Community benefit

As the £5000 /MW was set over 20yrs ago the starting level should be min £8630/MW to take account of inflation

this should also be a legal requirement not just guidance as the likes of SSE only paid Strathdearn based on £2500/MW which is disgraceful 

Why the contribution is important

They should be paying communities a realistic value

by Neacreath on February 19, 2026 at 08:56PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.9
Based on: 15 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Herdwick45 February 24, 2026 at 00:18

    Community benefit should have a minimum floor as described by Neacreath (£8630/MW), and then be calculated annually as a percentage of the development's turnover, including constraint payments and all other income derived from the complex energy trading market. Turnover must be used instead of a profit based calculation to stop creative accounting being used to reduce the calculated benefit. The difference between the development's turnover and the amount paid as community benefit would then be explicitly clear.

  • Posted by smithm31 February 24, 2026 at 11:43

    I strongly support the introduction of a legally binding minimum community benefit floor that reflects the true economic value of renewable energy developments today. A rate originally set over twenty years ago is no longer credible. Simply adjusting historic figures informally through guidance is not sufficient. The starting point must reflect inflation and economic reality, and it must be enforceable.
    Community benefit should not depend on developer goodwill or voluntary compliance. Where developments generate significant turnover from national infrastructure, host communities are entitled to a fair and transparent share of that value. A minimum indexed rate such as £8,630 per MW to reflect inflation should be established in regulation, not left to negotiation.
    Furthermore, community benefit should be calculated as a transparent percentage of total turnover, including constraint payments and all other revenue streams derived from energy trading. A profit-based calculation allows accounting structures to reduce the apparent surplus available. Turnover provides clarity, objectivity, and fairness. Communities should be able to see clearly the scale of income generated and the proportion returned locally.
    If Scotland is serious about a just transition, community benefit must be predictable, transparent, and proportionate to the value extracted from local landscapes. Anything less risks undermining public trust and weakening long-term social licence for renewable expansion.
    Community benefit should not be symbolic. It should be fair, enforceable, and reflective of real economic value.

  • Posted by allba February 28, 2026 at 18:42

    1. What benefits from nearby renewable and energy storage developments would you like to see in your community? 
    There should be clarity that any “voluntary payments” to communities are not just the meagre return of a small part of overall subsidy payments paid by consumers into the development.
    Good Practice, following Nolan Principles, therefore can start by providing consumers with full complete transparency on direct and indirect capital, operating, remedial environmental and ancillary costs of renewables, with honesty in cost reporting through publication of comprehensive cost breakdowns, cost benefit and risk analysis to include as a minimum consideration of: Renewables Obligation cost/MWh, CfD costs, Feed in Tariff costs, Constraint Payments and Grid Balancing costs, taking account also of any Tax breaks for renewables... such that subsidy payments in, vs. community benefit payments out can be truly understood.

    2. How should the Good Practice Principles encourage developers to provide meaningful, lasting benefits for communities? 
    Developers should follow Good Business Practice whereby they only go forward with developments that stand on their own commercial merits, without direct or indirect subsidy from the public purse, including end of life decommissioning, removal and environmental remediation costs, thus demonstrating there is competitive advantage and lasting benefits for local community versus other technical/commercial alternatives.

    3. What should be the recommended fund level that developers should provide to communities? 
    Net Positive low energy price provision over the proposed development lifecycle, demonstrating that the development was the most advantageous for communities overall versus any alternatives, thus enabling people to best manage their own personal funds.

    4. What guidance and support do communities need to be able to make the most of community benefit funds? 
    Guidance and support to ensure understanding of the true cost and risk of renewable developments, versus alternative options, such that communities can be confident their spend on energy will be/has been of optimal benefit to the community, not merely a return of a small part of misallocated funds.

  • Posted by killie97 March 01, 2026 at 18:39

    The recommendations state 'Increasing the recommended annual fund level to £6,000 per Megawatt (MW) of onshore wind – up from £5,000 per MW in 2019 – along with new recommended levels for solar power (£700-£1000 per MW per year) and battery energy storage (£150 per MW per year)'.

    The increase from £5,000 does not relate to actual increase in other indicators and should be increased to way more than £6,000

    Solar power and BESS recommended levels are no way high enough given the likely disruption (and risks) communities will experience. Why is there such a discrepancy between the levels proposed across the different categories ?

    Any levels must be legally binding and not seen as recommended levels that contractors can ignore or set their own levels

  • Posted by DuncanMB March 06, 2026 at 10:18

    Agree £5000/MW is insufficient and should be increased. £8600/MW is suggested to reflect past inflationary rises. Subsequent payments should be index linked and reflect development out put from both turbines and BESS. Arrangements should account for future sale of the development and any future repowering or signficant adjustment and where a 'new' development is constructed next to an exisiting one using much of the same infrastructure like access roads.

