £555,000 in grant funding, the project installed solar panels on three schools in Ayr. It is expected to generate approximately £1.2 million in community benefits over 25 years. However, Mr Roseweir told us that reserves held to cover decommissioning costs of £10,000-£12,000 per school takes money away from their community benefit fund. He called for consideration of methods to mitigate this cost.²⁷⁴ Although this technology often lasts longer than 25 years and could be repowered, we heard that the council had stipulated in its agreement with the project that assets had to be fully decommissioned and not repowered at the end of the agreement.²⁷⁵

112. Community Energy Scotland has said repowering also presents an opportunity for a portion of commercial generation to be transferred into community ownership, through shared ownership or community buyout opportunities at the point of repowering.²⁷⁶ The Development Trusts Association told us that the repowering of commercial wind farms over the next 15 years presents a unique opportunity to transfer generation capacity into community ownership. They proposed that developers should be required to offer local communities buyout options at the end of their life; equally, publicly owned renewable assets reaching the end of their life should be made available to locals for repowering as community energy projects.²⁷⁷

113. The Scottish Government has recently announced a pilot project to do just this, giving community groups the opportunity to lease public land sites to repower wind farms.²⁷⁸ Community Energy Scotland has said this could be a model for the whole of the UK, if successful.²⁷⁹ Mr McGrail also referred to the importance of “unlocking the energy value of public land” but without the detail of what this could mean in practice for Scotland’s community energy sector, or the role GBE could play.²⁸⁰ Mr Leslie from Neso told us that any generation projects seeking to repower their assets, community-owned or otherwise, beyond their existing agreement, would need to apply through the reformed connections process.²⁸¹

114. When questioned on grid connection issues for community energy projects, the Minister acknowledged that grid capacity constraints are particularly acute in Scotland, stressing that the issue reinforces the case for accelerating transmission grid upgrades. The Minister emphasised that there are many community energy projects that connect at distribution level, rather than at transmission level, which do not face the same connection issues. We heard that the Government is actively exploring ways to improve grid access for community energy projects, but that guaranteeing their grid access over other categories of projects adds more complexity to the system.²⁸² The Minister also expressed strong interest in the Scottish Government’s pilot model on repowering and highlighted the potential to use GBE funding to support this.²⁸³

Conclusions and recommendations

Scotland and Clean Power by 2030

1. The Clean Power by 2030 target is extremely ambitious, and we would suggest the Government must use all the levers it possesses if it is to achieve it. Maintaining public confidence and rebuilding political consensus around the pace, cost and implementation of the energy transition will be essential if the UK is to meet this Government’s clean energy mission. This confidence will be undermined if targets are missed. The UK Government must reflect on this risk and ensure it continues to be realistic about the deliverability of its clean power ambitions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 12)

2. The risk of undermining confidence in the transition is especially acute for those Scottish communities being asked to host significant new energy infrastructure. In many cases, these communities—often in rural and remote Scotland—already feel disproportionately affected by the costs and impacts of the transition. These communities are also experiencing higher energy costs due to higher standing charges, limitations on the type of fuel they can access, and housing stock which can be harder to heat. Clean power targets will only succeed if communities experience the transition as something that is done with them and not to them. It would be damaging to the UK’s clean power ambitions for there to be a perception that Scottish communities are being disadvantaged as a result of the ambition around clean power. (Conclusion, Paragraph 13)

3. Great British Energy has important objectives and the backing of a substantial £8.3 billon capital funding allocation. However, the organisation remains in its infancy and is yet to become the fundamental driver of clean energy development it is envisioned to be. To a certain extent, this reflects the fact that it is only one year since it was formally established, but we note that GBE was billed as a key vehicle in the delivery of the Government’s CP2030 mission, now just three and a half years away. It is important that claims made about GBE and its capabilities are realistic, and that public understanding and expectations about its role in the transition are managed accordingly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 21)

4. If Great British Energy is to become the catalyst required to accelerate renewable generation and meet CP30, it must now move quickly beyond the initial start-up phase and scale up delivery. This will be especially important if it is to fully deploy its share of the £8.3 billion capital allocation made to GBE and GBE-Nuclear by the end of this Parliament in a responsible way that maximises value for taxpayer’s money. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

5. The Government’s intention to take a more direct role in determining Great British Energy’s investment in Scotland, rather than allocating funding through existing Scottish Government programmes and public bodies, presents a potential risk of duplication and inefficiency. In its response to this report, the Government should set out how it intends to work with the Scottish Government to mitigate this risk, and ensure taxpayers’ money is spent in the most efficient way. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

6. Given Great British Energy’s core objective is to increase public ownership of clean power, transparency is essential. In its response to this report, the Government should clarify how much of Great British Energy’s £8.3 billion capital allocation has been spent to date and on which projects. It should also set out how it intends to ensure Great British Energy’s spending and returns are regularly reported and accessible to the public moving forward. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

