Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is correct.

I thank Ash Regan for that question. I note her emphasis on “recent”. The publication of the report was incredibly recent—it was this morning. It is incredibly important, as the convener and Ash Regan have said. I very much welcome the work that the committee has done to produce that report. It is very helpful, not least for the Government to be able to continue to make the case to the UK Government, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the systems operator to ensure that that investment comes forward.

It is not a Scottish Government responsibility, but we know that grid infrastructure is one of the major potential barriers to our being able to realise our net zero objectives and the potential that we have for offshore and onshore renewable energy. I was at the headquarters of Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks in Perth yesterday and saw its transmission and distribution network grid. I saw how complex that is, and how much still needs to be done. Your report is helpful in that regard.

There are a couple of things that we need to do when it comes to funding and a new approach. Your report rightly highlights the fact that we need to take people with us. Where does that responsibility lie? The grid infrastructure is a UK Government responsibility rather than a Scottish Government one, but it has major implications for devolved policy. We are looking to work with the UK Government, Ofgem and the systems operator to ensure that we give people as much information as possible about what is going to be required. There is also an ask of industry to ensure that as much information as possible comes from industry as well. As I said, I had conversations with SSEN yesterday about that and how we can make sure that we take communities with us on this journey because, clearly, quite a substantial investment will be needed, in transmission infrastructure in particular, to ensure that we take full advantage. Those conversations are on-going.

Your report was published this morning. I have not had an opportunity to fully digest all aspects of it, but we will certainly interact with it and respond to it in due course.

I agree that we need to make sure that, where we have responsibility, we give as much certainty as possible to industry while also making sure that we maintain our high standards of consenting. We are due to publish soon our onshore wind sector deal, which touches on those issues. The programme for government sets out that we are looking to half the consenting time for onshore wind. Although it is at an earlier stage, we are also looking to reduce, as far as we possibly can, the consenting times for offshore wind. Part of that will mean interactions with local government on ensuring that it is appropriately resourced, in terms of the funding, people and guidance that we can provide to it. We want to provide as much certainty as possible while, as I said, maintaining high standards.

I point you to the upcoming onshore wind sector deal, which will give us more information around how that is going to be done in collaboration with industry.

I think that I am calling for transparency.

Without being specific, movement on all those areas will be at different paces. We are working on determining whether there is a target for solar energy that could be brought forward and whether that is the appropriate way in which to try to drive development. For all the elements, what was positive from AR5 was seeing marine energy come through. That was on a small scale, but it represented progress, and it highlights where there is support that could be provided, in this case through the UK Government’s contracts for difference, which can make a real difference in helping to drive that development. We are mindful of that, and we look to do what we can on targets and on support to ensure that we deliver as best we can on the potential that we have.

It is the latter. Obviously, we have been engaged for some time with industry around the onshore wind sector deal. Since coming into office, I have found that one of the clearest areas of action that industry is looking for us to help with is grid infrastructure—that is one of the major barriers to unlocking our energy potential—as well as ensuring that there is as much certainty as possible.

The industry is not necessarily looking for speed, which is not the only factor. It is about giving the industry as much certainty as possible. Because interactions with the Electricity Act 1989 are outwith our control, that makes it more challenging. As soon as a public inquiry is triggered, that adds a year to the process.

The detail on how we will get to the PFG commitment will be published in the onshore sector deal. That deal is not just about what we will do for industry; it sets out action that is required of industry for Government and for the general public.

Absolutely.

Before we get to infrastructure, there is obviously a limit on what we can do, based on having a fixed budget and a very challenging public finance landscape. We need as wide an energy mix as possible, not least because the technologies play different roles. We know that tidal is incredibly predictable: it provides good certain energy. Similarly, pumped hydro storage gives baseload capacity when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. We know that wind—onshore and offshore—is the cheapest form of renewable energy and already provides a huge amount of capacity for the grid. As has been said, for us, hydrogen has potential as storage and to help to decarbonise other elements of the economy. [Neil Gray has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

In all areas, we need as wide a mix as possible, and that is what we are looking to achieve. Some are at different stages and will require different levels of support, through funding and by ensuring that we have certainty on consenting and on transmission and the grid infrastructure upgrade, to ensure that they continue to be an investable proposition.

Yes. It is a programme for government commitment that we ensure that we provide as much information and guidance as possible to local authorities to streamline and provide as much certainty as possible for offshore wind. Obviously, the offshore industry is at a different stage of maturity from the onshore one. There is still learning to be done on the competing demands on the natural environment and providing as much information as possible, but we are looking to do what we can to provide as much guidance and certainty as we can to planning authorities to ensure that the consenting regime for which we have responsibility is as efficient as possible.

I am keen that the green industrial strategy is as helpful as possible in maximising the economic opportunities that we have with our massive renewable energy potential. Green hydrogen is one element of that and has the potential, depending on where we choose to go, to reduce the need for some of the transmission infrastructure that the convener was talking about, because it is, in essence, an additional opportunity for energy storage. We need to decide what will be the best use and provide the maximum output from using hydrogen as an opportunity.

Certainly, in industrial decarbonisation, you will be familiar with plans in certain parts of industry to use hydrogen as a way in which to reduce carbon emissions in their processes. That is why it is so important, particularly on the CCUS front, that we see a determination from the UK Government on which sites and emitters will be part of that process, so that there is an investable proposition for those industry colleagues as quickly as possible. That industrial decarbonisation will be critical, not just for us in Scotland to meet our 2030 and 2045 targets but for the UK to be able to meet its targets, and CCUS will play an important role in that process.