'5 commitments I want from energy giant SSEN over massive Highland power line plan' by son of clan chief
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
THE heat is being turned up on an energy giant to show it's being totally transparent over a contentious overhead power line that has sparked "deep opposition and concern".
Strathpeffer-based Colin Tarbat, eldest son of the Mackenzie clan chief at Castle Leod, is calling on SSEN to prove consultation over its proposals for a reinforced line between Beauly and Spittal in Caithness is not just a tick box exercise and to be open over the financial imperatives.
"Being asked to choose the least-worst of three proposals agreed behind closed doors appears unjust at best, an abuse of power and community democratic rights at worst."
In a letter to SSEN shared with a broad range of Highland politicians and representatives, he says many believe consultation to date has been "insufficient" and want the proposals reconsidered.
Outlining three main concerns, he warns consultation to date has been "a tick box exercise" and voices concern people most impacted are not getting a meaningful say.
He said: "Being asked to choose the least-worst of three proposals agreed behind closed doors appears unjust at best, an abuse of power and community democratic rights at worst."
He says the push to net zero – cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible – "must not be used as a tool to avoid public scrutiny, and mask the financial incentives from which SSEN will benefit and impacted communities will not".
READ ALSO: SSEN 'looks forward to engaging with Highland community councils'
Maree Todd MSP holds talks with SSEN over power line
Reaction as SSEN grants deadline extension for consultation
He notes most of Scotland's electricity consumption is already provided by renewable energy and says "a lack of openness can breed profound mistrust, resentment and a suspicion of greenwashing".
The third key concern is the impact on the Highland economy.
He said: "Unsurprisingly, more than half of tourists to Scotland would rather not visit scenic areas dominated by man-made structures such as pylons. Yet, SSEN's proposals are being made in an area heavily dependent on tourism, with thousands of businesses trying to recover the £1.5bn pre-pandemic visitor spend which supported 43 per cent of the workforce in some areas."
Noting Highland Council efforts to make his home village of Strathpeffer an area of special architectural and historic interest, he warns of "a lack of joined-up thinking" over SSEN proposals which look set to impact the village.
He wants SSEN to prove it is taking community feedback on board and will consider alternative options such as "subsea cabling, underground cabling, re-use of existing routes, or the possibility of alternative routes".
He said: "If proposals prioritise Net Zero over the potential impact on community, economy, heritage and landscape, the impacts need to be clearly considered, stated and quantified ahead of a thorough debate with those most affected."
He calls for "clarity on how SSEN will profit over the project lifecycle and fresh thinking on how financial benefits could best support those most impacted. e.g. preferential energy pricing for affected communities".
And he wants the "true environmental cost" of emissions, mining and resource-use required to source, manufacture, import, construct and maintain pylon materials and infrastructure throughout their lifecycle spelled out.
A spokesperson for SSEN Transmission said: “We remain fully committed to working closely with the local community and wider stakeholders to help inform the design of this nationally significant project."
It said its engagement "will be on-going, we will be working closely with the local community and stakeholders, seeking their input throughout the development of the project".
His letter in full
Dear Martin,
I am writing to express my deep opposition and concern regarding the overhead line routes proposed by SSEN connecting Beauly and Spittal. I, along with many Highland-based friends, family and community members, agree that the SSEN consultation process has been insufficient, and would urge that these proposals are reconsidered.
My opposition to the current proposals stem principally from 3 key areas:
Community Feedback & Engagement – How just is this transition really?
I welcome the deadline extension for feedback on this project. However, I would stress that much of the approach to community engagement thus far has felt like a 'tick-box' exercise. In essence, unlike the Scottish Government states as part of its Climate Change Act, the people most impacted by the proposals have not been able to "play a decisive role in shaping these changes". Nor have they benefitted from "robust stakeholder consultation" as set out by SSE's own 20 principles for a 'Just Transition'. Being asked to choose the least-worst of 3 proposals agreed behind closed doors appears unjust at best, an abuse of power and community democratic rights at worst.
Transparency on Purpose - Why are SSEN really doing this?
At a time when large energy firm profits make the headlines whilst millions suffer from soaring energy costs, I think we need to be very careful about dressing up this proposal's sole purpose as supporting Scotland’s 2045 Net Zero target. The global movement towards cutting carbon emissions aims to reduce and reverse man's impact on the natural world. Pursuing this project risks compromising and damaging the very thing this sets out to protect. When we consider that the equivalent of 98.8% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption is already provided by renewable energy sources, it is essential to be transparent around all the incentives driving these proposals. A lack of openness can breed profound mistrust, resentment and a suspicion of greenwashing.
Net Zero must not be used as a tool to avoid public scrutiny, and mask the financial incentives from which SSEN will benefit and impacted communities will not.
Highland Economy – Are these proposals economically coherent?
My third concern is the potential impact on the Highland economy. Unsurprisingly, more than half of tourists to Scotland would rather not visit scenic areas dominated by man-made structures such as pylons (YouGov). Yet, SSEN's proposals are being made in an area heavily dependent on tourism, with thousands of businesses trying to recover the £1.5bn pre-pandemic visitor spend which supported 43% of the workforce in some areas.
Earlier this year Highland Council began a consultation to define the characteristics that make my home village Strathpeffer "an area of special architectural and historic interest" and set out recommendations of how best to preserve the town’s "rich history and heritage".
At a national level, The Scottish Government aims to secure "the benefits that come from...tourism and cultural engagement." SSEN's proposals are clearly at odds with this, lack joined-up thinking, and appear economically incoherent.
What outcomes would I like to see?
In response to the above feedback I would like to see 5 commitments from SSEN:
Evidence that community feedback has been taken on board: Providing detail on what specific feedback SSEN has considered and what it views as most important.
Alternative proposals: Options that address key community concerns e.g. subsea cabling, underground cabling, re-use of existing routes, or the possibility of alternative routes.
Coherent rationale for new proposals: Clear alignment in priorities between SSEN and relevant departments in local, regional and national governments, not just those pursuing Net Zero.
If proposals prioritise Net Zero over the potential impact on community, economy, heritage and landscape, the impacts need to be clearly considered, stated and quantified ahead of a thorough debate with those most affected.
Open discussion on financial incentives: Clarity on how SSEN will profit over the project lifecycle and fresh thinking on how financial benefits could best support those most impacted. e.g. Preferential energy pricing for affected communities
Stating the true environmental cost of each proposal: Including end-to-end mapping of the emmissions, mining and resource-use required to source, manufacture, import, construct and maintain pylon materials and infrastructure throughout their lifecycle - as well as their associated supply chains, machinery and equipment.
I look forward to receiving your considered response to the points outlined above.
Your sincerely,
Colin Tarbat
Castle Leod,
Seat of Clan Mackenzie,
Strathpeffer
