There's no need for energy bills to be so high. We need zonal pricing

The Herald Scotland

01-05-2025

In Scotland where most of the electricity is generated by renewables there is no need for us to be charged at the cost of using gas, especially when our energy requirements can be over 50% more because of the cold weather.
The constant reference to constraint payments is a red herring as it is assessed as being likely to be 'only' £1.8bn in 2025 according to the National Energy System Operator (NESO) and the vast majority of constraint costs (76%) relate to gas generators, which are typically paid to increase output at certain times and replace constrained generation from other sources to ensure demand is met.
The biggest driver of constraint cost variation is the wholesale price of electricity – not because wind farms are paid more to turn down, but because gas generators are paid more to turn up when prices are high.
Because the wind-generated electricity is governed by the strike price there will be no loss of income for the wind turbine operators and even if the strike price is increased by £20 per MWh at the next round of government auctions for new wind farms as suggested, wind-generated electricity will still be half the cost of gas-generated electricity.
The suggestion that the South of England will need to pay more is also misleading as they like other areas already pay for their electricity at gas generation costs and any change should be minimal and certainly nowhere near the 66% more currently paid in the North of Scotland for their higher energy use.
Scotland should be paying a more realistic price for electricity and this would lead to more energy-intensive companies locating here, more households changing to air-sourced heat pumps because they would be cheaper than gas to run and more people changing to electric vehicles, all of which would use a lot of the excess electricity generated in Scotland until the national grid is upgraded.
The only section which would lose out would be the wholesale energy companies, no doubt comprising most of the 55 energy companies, which would lose some of their excess unearned profit and the UK Government which would lose tax from the windfall profits which it doesn't use to help those in Scotland who use more energy.
Europe's association of power grid operators (ENTSO-E) has recommended that Germany, which has a single large power market zone with a unified price including Luxembourg, should be split into at least two zones to stop high prices in one region bleeding across the entire country.
Iain McIntyre, Sauchie.
Read more letters
Buy back the National Grid
Norman McNab's letter (April 28) gave a very good summary of the present sad state of our electricity industry resulting from privatisation in 1990. The government (both UK and Scottish) targets to reduce CO2 emissions in the energy sector are failing and the long-term aims are unlikely to be achieved. This is in spite of the fact that oil and gas are heavily taxed and electricity is taxed at 21% which amounts to approximately £21 billion being paid to the Treasury each year. All these taxes are paid by consumers and with energy prices increasing each year the tax take by the Treasury will increase.
The electricity grid is a key part of the electricity supply industry and Mr McNab suggests it is 'very unlikely we could ever afford to buy it back again". This a reasonable assessment but I believe that where there is a will there is a way. One way would be to use the approximate £21 billion tax, or part of it over say five years, to buy back the electricity part of the National Grid Co. This is a way to use consumers' money to buy back what they should own in the first place. A further step could be taken by the Government to build and own all new generating plants using government borrowing. This infrastructure investment should be ring-fenced in the Treasury and the borrowing repaid from a proportion of the price of electricity, not from taxation. These issues could be resolved satisfactorily if government were open to new ideas and not locked in to rigid policies.
Charles Scott, Edinburgh.
Rethink the River City axe
Steve Barnet (Letters, April 30) is perfectly correct in his comments regarding news reporting on the BBC, but I would suggest that he is scraping the top of the iceberg regarding the BBC's saturation coverage about what is happening in England, sometimes including items of trivia, while all too often ignoring or distorting what is happening in the other nations of the UK.
On Tuesday I watched an episode of River City and thought the acting of all the cast throughout a distressing and harrowing episode, especially the performances of the young actors and actresses, was superb. All credit to them, and all shame on the BBC for wielding the axe on River City. Scotland cannot afford to lose such talent; the BBC should think again.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
A scene from River City (Image: BBC Scotland)
Sorry, what did you say?
I once said to my wife: "Your hearing is getting very dull." She replied: "I know: I'm going to the jeweller to get it seen to." The jeweller will fix your hearing ?" "Not my hearing, my earring, you deaf old bat." But it's not just us oldies.
My son asked his wife to pick up some artesian water. On her return she said: "I couldn't find any Cartesian water." Just think: if old Descartes had been a supplier of water he might famously have said "I drink, therefore I am", though I had a boozy old relative who would just as famously have said "I am, therefore I drink."
These mishearings are terribly widespread. During one lively debate about doctors one lady said: "OK, doctors can make mistakes like the rest of us – but can't do wrong deliberately. They have to swear that they will 'First do no harm'. I think it's called the Hypocritical Oath." Well, there's a comfort.
Donald M Manson, Prestwick.