It wasn't in George Osborne's Budget speech, but it was in one of the voluminous documents which accompanies the Chancellor's star turn at the Dispatch Box.
A small section numbered 1.217. It says: "The government will consult on reducing electricity distribution costs for consumers in the North of Scotland, to ensure that they pay no more for electricity distribution than consumers in the next most expensive region. The government estimates that this could save an average household in the North of Scotland around £30 per year on their electricity bill."
Thirty quid a year or 57p a week is unlikely to make a huge amount of difference to those suffering fuel poverty, although every little does help. Members of the Western Isles Poverty Action Group were talking about figures ten times as much when they launched their campaign back in the autumn against the fact that Highlands and Islands households pay 2p a unit more than consumers elsewhere in Scotland, despite the high fuel poverty figures in the area
According to the Treasury distribution charges are the main driver for regional variations in electricity costs. There are 14 regions across the GB electricity market, which means suppliers charge up to 14 different prices.
The industry and the Treasury hold that high costs in the North of Scotland are because of the vast distances the electricity network has to traverse to cover a relatively sparsely populated area.
So the government will "urgently consult how to bring down costs so that electricity distribution costs in the North of Scotland are level with the next most expensive GB region."
It is not quite clear how this fits in with the investigation the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched last year into "the supply and acquisition of energy in Great Britain" . This many hope, including the likes of SSE's chief executive Alistair Phillips-Davies, will lead to a simplification of the system and herald national charging so customers pay the same rate whether they live in Stornoway, Stromness, Stirling, Sheffield or Swansea.
As the Western Isles Poverty Action Group argued, without the 2p surcharge it could mean £300 saving on 15,000 units, making a real difference.
But the CMA is not due to report before November, six months after the election.
So it is perhaps not surprising that Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury was sure the prospect of £30 would help in the meantime.
"Bringing electricity costs down by around £30 a year could have a real impact on families across the North of Scotland, particularly when combined with existing UK government schemes for reducing electricity costs across the region. Along with policies like the rural fuel rebate, as well as the UK's continuing economic strength, our Highland voice is being heard at the heart of government which is making a real difference for people across the North of Scotland."
But it is all very curious that Treasury estimates there it only costs £30 a year to send power to the Highland and Islands when renewable energy projects in the Highlands have been charged over £20 per kilowatt hour to send the electricity to the south.
However maybe we are missing an important point here. Although £30 a year can be presented as a fairly derisory saving, it surely is significant that HM Treasury has effectively ceded the point that the present charging regime is unfair to those who live in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere. Something that has been glaringly obvious for sometime to anyone who cared to ponder the ludicrous discrepancies in the market, between power that is generated and that consumed in the north.
Perhaps it is only pinhole of principle in the armour of the electricity industry, but it should widen and become more difficult to ignore. If it does, it is largely down to the Western Isles Poverty Action Group and its chairman Lewis councillor Angus McCormack for having so effectively highlighted the issue.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article