Upgrading the grid for CP30

7. Scotland currently faces higher-than-average standing charges, largely reflecting the higher costs of transporting power to rural areas compared with large population centres. The burden of higher standing charges is particularly acute for Scotland’s remote and island communities, who also experience higher levels of fuel poverty and, in many cases, are bearing the brunt of the infrastructure required to deliver UK-wide clean power ambitions. This disparity risks undermining public confidence in the transition and exacerbating inequalities, particularly in the short-term, as increased infrastructure investment pushes up bills. (Conclusion, Paragraph 43)

8. Following the outcome of Ofgem’s imminent review of energy system costs, the Government should introduce a standing charge that applies consistently to all regions, which would lead to a fairer system for consumers across Great Britain, including in Scotland. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44)

9. Successive administrations have chronically underinvested in the electricity grid. As a result, grid capacity has not kept pace with the expansion of renewables across the UK system. This causes the perverse outcome of Scottish windfarms being switched off—sometimes more frequently than they are generating—while a fossil fuel power station is fired up elsewhere in the UK. UK energy consumers are currently seeing the costs of curtailments, the expansion of renewables, and grid upgrades added to their energy bills. This does not help to inspire public confidence in the fairness of the energy transition. While we note the UK Government’s demand-side measures, it must do more to reduce current levels of curtailment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58)

10. Grid capacity is one of the biggest barriers to achieving Clean Power by 2030. The Government must prioritise rapidly scaling up capacity, if it hopes to achieve its CP30 commitment. In its response to this report, it should set out how it will deliver the required capacity at the pace and scale required, involving local communities. The Government should also outline how it will capitalise on economic opportunities created by limited grid capacity in Scotland, such as long-duration battery storage, AI data centres and other high-use energy industries. (Recommendation, Paragraph 59)

Ensuring fairness of CP30 for Scotland

11. We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a mandatory community benefits scheme for new generation infrastructure. However, we remain concerned that the pace of implementation is too slow, with any scheme not expected to take effect until the end of 2027 at the earliest. Many developments—particularly across Scotland’s Highlands and Islands—will already be built out, leaving affected communities potentially feeling that they have been short-changed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 84)

12. Meaningful community benefit extends far beyond financial payments. Housing availability, access to skills training, and the creation of long-term local jobs are equally important. This is especially true in rural and remote Scotland, where the coming of renewable energy provides an opportunity to leave a transformative legacy of housing, skills and quality employment for communities which have historically seen limited investment. The Government must seize this opportunity by ensuring mandatory community benefit schemes are sufficiently flexible to reflect the differing needs and priorities of Scotland’s diverse communities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 85)

13. This should include a requirement that companies undertaking major infrastructure projects in rural areas construct worker accommodation to a standard suitable for retention as permanent community housing once the project is complete. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86)

14. While it is important to safeguard the commercial viability of renewable schemes, the Government must ensure that the minimum compensation provided through its mandatory community benefit scheme reflects fair compensation for communities hosting these schemes. The UK Government’s proposed £5,000 per MW community benefit contribution is insufficient, and does not meet this test. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)

15. In its response to this report, the Government should set out its rationale for its proposed £5,000 per MW benefit contribution, and what insight it has taken from ten years’ experience of the Scottish Government’s voluntary community benefits guidance, which initially set minimum compensation at the same level. (Recommendation, Paragraph 88)

16. When determining the minimum compensation offered through its mandatory community benefits scheme, the Government should give careful consideration to the Highland Council’s position that £12,500 is a fair and proportionate level of compensation; this reflects the Council’s first-hand experience of clean energy deployment, as well as the lived experience of communities currently impacted by renewables. A figure in the region of £10,000 to £12,500 would seem appropriate. However, whatever figure is agreed must include a mechanism to maintain value over time. (Recommendation, Paragraph 89)

17. The mandatory community benefits scheme should also provide clear expectations on the delivery of non-financial benefits, while ensuring sufficient flexibility to reflect local needs. Given the scale of development currently underway, the scheme should be introduced sooner than the end of 2027. (Recommendation, Paragraph 90)

18. We would encourage the Government to use its existing powers under the Infrastructure Act 2015 to make shared ownership offers by developers of all new renewable energy projects. This would ensure community groups are able to take advantage of the opportunity of an ownership stake. (Recommendation, Paragraph 91)

Community ownership of clean power

19. We welcome the Government’s ambition to accelerate community and locally owned clean energy through the Local Power Plan, delivered jointly with Great British Energy. However, it is disappointing that Scotland is disproportionately disadvantaged from benefitting from the Plan by its current Transmission Impact Assessment thresholds, which restrict opportunities for new community energy projects. It is encouraging that the Government recognises the grid-connection issue is acute in Scotland. However, with the transmission grid effectively fully allocated until 2035, the sector is at a near-standstill. This logjam is at odds with the Government’s renewed ambition to scale up local and community energy and reflects a disconnect between the Local Power Plan’s aspirations and the practical reality in Scotland. We are concerned that Scotland could be effectively excluded from the Plan’s full benefits. (Conclusion, Paragraph 115)

20. The Government should set out the concrete steps it is taking to address this imbalance and to ensure Scotland can access the full benefits of the Local Power Plan, including grid connection. (Recommendation, Paragraph 116)