    Could a 90 MW wind farm plus BESS in a prime hill top site up to 800m with clean wind and good port and road connections for the construction phase and good grid connection for the operational phase offer:

    £8.6 k/MW per year = £774k annually (floor)

    Plus 2.5% of revenue (ramp)

    Should there be options between annual payment and lump sum payment which can offer communities transformational investment for capitals builds to replace aging or missing community infrastructures without the burden of loan finance repayments. And/or create a long term community wealth fund/endowment for the benefit of future generations.

    There maybe scope for other Developer–community agreements such as employment based in the community but working on one or more wind frams and community sites.

  • Posted by hnoj5591 March 09, 2026 at 07:43

    The increase from £5000 in 2019 to £6000 in 2026 does not reflect the inflation over that time. But the £5000 was established much earlier and therefore a larger sum is necessary. This payment still reflects a very small proportion of the total value generated. The baseline sum needs to be indexed every year and it does need to become compulsory, money or kind. Sums for technologies other than wind should be a similar proportion of the expected income.

    I am not greatly in favour of it being calculated based on actual income year to year; there is a great advantage to the receiving community in having a reliable sum year on year.

  • Posted by Bonanza March 16, 2026 at 11:40

    Further, the legislation should mandate that £8K (index linked from 1/1/26) should be the minimum and the payment should be 5% of revenue or £8K/MW installed generating capability, whichever is the greater.

  • Posted by shonarosehall March 16, 2026 at 12:27

    Agree community benefits should be mandatory and a minimum of £8630/MW and index linked, or 5% of revenue whichever greater (that should include any constraint payments received). BESS should also pay a much higher rate as potentially devastating for local communities, ecology and environment and not energy generators but just drawing down and storing very short term when high supply then getting inflated rates to return to the grid.

  • Posted by PeeblesCommunityCouncil March 18, 2026 at 14:56

    Agree with Neacreath's recommendation and would go further to say that, in our opinion, the public understands inflation and what the term index linking means.
    We note that the 2014 guidance called for benefits "equivalent to at least £5,000 per MW per year, index linked" and the 2019 guidance called for "equivalent to £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, index linked." Many in our community are deeply upset that both the Scottish Government and wind farm developers have failed to index link the starting figure of £5,000/MW/annum.
    The real value (adjusted for inflation) of £5,000 nominal is worth less in real terms each year – as Neacreath points out, payments need to be £8,630 just to keep pace with inflation.
    Even the suggested "increase" in the recommended annual fund level to £6,000 is actually a decrease in real terms.
    Can we please ensure that all future rates, and all future discussions of community benefit be clear to talk about index linked, inflation adjusted, real terms community benefits.
    If the Scottish Government intends to give communities a 20% increase in community benefits – as the £6,000 figure appears designed to be understood – then we look forward to a recommended community benefit baseline at the start of 2026 of approximately £10,356 nominal and ongoing increases to maintain real terms equivalency to (2014 £)6,000.
    Or is the white paper intent on continuing to erode the real value of community benefits?

  • Posted by Insight26 March 18, 2026 at 17:06

    absolutely

  • Posted by Flecala March 22, 2026 at 11:58

    I agree with everything written above and would like to add one comment: it is disappointing that this whole exercise has been framed as a CONVERSATION when it should be a CONSULTATION.

  • Posted by JamieMcIntyre March 24, 2026 at 09:27

    Much good sense in the original post and comments.

    The overarching issue is that community benefit should be *meaningful* - £6,000 per MW is not, it is absolutely derisory. For comparison, the community owned hydro scheme with which I am involved (Sunart Community Hydro) has paid the equivalent of nearly £450,000 per installed MW (that is not a typo - 75 (seventy-five) times as much as the proposed rate) in a little over 10 years of operation. That is the sort of money that is potentially available but is being syphoned off by shareholders. "But investors need to make a return!" people will say - well, we have investors too, and we pay them a flat rate of 4% on their shareholdings, which compares favourably with bank savings rates.

    So there is a fair and reasonable alternative for communities, and it should be the default.

    But in any event renewables developments should be partnerships with communities - so rather than flat rates of community benefit (however generous) there should be the opportunity for shared ownership or profit shares. The latter is better than a flat rate per MW as it reflects both increases in generation and in electricity prices, which the existing system does not (to the very great benefit of the developer, and at the expense of the community).

  • Posted by BrunoSantos March 25, 2026 at 09:30

    Agree with most of what was said above. A minimum floor should be defined with a real increase considering inflation but total amount should be dependent on annual turnover. also agree that turnover should be the metric, not profit.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas