Gordon Edge of wind business body, Renewable UK, is quoted as telling BBC News that they believe they may have a Judicial Review case if the UK government cuts the subsidy for wind developers by more than 10%.
The Energy Department, as a result of ‘technical studies’ it has conducted, has proposed a cut of 10% in subsidies for onshore wind power.
Chancellor George Osborne, however, is said to be considering a more muscular cut of 25%. It is this prospect that has brought the dollar chasers out to play in short order.
Eyes wide open, Gordon Edge is saying: ‘It’s really important this process is seen to be evidence-based and rational’. This is quite amusing, given how little of the entire push for wind is ‘evidence based and rational’ in economic and environmental terms.
The business body is saying with great piety that the government should not take a decision that overrides its own technical advice. And this in a country taken to war on a confection of evidence?
There was no problem there – and little if any opposition from the business world to the overriding of scientific evidence at this level of gravity. But then they hoped to profit from arms sales and the post-war infrastructural redevelopment contracts the American kept for themselves.
Mr Edge, even more hilariously, says: ‘The government took technical guidance on this issue. If at this point the government says we are going to do less for onshore wind than it proposed that will be seen as nakedly political.’
Where has this poor lad been? His shock at the fact that governments might be ‘nakedly political’ is permeated by a touching innocence rare in the world of business and of the lobbying muscle exerted by the wind business sector.
Renewable UK threatens law if the government makes a decision on cutting subsidies which is based on anything other than evidence.
Behind this, apart from the naked opportunism that does not trouble them, is the sense of entitlement the nation is currently infuriated to find in the banking industry.
These businesses feel that they have the right to subsidy at a level they are prepared to accept.
No mention is being made here of the fact that the ‘technical studies’ carried out by the Energy Department, which have led it to suggest a subsidy cut of 10%, would indicate that the subsidies paid to date have been overpaid by at least 10%.
Mr Edge makes no murmur of repayment.
Caught between the immovable object of quick profits and the less than irresistible force of pragmatic and weak governments is the general public, whose complaints about the consequences of the scramble for wind have led their MPs to make representations to the Chancellor on cutting subsidy levels.