21. Repowering offers a timely opportunity for communities to expand community-owned energy while rebalancing some of the unfair outcomes of the transition. As both the UK and Scottish Governments support the expansion of community energy projects, closer coordination is needed to reduce barriers to decommissioning and repowering. We welcome the Scottish Government’s pilot enabling community groups the opportunity to lease public land to repower wind farms and the Minister’s commitment to consider this idea for use across the UK. (Conclusion, Paragraph 117)

22. The UK Government should learn from the Scottish Government’s evaluation of its pilot, so that lessons can be learned for possible implementation in other parts of the UK. In its response to this report, the UK Government should set out how, through the Local Power Plan, it will remove barriers to repowering community energy projects at the end of their lifetime, including barriers related to retained grid access and planning consents, which are devolved in Scotland. (Recommendation, Paragraph 118)

Formal minutes

Thursday 14 May 2026

Members present

Patricia Ferguson, in the Chair

Harriet Cross

Douglas McAllister

Susan Murray

Kirsteen Sullivan

Clean Power by 2030: A fair deal for Scotland?

Draft Report (Clean Power by 2030: A fair deal for Scotland?), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 118 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 20 May at 9.00 am.

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Wednesday 22 January 2025

Emma Pinchbeck, Chief Executive, Climate Change Committee; Owen Bellamy, Head of Energy Supply Decarbonisation and Resilience, Climate Change Committee; Ameena Camps, Commissioner, Just Transition Commission; Richard Hardy, Commissioner, Just Transition CommissionQ1–20

Professor Paul de Leeuw, Director, Robert Gordon University Energy Transition Institute; Hannah Corbett, Senior Knowledge Exchange Fellow, University of Strathclyde Centre for Energy Policy; Fraser Stewart, Just Transition Lead, RegenQ21–28

Wednesday 26 February 2025

Russell Borthwick, Chief Executive, Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce; Neil Gordon, Chief Executive, Global Underwater Hub; Becca Groundwater, Head of External Affairs, Energies Industries Council; Jenny Stanning, External Relations Director, Offshore Energies UKQ29–56

Hebe Trotter, Vice President, Global Government Relations, Harbour Energy; Louise Kingham CBE, Senior Vice President, Europe & Head of Country UK, British Petroleum (bp)Q57–72

Wednesday 19 March 2025

Robert Deavy, Scotland Senior Organiser, GMB; Ian Perth, Negotiations Officer, Prospect; Derek Thomson, Scotland Regional Secretary, Unite the UnionQ73–105

Wednesday 2 April 2025

Anu Bhambi, Head of Energy Transition Strategy, EY Parthenon; Iain Hardie, Head of Legal & External Affair, Petroineos; Colin Pritchard, Sustainability & External Relations Director, INEOSQ106–171

Wednesday 14 May 2025

Kenneth MacInnes, Principal, Forth Valley College; Neil Cowie, Principal, North East Scotland College; Jim Brown, Director, Energy Skills PartnershipQ172–204

Doug Duguid, Chief Executive, Aurora Energy Services; Gavin Templeton, Chief Executive, Veri Energy; Lynsey Benson, Head of Policy and External Affairs, Engineering Construction Industry Training BoardQ205–224

Wednesday 2 July 2025

Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; Michael Brannan, Co-Deputy Director, Offshore Energy Transition and Coal Legacy, Department for Energy Security and Net ZeroQ225–275

Wednesday 19 November 2025

Dan McGrail, Chief Executive, Great British EnergyQ276–337

Wednesday 7 January 2026

Zoe Holliday, Chief Executive, Community Energy Scotland; Neil Mackinnon, Development Manager, Galson Estate Trust; Alan Roseweir, Community Energy Project Lead, Wallacetown Community Energy ProjectQ338–360

Gail Anderton, Community Benefits Manager, Highland Council; Christianna Logan, Director of Customers and Stakeholders, SSEN Transmission; Finley Becks-Phelps, UK Country Head of Development, Nadara; Lynda Mitchell, Chief Executive, ALIEnergyQ361–383

Wednesday 4 February 2026

Stephanie Mander, Social Justice Policy Manager, Citizens Advice Scotland; Charandeep Singh, Chief Executive, Scottish Chambers of Commerce; Lawrence Johnston, CO-Chief Executive, scarfQ384–412

Madeleine Gabriel, Mission Director (Sustainable Future Mission), Nesta; Ned Hammond, Deputy Director for Customers, Energy UK; Dr Christian Calvillo, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde, and UK Energy Research CentreQ413–444

Wednesday 4 March 2026

Julian Leslie, Director of Strategic Energy Planning and Chief Engineer, NESO; Steve McMahon, Director for Network Price Controls and Head of Scotland, OfgemQ445–515

Guy Jefferson, Managing Director Transmission, Scottish Power Energy Networks; James Basden, Founder and Director, Zenobe; Scott Somerville, Director of External Affairs, E.ON UKQ516–532

Wednesday 15 April 2026

Michael Shanks MP, Minister of State (Minister for Energy), Department for Energy Security and Net ZeroQ533–571

