It is a bit late in the day to describe the Just Transition Commission’s report on Aberdeen and the north-east as a wake-up call. Anyone who wanted to be woken up has had plenty of time to think about it.
While the letter from the big hitters of renewable energy to Messrs Starmer and Swinney did not quite threaten an investment strike if they do not get their own way on zonal pricing, its language came pretty close to it.
The question of what the communities which host the drive for renewable energy can expect to get out of it will acquire greater prominence in the year ahead and both Scottish and UK governments must come up with plausible answers soon.
On the face of it, there is a paradox. Rachel Reeves has inherited a massive black hole in public spending. Large scale infrastructure projects are being cut, left, right and centre.
The big bust-up at Holyrood needed a trigger point and that came when the SNP-Green administration formally dropped its target for a 75% cut in emissions from 1990 by 2030.
It was all a bit odd at the Scottish Labour conference last month. A few days earlier, the oil and gas industry was shrieking outrage at Labour for proposing a windfall tax on gargantuan profits.
One of the many sub-plots in the saga of two uncompleted Caledonian MacBrayne ferries at the Ferguson yard in Port Glasgow involves the proposed use of Liquefied Natural Gas to part-fuel them.
And so it came to pass …. I was writing here last month when the announcement on the latest Contract for Difference round was imminent and it appeared a distinct possibility that offshore developers would give it the cold shoulder. As indeed they did.
Everyone likes anniversaries, so how about marking this one? On August 5th 1943, the Hydro-Development Act (Scotland) was given Royal Assent. Eighty years ago, at the height of war, the Government of the United Kingdom passed a momentous law directed mainly towards the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Small is beautiful but it’s also nice to be part of something bigger. That applies to many aspects of life and is certainly a sound basis for energy policy which always has to be underpinned by security of supply.
Brian Wilson takes a look at a recent Scottish Parliament committee, which had plenty of "possibilities and doubts" on the future but not a firm agenda on replacing Scotland's energy supply.
The contest to become leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland did not get off to an auspicious start. The first week was largely devoted to arguing about the place of God in politics.
While the country cries out for cheap electricity, it seems perverse to fork out hundreds of millions of pounds to pay wind farm operators not to generate electricity.
It is not the snappiest of titles but Ofgem’s Decisions on the new Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment (ASTI) strategy may come to be seen as a landmark document in the evolution of Britain’s energy industry and the Scottish economy.
A month is indeed a long time in politics. Since I last wrote here, we have a new Prime Minister, a crashing pound and an unprecedented scale of intervention in the energy markets in an effort to stave off the worst impacts of impending price rises.
It’s a couple of months since I suggested the energy crisis would be as big as Covid and thereby demand the same scale of response. It wasn’t a very fashionable thought but perceptions have moved rapidly – everywhere, except where it matters most, in government.
Last month, when the much anticipated announcement was made of winners and losers under the Contracts for Difference scheme, it seemed the 20 year struggle for the Western Isles to be connected for generation purposes to the National Grid had finally prevailed.