check_circle Done

Environment Environment

Support the development of wind projects in the remote islands of Scotland

Last updated: 10:06am 15 January 2019

For instance, while we do not believe that more large-scale onshore wind power is right for England, we will maintain our position as a global leader in offshore wind and support the development of wind projects in the remote islands of Scotland, where they will directly benefit local communities.

Conservative Party Manifesto 2017, p.22

Our verdict

Scottish onshore wind projects support 8,000 jobs and delivered 45.8% of the UK’s turnover from the technology in 2016. Wind projects in remote Scottish islands can capture more energy than the average mainland farms and are cost competitive when compared with other forms of low carbon energy generation, including offshore wind. The remote environment, however, adds significant costs, such as that of connecting the islands to the mainland high-voltage transmission systems. So, the government promised to support wind projects in remote Scottish islands.

In October 2017, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published the Clean Growth Strategy. This policy paper announced that Scottish wind projects on remote islands will be made eligible for the next Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction, in Spring 2019, thus being able to compete for £557 million of funding. In June 2018, following a round of consultations, the government proposed a definition of “remote island” and a set of amendments to the CfD scheme. These were approved in July 2018, successfully including remote island Scottish wind projects in future competitive auctions.

With the inclusion of Scottish remote onshore wind projects in the CfD scheme, we consider this policy ‘done’. We’ll monitor it to see if anything changes. Follow this policy for updates.

Still curious?

There's always room for debate

We’re serious about providing clear, up-to-date, non-partisan information. We focus on being consistent and fair in how we reach our verdicts, and always explain our reasoning. But there is always room for debate. So if you see it differently, we’d love you to tell us why. Or even better, submit an edit.