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

NRG numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce NRG0030

2 British Chambers of Commerce NRG0019

3 Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde NRG0047

4 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) NRG0002

5 Community Energy Scotland NRG0024

6 Crown Estate Scotland NRG0041

7 Decom Mission NRG0028

8 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero NRG0031

9 Development Trusts Association Scotland NRG0033

10 EDF Renewables UK NRG0003

11 EnBW Generation UK NRG0021

12 Energy Industries Council NRG0004

13 Energy Transition Zone Ltd NRG0050

14 Energy UK NRG0039

15 Engineering Construction Industry Training Board NRG0022

16 European Marine Energy Centre Ltd (EMEC) NRG0005

17 Flotation Energy Ltd NRG0009

18 Friends of the Earth Scotland NRG0020

19 Glen Earrach Energy NRG0023

20 Global Underwater Hub NRG0013

21 Helmcke, Dr Cornelia (Senior Policy Fellow, Centre for Energy Ethics | University of St Andrews) NRG0051

22 Highlands and Islands Enterprise NRG0042

23 Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport NRG0035

24 Liquid Gas UK NRG0010

25 Marine Energy Council (MEC) NRG0046

26 Mineral Products Association Scotland NRG0012

27 Nuclear Industry Association NRG0053

28 Nuclear Industry Association NRG0001

29 OFTEC and UKIFDA NRG0016

30 OPITO NRG0006

31 ORE Catapult NRG0040

32 Ocean Winds NRG0015

33 Offshore Energies UK NRG0038

34 Policy and Innovation Group, University of Edinburgh NRG0017

35 Port of Aberdeen NRG0007

36 Professor John Underhill and Professor Alex Kemp at University of Aberdeen NRG0025

37 Prospect NRG0014

38 RWE NRG0018

39 SSE plc NRG0043

40 Scottish Enterprise NRG0034

41 Scottish Government NRG0045

42 Scottish National Investment Bank NRG0048

43 Scottish Renewables NRG0037

44 Scottish Trades Union Congress NRG0026

45 Shetland Island Council NRG0032

46 South of Scotland Enterprise NRG0049

47 Statera Energy NRG0036

48 Storegga NRG0044

49 Trades Union Congress (TUC) NRG0029

50 Uplift NRG0011

51 Vargronn NRG0027

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2024–26

Number	Title	Reference
6th	Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026	HC 1652
5th	The work of the Committee in 2024–25, and Industrial transition in Scotland	HC 1651
4th	The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry	HC 459
3rd	Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility	HC 630
2nd	Scotland’s space sector follow-up: launch	HC 671
1st	The financing of the Scottish Government	HC 456
7th Special	Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026: Government Response	HC 1708
6th Special	The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry: Government Response	HC 1603
5th Special	Scotland’s space sector follow-up: launch: Government Response	HC 1495
4th Special	Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility: Government Response	HC 1485
3rd Special	The Financing of the Scottish Government: Government response	HC 1357
2nd Special	Scotland’s space sector: Government response	HC 801
1st Special	Science and Scotland: Government response	HC 800

---

Footnotes

1 Politico, Starmer’s answer to Iran energy shock: Go green faster, 6 March 2026; ‘Clean energy’ can generally be understood to mean renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen power (House of Commons Library, Clean Power targets, 14 January 2026)

2 UK Government, Plan for Change: Milestones for mission-led government, 5 December 2024, CP 1210

3 Scottish Government, Energy Statistics for Scotland - Q3 2025, 18 December 2025

4 Scottish Government, Energy Statistics for Scotland - Q3 2025, 18 December 2025

5 Note of visit to Rosyth, Grangemouth, Aberdeenshire, and Inverness - November 2024; Visit Note - Scottish Affairs Committee visit to Norway - March 2025; Visit note - Scottish Affairs Committee visit to Shetland - May 2025; Visit note - Visit to Loch Sloy Hydro-Electric Scheme

6 Scottish Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2024–26, The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry, HC 459

7 Scottish Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2024–26, The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry, HC 459, para 52

8 Prime Minister’s Office, Plan for Change, 5 December 2024

9 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, 13 December 2024, p10

10 Energy Industries Council (NRG0004), European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) (NRG0005), OPITO (NRG0006), Flotation Energy (NRG0009), Uplift (NRG0011), Global Underwater Hub (NRG0013), Ocean Winds (NRG0015), Policy and Innovation Group, University of Edinburgh (NRG0017), Scottish Renewables (NRG0037)

11 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, 13 December 2024

12 Scottish Renewables, Secure Scotland’s Energy Future, 21 December 2025, p3

13 IPPR, Everything, everywhere, all at once, December 2024, p9

14 EnBW Generation UK (NRG0021), Scottish Enterprise (NRG0034), ORE Catapult (NRG0040); Q8 [Emma Pinchbeck], Q23 [Fraser Stewart], Q324 [Dan McGrail], Q519 [Scott Somerville], Q516 [James Basden]

15 Q376, Flotation Energy, (NRG0009), Energy Transition Zone (NRG0050), Uplift, (NRG0011); Q16 [Emma Pinchbeck], Q326 [Dan McGrail], Q458 [Julian Leslie], Q458 [Steve McMahon], Q516 [Guy Jefferson]

16 Q326 [Dan McGrail]

17 Q516 [Guy Jefferson]

18 Q8 [Emma Pinchbeck]

19 European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) (NRG0005); Q444 [Madeleine Gabriel], Q444 [Dr Christian Calvillo], Q444 [Ned Hammond]

20 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Public engagement with the energy transition, POSTnote 764, 7 April 2026, p6

21 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Public engagement with the energy transition, POSTnote 764, 7 April 2026, p8

22 Scottish Affairs Committee, The future of Scotland’s oil and gas industry, 24 October 2025, HC 459

23 Q444

24 Scottish Government (NRG0045), South of Scotland Enterprise (NRG0049), Energy UK (NRG0039), Scottish Renewables (NRG0037)

25 Scottish Government (NRG0045)

26 Q541

27 Q555

28 Labour, Labour Party Manifesto 2024: Our plan to change Britain, 13 June 2024, p53–54; EnBW Generation UK (NRG0021), Scottish Enterprise (NRG0034), Statera Energy (NRG0036)

29 Labour, Labour Party Manifesto 2024: Our plan to change Britain, 13 June 2024, p53–54

30 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

31 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

32 Q470

33 Scottish Trades Union Congress (NRG0026), Trades Union Congress (TUC) (NRG0029), Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport (NRG0035), Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde (NRG0047), British Chambers of Commerce (NRG0019), EnBW Generation UK (NRG0021); Q86 [Ian Perth]

34 Uplift (NRG0011), Friends of the Earth Scotland (NRG0020), Scottish Trades Union Congress (NRG0026), Trades Union Congress (TUC) (NRG0029), Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport (NRG0035), Scottish National Investment Bank (NRG0048), Vargronn (NRG0027); Q90 [Derek Thomson]

35 EDF Renewables UK (NRG0003), Statera Energy (NRG0036), Offshore Energies UK (NRG0038), Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde (NRG0047); Q48 [Louise Kingham]

36 Scottish Government (NRG0045), Centre for Energy Policy, University of Strathclyde (NRG0047), Offshore Energies UK (NRG0038)Scottish National Investment Bank (NRG0048)

37 Scottish National Investment Bank (NRG0048)

38 Energy UK (NRG0039)

39 Q10 [Richard Hardy]

40 Qq48–50 [Louise Kingham and Hebe Trotter]

41 Q86

42 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clean energy and jobs from publicly-owned Great British Energy, 16 September 2025

43 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clean energy and jobs from publicly-owned Great British Energy, 16 September 2025

44 Great British Energy, Great British Energy Strategic Plan, December 2025

45 Labour, Labour Party Manifesto 2024: Our plan to change Britain, 13 June 2024, p53–54

46 BBC News, GB Energy to be headquartered in Aberdeen, 3 September 2024

47 British Chambers of Commerce (NRG0019); Q3 [Emma Pinchbeck], Q48 [Louise Kingham], Q48 [Hebe Trotter]

48 HM Treasury, Autumn Budget 2024: Fixing the foundations to deliver change, October 2024.

49 Great British Energy and Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) operate as two separate publicly owned companies with the shared mission to accelerate the deployment of clean energy assets. GBE has said it will develop renewable and storage assets working in alignment with GBE-N, which will help deliver the UK government’s nuclear programme.

50 Full Fact, Is the government on track to capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion?, 18 July 2025

51 Q282 [Dan McGrail]; Scotland Office, Powering Britian’s Future, 23 June 2025

52 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 100 schools cutting bills with Great British Energy solar panels, 5 March 2026

53 Great British Energy, Great British Energy announces £10 million for local government, 21 March 2025

54 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

55 Q302

56 Scottish Government, GB Energy: Joint vision on partnership with Scottish public bodies, 17 October 2024

57 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy funding boost for Scottish communities, 14 May 2025

58 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy to cut bills for hospitals and schools, 21 March 2025

59 Great British Energy Solar on schools and hospitals, UIN HCWS543, 24 March 2025

60 Q475

61 Qq15–16 [Emma Pinchbeck]; Port of Aberdeen (NRG0007), Flotation Energy (NRG0009), Policy and Innovation Group, University of Edinburgh (NRG0017), Ocean Winds (NRG0015), SSE (NRG0043), Energy Transition Zone (NRG0050)

62 Neso was created as a result of the Energy Act 2023. It is operationally independent and publicly owned. It is responsible for electricity and gas system planning in Great Britain.

63 Neso, Advice on achieving clean power for Great Britian by 2030, 5 November 2024

64 Neso, Scottish boundaries, (accessed 31 March 2026); House of Commons Library, Delivery of electricity grid upgrades, CDP 2024–0156, 20 November 2024

65 Q515

66 SSE (NRG0043)

67 Scottish Renewables (NRG0037)

68 Q414 [Dr Christian Calvillo], Q433 [Madeleine Gabriel], Q454 [Julian Leslie], Q455, Q472 [Steve McMahon]

69 House of Lords Library, Great Britain’s electricity grid infrastructure: Lords Industry and Regulators Committee report, 23 October 2025

70 Q472

71 Q451 [Julian Leslie]; Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051)

72 Q451 [Julian Leslie]

73 Q445 [Julian Leslie]; Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051)

74 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002)

75 Q2 [Owen Bellamy], Q428 [Ned Hammond]

76 Q445 [Julian Leslie]

77 Neso, Clean Power 2030 Annex 1: Electricity demand and supply analysis, 5 November 2024, p4

78 Q445 [Julian Leslie]

79 Standing charges are covered by Ofgem’s price cap, which limits how much suppliers can charge. There are separate price caps in each of the 14 energy supply regions. Suppliers are not required to include a standing charge at all and can choose to set them lower than the price cap limit if they wish. Some suppliers already offer tariffs with lower or zero standing charges.

