Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayers, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans.
The running subsidy meter · How the money works · Money leaving the UK · Risk and return · The missing figures
1112 rows checked across 14 pages: counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html, counter/who-pays.html, counter/missing-figures.html, counter/leaving-uk.html, counter/risk.html, counter/glossary.json, counter/the-bill.html, counter/real-cost.html, counter/nuclear.html, counter/options.html, counter/shetland2.html, counter/about.html, counter/ask.html, counter/index.html.
Each row below is one figure, sentence or table entry from one of the 14 pages, checked against the document it claims to come from.
Every row from the register for counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html. · 55 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | H1: "Paid by electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more › to Moray Firth wind farms since 1 January 2026" | PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more ›, dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:141 DATA[0] |
["2026-01-01",1993350.35,643046.19] |
VerifiedLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › VERIFIED — dataset starts exactly 1 Jan 2026 |
| C2 | "Contracts for DifferenceA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › top-ups, from the Low Carbon Contracts Company's own published data. Beatrice, Moray East and Moray West." | PRIMARY | LCCC "Actual CfD Generation and avoided GHG emissions", dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk (CKAN resource 37d1bef4-55d7-4b8e-8a47-1d24b123a20e) sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/page_*.json (60 files, 117,196 records); research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:17-28 |
method note: "negative CFD_Payments_GBP = money flowing FROM generator TO billpayers" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C3 | Callout: "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayers, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | — supported by W6-W9 (levyA charge added to suppliers' costs, which they pass on in bills, to fund things like the Contracts for Difference subsidy. more ›) and W18-W22 (guarantees) |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with sourced facts below; not itself a figure |
| C4 | Running total (big figure), computed live | COMPUTED | formula: actual + since, counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:144-161same file, script |
let bea=0,mry=0; DATA.forEach(...); const actual=bea+mry; |
Verified VERIFIED — recomputed independently from the 60 LCCC JSON files; Beatrice £163,831,761.61 / Moray East −£8,286,522.87, both match the page's own embedded DATA array to £0.00 |
| C5 | "Published actuals, 1 Jan – 22 Sep" | COMPUTED (= sum of DATA cols 2+3) | as C4 counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:141,144-145,148 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| C6 | "Estimate since 22 Sep" | COMPUTED/ESTIMATE | formula since=(Date.now()-LAST_END)/864e5*rate:142,156-157,160 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as correctly implementing the stated method |
| C7 | "Current rate (last 30 days of data)" | COMPUTED | last30=DATA.slice(-30):146-147,149 |
— | Verified VERIFIED — arithmetic correct on read |
| C8 | Note: "The estimate runs from the end of the last published day at the average net rate of the 30 days before it. It is replaced by real figures when LCCC publishes them." | Methodology explanation | — :76 |
— | Verified VERIFIED against code at :146-157 |
| C9 | Beatrice total paid (farm card) | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCC, CfD IDs INV-BEA-001 + INV-BEA-002, 1 Jan–22 Sep 2026 sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/*.json |
computed total £163,831,761.61 | Verified VERIFIED |
| C10 | "588MW" (Beatrice capacity) | PRIMARY | REPD/CfD register capacity FACT-SHEET.md:85; research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:57 (252.0MW+336.0MW=588MW) |
"Beatrice (588MW, operational)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C11 | "contract priceThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › £205.70/MWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more ›" (Beatrice) | PRIMARY | LCCC Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh, latest record 2026-09-22, CfD IDs INV-BEA-001/002 sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/*.json |
Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh = 205.7000 | Verified VERIFIED |
| C12 | Beatrice "Recent rate" | COMPUTED | mean of last 30 days, col 2 :147 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| C13 | Moray East total paid (farm card) | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCC, CfD IDs AR2One of the periodic government auctions at which Contracts for Difference are awarded to competing projects. more ›-MRY-107/207/307 as C9 |
computed net −£8,286,522.87 | Verified VERIFIED |
| C14 | "938MW under contractThe generating capacity actually covered by a subsidy contract, which can be a smaller number than a farm's full nameplate capacity. more › (950MW nameplateThe maximum power a wind farm is rated to generate, which is usually higher than the capacity actually covered by its subsidy contract. more ›)" (Moray East) | PRIMARY | CfD-registered capacity sum vs. Auction Outcomes nameplate research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:54 (309.469+309.363+318.770=937.6≈938MW) and :63 (950.00MW, Auction Outcomes dataset) |
both figures present in source | Fixed FIXED/VERIFIED — page now discloses both figures and their different basis (this closes the gap the first check found, where the page showed only "938MW" while FACT-SHEET.md separately used 950MW) |
| C15 | "contract price £82.34/MWh" (Moray East) | PRIMARY | LCCC Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh, latest record 2026-09-22, CfD IDs AR2-MRY-107/207/307 as C11 |
Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh = 82.3400 | Verified VERIFIED |
| C16 | Moray East "Recent rate" | COMPUTED | as C12 :147 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| C17 | Moray West "0" / "Contract not yet started" | PRIMARY (absence) | LCCC, CfD ID AR4-MRY-010 all 60 page_*.json files searched |
zero records found for AR4-MRY-010 in any file | Verified VERIFIED — absence of records is consistent with "not reached contract start" |
| C18 | "DividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › paid to owners based outside the UK" (section head) | — | — — |
— | Not found / open heading, no claim |
| C19 | "The percentages are from each company's own Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › filing. Moray East's filing names its shareholders; Beatrice's names holding companiesA company that exists mainly to own shares in another company, often sitting between a wind farm and its ultimate owners. more ›, and who stands behind two of them (Red Rock Power and TRIG) is as reportedA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more › by the owners themselves." | PRIMARY (stakes) / SECONDARY (identity of 2 Beatrice holders) | Companies House strategic reports Moray East: .../company/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:71-74; Beatrice: .../company/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71 |
Moray East: "shareholders of Moray East Holdings Limited... Moray Offshore Renewable Power Limited at 33.3%, Delphis Holdings Limited at 6.7%, Diamond Green Limited 33.4% and Equitix Aneomoi Bidco Limited 26.6%." Beatrice: "...a joint venture between SSE Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Holdings Limited (40%), Beatrice Wind Limited (25%), Offshore Wind Investmients Group 4 Limited (17.5%) and Firenze Bidco One Limited (17.5%)." | Fixed FIXED/VERIFIED — this wording accurately discloses that Beatrice's primary filing names holding companies, not "Red Rock Power"/"TRIG" by name; that mapping rests on press (SECONDARY) |
| C20 | "To foreign owners" total | COMPUTED | 84.1×0.25 + 104.2×0.40 + 104.2×0.334counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:168-177 |
= £97.5078m → "£97.5m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C21 | "To Guernsey funds" total | COMPUTED | 84.1×0.175 + 104.2×0.266:171-172,177 |
= £42.4347m → "£42.4m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C22 | "Per day, foreign + Guernsey" | COMPUTED | (f+g)×1e6/365:180 |
= £383,404/day | Verified VERIFIED (self-checked arithmetic) |
| C23 | Table row: Red Rock Power (SDIC, Chinese state), China, Beatrice 25%, £21.0m | stake: PRIMARY; identity "Red Rock Power/SDIC": SECONDARY; £ share: COMPUTED | stake matches "Beatrice Wind Limited (25%)" in CH filing; identity from press (OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md, not re-crawled) SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71; research/OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md |
"Beatrice Wind Limited (25%)" | Verified VERIFIED (stake); SECONDARY (name) — flagged, not a mismatch |
| C24 | Table row: Ocean Winds, Portugal/France, Moray East 40%, £41.7m | PRIMARY (stronger than research file credits) | CH filing names both constituent vehicles 07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:71-74 |
"Moray Offshore Renewable Power Limited at 33.3%, Delphis Holdings Limited at 6.7%" (33.3+6.7=40%) | Verified VERIFIED |
| C25 | Table row: Diamond Green (Kansai Electric, Inpex), Japan, Moray East 33.4%, £34.8m | stake: PRIMARY; ultimate ownerThe entity at the top of an ownership chain that genuinely controls a company, once holding companies and funds are traced through. more ›: SECONDARY | as C24 same file, same lines |
"Diamond Green Limited 33.4%" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C26 | Table row: TRIG, Guernsey, Beatrice 17.5%, £14.7m | stake: PRIMARY (matches "Offshore Wind Investments Group 4 Limited" 17.5%); identity+domicile: SECONDARY | SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71; research/SSEN-OWNERSHIP.md §4 (Wikipedia/stockanalysis.com)— |
— | Verified VERIFIED (stake); SECONDARY (TRIG name/domicile — no UK CH filing exists for TRIG, a Guernsey LSE-listed company) |
| C27 | Table row: Equitix Anemoi, Guernsey, Moray East 26.6%, £27.7m | PRIMARY (stake and domicile) | CH filing + PSC registerA person or entity recorded as having substantial ownership or control of a UK company, held on a public Companies House register. more › 07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:71-74; PSC filing for 15065285 (Equitix Anemoi Bidco Ltd), line ~454/487 |
"Equitix Aneomoi Bidco Limited 26.6%"; "Incorporated in: Guernsey" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C28 | Table row: Equitix, Not traced, Beatrice 17.5%, £14.7m | stake: PRIMARY (matches "Firenze Bidco One Limited" 17.5%); domicile: honestly unresolved | SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71; no CH folder found for Firenze Bidco One's own parent— |
— | Verified VERIFIED — "not traced" is an accurate statement, not a gap in the page |
| C29 | Table row: SSE Renewables, UK, Beatrice 40%, £33.6m | PRIMARY | matches "SSE Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Holdings Limited (40%)" SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| C30 | Notes: "Dividends: Beatrice £84.1m, year to 31 Mar 2025; Moray East £104.2m, year to 31 Dec 2025; Moray West paid none." | PRIMARY | Companies House accounts SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:184; 07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:279 (also 1004,2262,2601); 10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.txt:128-129 |
"Dividends paid during the year amount to £84.1m"; "paid interim dividends totalling £104,202k"; "The directors do not recommend the payment of a dividend" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C31 | "Not counted: interest on shareholder loansMoney a company's own owners lend to it, on which the company pays interest back to them, separate from bank debt. more ›... foreign shareholders of SSE plc itself." | Explanation, grounded | capitalisedInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more › shareholder-loan interest exists and is excluded from dividend figures research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:13-14,42 (Moray West £4.354m/£31.831m capitalised) |
— | Verified VERIFIED as an accurate caveat |
| C32 | "The domicile of the Equitix vehicle at Beatrice has not been traced." | Acknowledged gap | — no CH folder found for the Beatrice 17.5% holder's ultimate parent |
— | Verified VERIFIED (true statement of a gap, not a mismatch) |
| C33 | Chart: "Every day this year" + legend (pay=Beatrice, back=Moray East) | COMPUTED visualization of DATA | — :192-207 |
— | Verified VERIFIED by code read — colour logic matches sign of each day's values |
| C34 | "Vessels seen working, 2 October 2026" | date | — — |
— | Not found / open heading |
| C35 | Vessel para: estimates, methodology, caveats | Explanation | — :107 |
"Day rates are the best estimates available, because no operator or charterer publishes them. They come from an offshore vessel fleet manager who runs this site..." | Verified VERIFIED present as stated |
| C36 | SEVEN KESTREL, $180,000–280,000/day (about $100,000 on standby; estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), "On station about 13nm north of Macduff. Wind farm work, in the fleet manager's assessment; client not published." | AISAutomatic Identification System: a tracking signal most ships broadcast, letting their position and route be followed publicly. more › (screenshot, not crawl file) / ESTIMATE (assessment) | MarineTraffic reading, supplied by the site author, evening of 2 Oct 2026 research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in sources/crawl/shipais.uk/*.json (no "KESTREL" record); sourced only to a MarineTraffic screenshot, not a locally quotable file |
| C37 | SKANDI ACERGY, $100,000/day, "Heading for Nigg. Job not established." | AIS (screenshot) | as C36 research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md ("SKANDI ACERGY | NO | 10.8 kn / 228° | NIGG | 2 minutes") |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in shipais.uk JSON crawl, same basis as C36 |
| C38 | ESVAGT WIND 8 (daughter craft of the SOV ESVAGT ALBA, fleet manager's assessment), $50,000/day for SOV and daughter craft together, "Destination Moray East." | AIS (screenshot) / ESTIMATE (assessment) | as C36 research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md ("ESVAGT WIND 8 | DK | 0.5 kn / 0° | MORAY EAST | 13 h 25 min") |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in shipais.uk JSON crawl, same basis as C36 |
| C39 | WIND PEAK (jack-upA vessel with legs that lower to the seabed, lifting the hull clear of the water to work steadily on offshore structures. more ›), $320,000–420,000/day (estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), "Notice to marinersAn official warning published to alert ships of hazards or activity in an area, such as cable works or vessel positions. more ›: Moray West transformer swap, Sept/Oct, about 14 days." | PRIMARY | Kingfisher BulletinA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more › notice 6142 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice6142.html |
"The works will be carried out utilising the jack-up vessel 'Wind Peak' ... works are now to take place in September/October 2026 and will last approximately 14 days" | Verified VERIFIED |
| C40 | SEACAT SOVEREIGN (crew boatA Crew Transfer Vessel: a small, fast boat that ferries technicians out to offshore wind turbines. more ›), $15,000/day (estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), Live AIS route "WICK<->BOWL", Beatrice | AIS | shipais.uk live feed sources/crawl/shipais.uk/shipdata_MorayFirth.json (also Orkney, Wick) |
destination field "WICK<->BOWL" | Verified VERIFIED (route); "Beatrice" label is an inference carried from the research note, not itself a JSON field |
| C41 | NJORD ZEST (crew boat), $15,000/day (estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), Live AIS route "WICK>BOWL>WICK", Beatrice | AIS | as C40 same files |
destination field "WICK>BOWL>WICK" | Verified VERIFIED (route); same Beatrice-label caveat as C40 |
| C42 | Guard vesselAn Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel: a standby ship providing safety cover for workers at an offshore site. more › (ERRV), $5,000/day (estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), "Kingfisher notice 6142: 24-hour emergency response cover for Wind Peak at Moray West." | PRIMARY | Kingfisher Bulletin notice 6142 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice6142.html |
"There will be a ERRV (Emergency Response & Rescue Vessel) in the field 24 hours a day to provide cover for the JUV and an additional CTV for support." | Verified VERIFIED |
| C43 | Crew boat, $15,000/day (estimate revised 4 Oct 2026), "Kingfisher notice 6142: additional crew transfer support for Wind Peak at Moray West." | PRIMARY | as C42 same file, same sentence |
"...and an additional CTV for support." | Verified VERIFIED |
| C44 | Survey vesselA ship equipped to investigate seabed conditions, used before cables or foundations are installed. more ›, $20,000/day, "Kingfisher notice: Caledonia wind farm geotechnical survey, 5 May to 31 Oct 2026." | PRIMARY | Kingfisher Bulletin notice 5902 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice5902.html |
title "Geotechnical Survey - Caledonia Offshore Wind Farm Array Area", startDate 2026-05-05, endDate 2026-10-31 | Verified VERIFIED — exact date match; other Caledonia notices (4601, 5671, 5994) cover different windows |
| C45 | Total row, low end: 700,000 | COMPUTED | sum of day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more ›, low end of each range :112,128 |
180,000+100,000+50,000+320,000+15,000+15,000+5,000+15,000 = 700,000 (survey vessel removed per C44) | Verified VERIFIED 4 Oct 2026 |
| C46 | "420,000 of it tied to a wind farm by a source" (was 200,000; rates revised 4 Oct 2026) | COMPUTED, subset inferred from evidence text | — :113,129 |
