Letters / Skewed geographically
Your article on SSEN’s National (UK) Community & Net Zero Fund is slightly disingenuous.
Shetland got £15k out of £410k. This is 3.5 per cent of the total.
Given Shetland has the highest fuel poverty in the UK, plus the huge profits SSEN will make via Shetland, one wonders if their funding in this regard has been somewhat skewed geographically – buying influence or at least goodwill sooth, rather than based on need.
Two applications for solar panels for Scalloway and Hoswick were rejected (hands up, declaring an interest). I wrote them. Maybe they don’t like funding community owned generation schemes that reduce their profits from their per capita biggest user?
The sooner SHEAP, who power the district heating scheme from the council’s incinerator, the wholly owned Charitable Trust energy company, buy into/invest and back local community energy generation the better.
Better this than investing through middle-men and the FTSE. What is wrong with them? Investing in Britain’s private (should be nationalised) arms industry and/or SSEN itself – that would be such an irony!
We’ll never know. Your money is a closely guarded secret, free of public scrutiny and accountability.
James J Paton
Lerwick