80 Energy UK, Energy UK Explains: Standing charges, July 2025

81 Energy UK, Energy UK Explains: Standing charges, July 2025

82 Ofgem, Get energy price cap standing charges and unit rates by region, (accessed 27 March 2026)

83 Citizens Advice Scotland, Response to Ofgem on standing charges, 24 January 2024

84 Figures represent the daily electricity standing charge for single rate consumers, using a 6-month average between January-June 2026. Ofgem, Get energy price cap standing charges and unit rates by region, (accessed 27 March 2026)

85 Written evidence received for the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry into the cost of energy, Advice Direct Scotland (COE0034), April 2025

86 Ofgem, Energy system cost allocation and recovery review, 30 July 2025, p24

87 Ofgem, Energy system cost allocation and recovery review, 30 July 2025

88 The pilot is offered by four of the big suppliers and the number of customers who can sign up will be limited.

89 Q426

90 Ofgem, Energy system cost allocation and recovery review, 30 July 2025, p53

91 House of Commons Library, Energy Standing Charges, Research Briefing 10339, 3 March 2026

92 Investment relates to the high-voltage transmission networks and gas networks.

93 Ofgem, Ofgem unlocks £28 billion investment to maintain a safe, secure and resilient energy grid and to upgrade and expand capacity to meet growing demands, 4 December 2025

94 Ofgem, Ofgem unlocks £28 billion investment to maintain a safe, secure and resilient energy grid and to upgrade and expand capacity to meet growing demands, 4 December 2025

95 Q417 [Dr Christian Calvillo], Q420 [Dr Christian Calvillo], Q470, Q472 [Steve McMahon], Q480 [Julian Leslie]

96 Q522

97 Q6 [Emma Pinchbeck]

98 House of Commons Library, Domestic energy prices, Research Briefing 9491, 30 June 2025, p49–50

99 BBC News, Oil and gas prices jump as conflict escalates, 1 March 2026

100 Q414 [Dr Christian Calvillo]

101 UK Energy Research Centre, Review of Energy Policy 2025, January 2026, p6

102 Q431

103 Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051); Q431 [Ned Hammond], Q475 Steve McMahon, Q522 [Guy Jefferson]

104 Oral evidence taken by the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee on 15 October 2025, Q316 [Rachel Fletcher]

105 Oral evidence taken by the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee on 15 October 2025, Q316 [Rachel Fletcher]

106 Q433 [Madeleine Gabriel]

107 Q547

108 Q447 [Julian Leslie], Q453

109 Q461

110 Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051); Q418 [Dr Christian Calvillo], Q433 [Ned Hammond], Qq451–454 [Julian Leslie]

111 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026; UK Energy Research Centre, Transmission Network Unavailability - the quiet driving force behind rising curtailment costs in Great Britain, 16 June 2025

112 EDF, UK constraint costs in 2026: why we need a better map for the energy transition, 17 February 2026

113 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

114 Neso, 2025 Annual Balancing Costs Report, June 2025 p31

115 Carbon Tracker, Gone with the wind?, 15 June 2023

116 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

117 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

118 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

119 The Times, How wasted wind is pushing up electricity bills in the UK, 9 January 2026; UK Energy Research Centre, Transmission Network Unavailability - the quiet driving force behind rising curtailment costs in Great Britain, 16 June 2025

120 NESO, Advice on achieving clean power for Great Britian by 2030, 5 November 2024, p52; Q461

121 RWE (NRG0018)

122 Q428 [Dr Christian Calvillo]; RWE (NRG0018), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews, (NRG0051)

123 Q418 [Dr Christian Calvillo]; Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002)

124 UK Energy Research Centre, Transmission Network Unavailability – the Quiet Driving Force Behind Rising Curtailment Costs in Great Britain, 16 June 2025

125 ORE Catapult (NRG0040)

126 Q473

127 Glen Earrach Energy (NRG0023)

128 Q519 [James Basden]; See Neso, Skip rates.

129 Q522

130 Q522

131 ORE Catapult (NRG0040), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051); Q466 [Julian Leslie], Q516, Q520 [Scott Somerville]

132 Q16 [Emma Pinchbeck], Q433 [Ned Hammond], Q519 [Scott Somerville]

133 Q519

134 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Government to make ‘plug-in solar’ available within months, 24 March 2026

135 Q536

136 Q465

137 Q465

138 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Clean Power 2030: Action Plan: A new era for clean electricity, 13 December 2024

139 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Clean Flexibility Roadmap, July 2025

140 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002), Prospect (NRG0014), Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024), Professor John Richard Underhill and Professor Alexander Kemp at University of Aberdeen (NRG0025), Scottish Trades Union Congress (NRG0026), Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033), Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

