Chamber and committees

Clearly, the market for renewables can and will be extensive, but it needs certain decisions to be made, which you are considering just now. If we look at what is happening in the US with the Inflation Reduction Act—IRA—and what is happening in Europe with the green deal, we see that the opportunity that we have could be closing if we do not have the market arrangements that we need. That belies the fact that, underneath that, we know that the current electricity market arrangements are not working to ensure that investment of the necessary scale happens rapidly. What is your assessment of the risks?

I have a few follow-up questions. I am interested in the localisation and decentralisation aspects, too. We have heard from stakeholders who are innovators that diversity needs flexibility, and more localised grid connections could make a big difference in that area.

Secondly, if we consider green hydrogen and big industrial plants—for example, cement plants or big industry users—the distribution aspect, whether off grid or on a different grid, will be key, too, not least given the geography of Scotland.

Thirdly, we have talked about community benefit, but community value would be more immediate and direct access to reliable and affordable renewable green energy.

To what extent, and how, does any of what you have talked about today address those issues?

I will not refer to that.

It is in the committee’s interests, convener.

The Energy Bill is important, but there are obviously issues with it, and I am pleased to hear that you have been talking with different stakeholders separately or together with the Scottish Government. The committee has looked at the bill and has produced a report on it and the legislative consent memorandum.

One of our concerns, which we have also reflected here today, was about the importance of investment in infrastructure, especially the speed of decision making and deployment of that investment. In paragraph 71 of our report on the bill and the LCM, we talk about the combination of the Energy Bill and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill giving powers to the environment secretary to make decisions. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a UK minister, but environment itself is devolved. We are therefore concerned that the

“overlapping matrix of rules, obligations and permissions”

could have a “chilling” impact on investment, which none of us would want to happen. I do not know whether this is your direct responsibility or whether it is a subject for today’s discussions, but is that on your radar? After all, it is in everybody’s interests that decisions are made promptly and securely.

That is fine. Thank you.

I have another follow-up question. You said that the UK Government had rejected the proposition in the House of Lords to give Ofgem a statutory responsibility to achieve net zero. Given that decarbonising energy is essential to achieving net zero—and that achieving net zero is essential to tackling climate change—why would you not? It would be quite helpful if you could give us, on the record, your rationale for currently rejecting that amendment.

We are suggesting that seeking consent with regard to devolved areas instead of just consulting would make a big difference.

The independent just transition commission has suggested that effective communication requires the plans to be co-designed, which has to be a two-way process. It is important to demonstrate that stakeholder feedback can lead to policy changes, so will the Scottish Government seek to do that through the co-design process for the just transition plans? For Grangemouth, who would you define as the stakeholders?

What about the stakeholders?

Who is the cabinet secretary with responsibility for the just transition plan for Grangemouth?