- A coalition of unions, ports and business groups says some of NESO’s six possible energy pathways could substantially reduce Scotland’s offshore wind role.
- The pathways have not yet been published and the UK Energy Secretary has not selected one, limiting independent scrutiny of the industry’s claims.
- The decision will test whether Britain’s first spatial energy plan values industrial development and system diversity alongside near-term cost.
Scottish ports, unions and energy industry groups have warned ministers that the UK’s first Strategic Spatial Energy Plan could delay or reduce floating offshore wind projects if it prioritises the cheapest immediately available generation technologies.
The coalition has written to UK energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, Scottish energy minister Michael Shanks and Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander following the submission of six pathway options by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) on 28 August.
Signatories include Scottish Chambers of Commerce, GMB Scotland, Global Underwater Hub, Opportunity North East and Energy Transition Zone, alongside ports including Aberdeen, Ardersier, Kishorn, Peterhead and Montrose.
The letter warns that an unfavourable choice would “put a substantial part of Scotland’s offshore wind opportunity at risk”, leaving projects delayed, reduced in scale or facing a more difficult route to construction. It argues that the lowest cost near-term option may not provide the best value over the plan’s full life. The Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce published the coalition’s principal arguments.
NESO says the six pathways describe what electricity and hydrogen generation and storage Britain could need, where it could be located and when it should be built. The UK Energy Secretary will choose a preferred pathway, with the Scottish and Welsh governments holding formal advisory roles.
A draft plan and environmental assessment are expected to enter consultation in early 2027, although NESO has not yet published the pathway details.
Policy tension
The coalition cites Crown Estate Scotland projections indicating that ScotWind could generate £78.5 billion of investment, with the Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas leasing round adding more than £17 billion. Together, the programmes could support more than 21,000 jobs annually.
Those are potential outcomes rather than investment already secured. Their value depends on projects obtaining seabed, grid, planning and revenue-support approvals and then reaching financial close.
Floating wind is particularly exposed because its costs remain higher than those of mature fixed-bottom projects. Yet it accounts for more than half of Scotland’s potential offshore wind pipeline, according to the Scottish government.
Research commissioned by Scottish Renewables argues that Britain has the world’s third-largest operational floating wind capacity and around 14% of the global project portfolio. It says deployment is necessary to deliver learning, standardisation and lower costs, while ScotWind developers’ supply chain statements include £25.5 billion of intended UK expenditure.
Regen recommends that NESO recognise balancing, resilience and regional industrial value as well as levelised generation cost.
This is the central policy tension. A plan that automatically accommodates the full licensed pipeline could transfer unnecessary network and support costs to consumers. A model dominated by near-term cost, however, could create a self-fulfilling outcome in which floating wind never achieves the deployment needed to become competitive.
The SSEP will also influence decisions beyond spatial planning. Network reinforcement, future leasing rounds, Contracts for difference budgets and port investment will increasingly be assessed against the preferred pathway. A low allocation for Scottish floating wind could therefore weaken several investment signals simultaneously.
DESNZ said floating wind was important to exploiting Britain’s clean energy resources and that the SSEP would support growth across the country.
The strongest response would be to publish the pathway assumptions rapidly and quantify the costs of retaining a floating wind option. Ministers then need to decide transparently how much value they place on geographic diversity, North Sea industrial transition and a possible export industry.