141 Scottish Government (NRG0045), Crown Estate Scotland (NRG0041), Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

142 Q377 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

143 Q373 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

144 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002)

145 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Local Authority for Western Isles of Scotland) (NRG0002), Shetland Island Council (NRG0032)Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033), Scottish Renewables (NRG0037); Q428 [Dr Christian Calvillo]

146 House of Commons Library, Fuel poverty in the UK, Research Briefing 8730, 14 April 2025, p5

147 Consumer Scotland, Insights from the 2025 energy affordability tracker, 22 May 2025

148 The Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel, Annual Report 2024–2025, June 2025, p3

149 The Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel, Annual Report 2024–2025, June 2025, p11

150 Q400 [Stephanie Mander]

151 Q424 [Madeleine Gabriel], Q377 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

152 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Subnational estimates of properties not connected to the gas network, (accessed 22 March 2026)

153 Q424 [Madeleine Gabriel]

154 Q377 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

155 E.g. European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) (NRG0005), Professor John Richard Underhill and Professor Alexander Kemp at University of Aberdeen (NRG0025), Energy UK (NRG0039), Crown Estate Scotland (NRG0041), Scottish Government (NRG0045),

156 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

157 Scottish Government, Communities benefit from renewable energy, 18 February 2026; Energy Voice, How Highland Council is seeking to secure at least £4 million community benefit boost from renewables developers, 20 June 2024

158 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031), Scottish Government (NRG0045); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure: working paper, 21 May 2025

159 Scottish Government (NRG0045)

160 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

161 Scottish Government, Onshore renewable energy - refreshing the good practice principles for community benefits: working paper, 18 February 2026

162 Scottish Government (NRG0045)

163 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (NRG0031)

164 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure: working paper, 21 May 2025

165 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Electricity Bill Discount Scheme for transmission network infrastructure: policy position, 10 March 2025

166 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Community funds for transmission infrastructure, 10 March 2025

167 Letter from the Minister for Energy to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee regarding new electricity network transmission infrastructure, 10 March 2025

168 Q361 [Gail Anderton], Q362 [Finley Becks-Phelps], Q362 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]; Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024), Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033), Scottish Government (NRG0045)

169 Q361

170 Crown Estate Scotland (NRG0041)

171 RWE (NRG0018); Q361 [Gail Anderton], Q362 [Finley Becks-Phelps], Q377 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

172 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

173 Q362 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

174 Q353 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

175 Q377 [Dr Lynda Mitchell]

176 Q353 [Finley Becks Phelps]

177 Q375

178 The Herald, Scotland’s energy shift exposes deep divide for communities, 30 November 2025

179 Q371, Highland Council, Social Value Charter for Renewables Investment, June 2024

180 Ocean Winds (NRG0015)

181 BiGGAR Economics, Implications of Highland Council’s Social Value Charter, 23 August 2024, (accessed 19 December 2025)

182 Contracts for Difference (CfDs) support new low-carbon power by guaranteeing generators a fixed ‘strike price’ for each unit of electricity. When the wholesale price is lower than the strike price, the generator receives a top-up; when it is higher, the generator pays back the difference, with costs or savings passed on to consumers. Developers compete for CfDs by bidding the lowest strike price they can deliver.

183 Ocean Winds (NRG0015)

184 Q372 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

185 Q372 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

186 Q372 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

187 Q372 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

188 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Electricity Bill Discount Scheme for transmission network infrastructure: policy position, 10 March 2025

189 Q355

190 Community Energy Scotland, Recommendations for mandatory community benefits and shared ownership, 19 June 2025

191 Regen, Community benefits for electricity transmission infrastructure: Regen’s response, May 2023; Regen, Regen welcomes proposed benefits for communities affected by network infrastructure, 2 October 2025

192 Scottish Government (NRG0045)

193 Crown Estate Scotland (NRG0041)

194 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

195 Highland Council, Social Value Charter for Renewables Investment, June 2024

196 SSEN Transmission, SSEN Transmission first business to sign the Highland Social Value Charter, November 2025

197 Scottish & Southern Electricity Networks, SSEN Transmission first business to sign the Highland Social Value Charter, November 2025

198 Q343 [Zoe Holliday], Q379 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

199 Private developers cannot fully own or operate the core energy networks in the UK. These operate under regulated monopoly control to ensure safe supply and efficiency. As a result, infrastructure companies, such as SSEN Transmission cannot offer shared ownership models to communities.

