A Scottish minister has admitted Holyrood would like to see energy “fully devolved” north of the border.
Speaking today at the Community and Renewable Energy Scheme (CARES) conference, organised by Local Energy Scotland, energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said there is strong support for renewables across the Scottish Parliament and added “we would like to see energy fully devolved”.
“I think Scotland could be an exemplar if we were given a chance, whether that’s through devolution, or through independence,” said Wheelhouse.
“I don’t think there’s any legal reason why it couldn’t happen. I would hope if it was devolved, we could still collaborate with the rest of the UK in terms of delivery of an energy system across these islands.”
“It really comes down to the Scotland Act, which created the Scottish Parliament and those matters, which were specified as reserved, including energy in the Bill. All other matters were devolved by default.
“That incidentally meant that climate change was accidentally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I think we’ve done a pretty good job leading on that agenda.”
Wheelhouse also encouraged delegates at the conference to feed into the Scottish Government’s current energy strategy consultation, particularly around renewable energy bonds, PPAs and the possibility of a government-owned energy company.
The minister also held out an olive branch to small hydro operators, who have been hit by business rate increases.
Last month, the chief executive of the British Hydropower Association, Simon Hamlyn, warned some operators could go bust because of rate rises.
But speaking at the Local Energy Scotland conference, Wheelhouse said hydro operators should consider involving local communities to qualify for additional rate relief.
“It’s important to highlight that one way in which those who have concerns about business rates affecting projects can receive additional support is if they do invest in projects jointly with communities,” insisted the minister.
“They can benefit from rates relief schemes, which apply only to community projects. We are quite deliberately making that distinction, because we want to encourage more community-shared revenue models.”