Associate feature: Scotland has the power – Why are we wasting it?

In Shetland, wind turbines spin in some of Europe’s strongest winds, only to be shut down due to grid constraints. At the same time, the UK imports electricity, and Scotland’s energy-intensive industries continue to struggle with soaring costs. 

Scotland generates nearly twice the electricity it consumes, with around 88% of it generated from low carbon sources. We have the resources and projects, but without modern infrastructure and a supportive energy system, clean power remains locked away and unable to drive the transformation it promises. Clean electricity isn’t just one piece of the net zero puzzle. It’s the thread that weaves through every future-ready project: decarbonising heat and transport, enabling circular construction, powering sustainable industry, and strengthening communities. Without it, the rest unravels.

The Clean Power 2030 report from the National Energy System Operator (NESO) outlines how the UK can achieve 95% low-carbon electricity by 2030. The plan includes increasing clean energy requirements to 50 GW offshore wind, 47 GW solar (up from 15GW currently), tripling battery storage, 5,500 km of new transmission lines and reforming planning and market mechanisms.

A key element of this plan is that it’s comprised of proven technologies, not futuristic hopes. The realisation and economic success of this roadmap relies on an urgency of action, and any delay in grid connections and infrastructure delivery could cost the system up to £2bn a year in wasted generation and inefficiencies.

Scotland, with its natural advantages and project pipeline, should be at the heart of this transformation. But outdated infrastructure and slow reform threaten to leave this potential stranded. Despite its renewable abundance, Scotland still operates within a UK electricity market priced on marginal cost – typically set by gas. As a result, gas may only account for around 11% of Scotland’s energy generation, but it can be setting the UK electricity market price for 98% of the time.

This pricing system contributes to the UK having some of the highest industrial electricity costs in Europe, with British manufacturers paying up to 50% more than competitors in France and Germany, and four times more than in the US (Dieter Helm, BMM). This directly weakens the case for electrifying heat, manufacturing, and transport. Further to this, however, we risk deterring industries from staying or growing here. 

In the mid-20th century, engineers and policymakers transformed the Highlands with a flurry of hydroelectric schemes. Between 1953 and 1958, hydroelectric projects accounted for 9% of the UK’s electricity sector capex, even though they would only generate 2.5% of its power. The goal was to build infrastructure that would endure, not just perform on paper. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board invested in rural electrification and energy security, powered by political will and long-term thinking. This long-term mindset is exactly what we need now.

There is a general lack of understanding around energy market drivers like Contracts for Difference. This can make it easy to paint renewable energy subsidies as an additional cost, when the reality is the savings benefits more often than not outweigh this. Whilst politicians can play on this lack of understanding, organisations like Cundall have experts who are well-versed with the benefits and impacts of renewables. 

Discussion around energy network is communicated as ‘investments’ but in reality, the transition is necessary, for moral reasons but also because emission targets are legally binding. We need to pay to ‘maintain’ our capital infrastructure. The reality of that is paying to transition to a green energy grid and reap the long-term benefits. Otherwise, we’re going to pay a much bigger cost for many years to come.

This article is sponsored by Cundall.

www.cundall.com