200 Scottish Government, Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments, March 2015

201 Scottish Government, The future of energy in Scotland: Scottish energy strategy, 20 December 2017

202 Local Energy Scotland, Projects index (accessed 23 April 2026)

203 Energy Saving Trust, Community and locally owned energy in Scotland, 14 April 2025, p17

204 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure: working paper, 21 May 2025

205 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Community benefits and shared ownership for low carbon energy infrastructure: working paper, 21 May 2025

206 Community Energy, Community shared ownership: why guidance and targets are not enough, June 2025

207 Ocean Winds (NRG0015)

208 Ocean Winds (NRG0015); Q379 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

209 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

210 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

211 Q379 [Finley Becks-Phelps]

212 Energy Saving Trust, Community renewable shared ownership research, April 2025

213 Q380 [Dr Lynda Mitchell], Q380 [Gail Anderton]

214 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Statement of Strategic Priorities to Great British Energy, September 2025

215 Great British Energy and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Local Power Plan, 9 February 2026

216 Great British Energy and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Local Power Plan, 9 February 2026, p10

217 Friends of the Earth Scotland (NRG0020), Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024), Trades Union Congress (TUC) (NRG0029), Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033)

218 Great British Energy, Strategic Plan, 4 December 2025, p.20

219 Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033), Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews, (NRG0051)

220 Energy Saving Trust, Community and locally owned energy in Scotland: 2024 report, 3 October 2025, p8

221 Scottish Government, Local energy policy statement, 6 January 2021

222 Community Energy Scotland, Policy, (accessed 5 December 2025)

223 Great British Energy and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Local Power Plan, 9 February 2026

224 Great British Energy and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Local Power Plan, 9 February 2026

225 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy to cut bills for hospitals and schools, 21 March 2025, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy funding boost for Scottish communities, 14 May 2025, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy backs Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 10 December 2025

226 Scottish Government, GB Energy: Joint vision on partnership with Scottish public bodies, 17 October 2024

227 Scottish Parliament, Written question S6W-32375, 8 January 2025

228 Energy Saving Trust, Community and Renewable Energy Scheme, (accessed 16 March 2026)

229 Scottish Government, Scottish Budget 2026–27, 13 January 2026

230 Ocean Winds (NRG0015), Highlands and Islands Enterprise (NRG0042)

231 Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024)

232 Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033)

233 Q282

234 Visit note - Scottish Affairs Committee visit to Faslane, Glasgow and Lewis and Harris - December 2024; Visit note - Scottish Affairs Committee visit to Shetland - May 2025

235 Community Land Scotland, Galson Estate community plans bright future, 7 November 2016

236 Just Transition Commission, North Yell Development Council, 16 October 2025; Visit note - Scottish Affairs Committee visit to Shetland - May 2025

237 Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024), Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033), EDF Renewables UK (NRG0003), Trades Union Congress (TUC) (NRG0029); Q343 [Zoe Holliday], Q503 [Julian Leslie]

238 Elemental London, Poll shows public support for community renewables, 21 January 2025

239 Friends of the Earth Scotland (NRG0020), Prospect (NRG0014)

240 Prospect (NRG0014)

241 Q16 [Owen Bellamy], Q331 [Dan McGrail]; EDF Renewables UK (NRG0003), Dr Cornelia Helmcke, Senior Policy Fellow at Centre for Energy Ethics, University of St Andrews (NRG0051)

242 Q331

243 EDF Renewables UK (NRG0003)

244 Q466

245 Community Energy Scotland and Regen, Three changes to unlock the grid for community energy in Scotland, 9 January 2026

246 Q339 [Zoe Holliday]

247 Co-operative businesses are democratically run organisations owned and controlled by their members to meet their needs. (Scottish Enterprise, Co-operative business support)

248 Q339

249 Q567

250 Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024)

251 Q287

252 Q351 [Zoe Holliday]

253 Q564

254 Community Energy Scotland, Community Energy Scotland welcomes publication of Local Power Plan, 10 February 2026

255 Q355 [Zoe Holliday], Q344 [Neil Mackinnon]; Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024)

256 Neso, Connections Reform, (accessed 2 March 2026)

257 Q343 [Zoe Holliday]; Community Energy Scotland and Regen, Three changes to unlock the grid for community energy in Scotland, 9 January 2026

258 Q344 [Neill Mackinnon]

259 Q503 [Julian Leslie]

260 Q381 [Christianna Logan], Q504 [Julian Leslie]

261 Solar Power Portal, Solar Energy Scotland: Scotland ignored in grid reform plans, 22 January 2025

262 Q355 [Zoe Holliday]

263 Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024); Q355 [Zoe Holliday]

264 Q381

265 Q381 [Christianna Logan]

266 Q505 [Julian Leslie]

267 Great British Energy and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Local Power Plan, 9 February 2026, p24–25

268 Letter from SSEN Transmission regarding follow-up from 7 January session, dated 20 January 2026, 28 January 2026; Q344 [Neil Mackinnon], Q355 [Zoe Holliday], Q382 [Christianna Logan]

269 Q355

270 Letter from SSEN Transmission regarding follow-up from 7 January session, dated 20 January 2026, 28 January 2026; Q382 [Christianna Logan]

271 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026, Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024); Q382 [Christianna Logan]

272 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

273 Q360 [Neil Mackinnon]

274 Q345

275 Q345 [Alan Roseweir]

276 Community Energy Scotland (NRG0024)

277 Development Trusts Association Scotland (NRG0033)

278 Scottish Government, Sharing the gains of clean energy, 27 October 2025

279 Energy Live News, New pilot to boost community access to wind farm leases in Scotland, 28 October 2025

280 Q331 [Dan McGrail]

281 Letter from Neso regarding follow-up from 4 March session, dated 16 March 2026

282 Q479

283 Q481