7 of 9 rows name a specific project; rows 1–2 (SEVEN KESTREL, SKANDI ACERGY) say "not established" | Verified VERIFIED as internally consistent (50,000+320,000+15,000+15,000+5,000+15,000=420,000), but the page itself does not spell out which vessels are in the 200,000 — the subset is only recoverable by cross-reading the evidence column |
| C51 | SEVEN KESTREL held station about 13nm north of Macduff on 2 and 3 Oct 2026 at 0.1 kn, AIS destination "12 NM MCDUFF" | AIS (screenshot) | MarineTraffic, 3 Oct 2026 20:00 UTC, supplied by the site author maps/_build-report.json (position 57.887885, -2.494556) |
"SEVEN KESTREL [GB] at 0.1 kn / 0° Destination: 12 NM MCDUFF" | Not found / open NOT FOUND as a local file; screenshot only, as C36 |
| C52 | About 900 m from the Caledonia export cable corridorA broad, mapped band within which a cable route could run; not a chosen route, width or list of affected land. more › and 1,100 m from the Shetland 2 survey corridor (4 Oct position); about 1.6 km from both at the 3 Oct position | COMPUTED | Kingfisher notices 4601 and 5686 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice4601.html, notice5686.html; tools/make_maps.py |
907 m and 1,113 m (EPSG:32630, cross-checked geodesically to under 0.5 m); 1,593 m and 1,611 m at 3 Oct | Verified VERIFIED 4 Oct 2026 |
| C53 | About 4.9 nm from the Moray East operational export cable corridor | COMPUTED on PRIMARY | Crown Estate Scotland Offshore Wind dataset, record "Moray East OFTOAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more ›", Operational, OGL v3.0 sources/crawl/services3.arcgis.com/moray_beatrice_ofto_geom.geojson |
9,037 m / 4.88 nm (4 Oct); 9,832 m / 5.31 nm (3 Oct) | Verified VERIFIED 4 Oct 2026 |
| C54 | About 23 nm from the nearest oil or gas pipeline, Beatrice field, decommissioned | COMPUTED on PRIMARY | EMODnet Human Activities, emodnet:pipelines and emodnet:platforms sources/crawl/ows.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/pipelines-morayfirth.json, platforms-morayfirth.json |
nearest 22.7 nm; five Beatrice platforms "Decommissioned" | Verified VERIFIED 4 Oct 2026 |
| C55 | On 11 Oct 2026 SEVEN KESTREL was stopped within about 2 km of the 3 Oct position, AIS destination "MCDUFF", after leaving Aberdeen on 24 Sep | AIS (screen recording) | MarineTraffic, 11 Oct 2026 about 10:02 UTC, recorded by the site author screen-20261011-110217.mov; research/vessel-watch-2026-10-11/vessels.csv (cursor position 57.8711, -2.4829, good to about 1 km) |
"SEVEN KESTREL [GB] at 0 kn / 0° Destination: MCDUFF"; card "GB ABD ATD: 2026-09-24 15:51", status Stopped | Verified VERIFIED 11 Oct 2026 against recording frames; distance to 3 Oct position 2.0 km (computed) |
| C56 | No published notice for Beatrice, Moray East or Moray West, nor the Kingfisher bulletin, names SEVEN KESTREL (searched 11 Oct 2026) | PRIMARY (absence) | OperatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more › notices and Kingfisher feed, collected 11 Oct 2026 research/wind-notices/REGISTER.csv, NOTES.md, pdf/*.txt |
— | Verified VERIFIED 11 Oct 2026: no match for "KESTREL" in any of the 30 notice texts |
| C47 | Vessel meter live counters ($—, "so far") | COMPUTED | START=2026-10-01T23:00Z, ALL=700000, TIED=420000 (rates revised 4 Oct 2026):185-189 |
— | Verified VERIFIED by code read |
| C48 | "$29,167" per hour, all eight | COMPUTED | 700,000 ÷ 24 :114 |
700000/24 = 29,166.67 → rounds to 29,167 | Verified VERIFIED |
| C49 | Sources paragraph (contract IDs, sign convention, Moray West note) | PRIMARY | LCCC, Companies House, AIS, Kingfisher :136 |
— | Verified VERIFIED consistent with findings above |
Every row from the register for counter/who-pays.html. · 42 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | H1 "Who pays for the work off the Banffshire coast" | — | — — |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open not a figure |
| W2 | Callout: "Paid for by the public..." | Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open same as C3 |
| W3 | "None of these companies is a charity: costs and profit both come back from customers." | Characterisation | — FACT-SHEET.md has no line on charitable/corporate status |
— | Not found / open Explanation, no direct citation needed/possible — a gloss on the regulated-return and dividendA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › facts below (W18–W30), not itself falsifiable |
| W4 | "Taxpayers come in through government guarantees on the borrowing." | Characterisation, summary of W18-22 | — — |
— | Verified VERIFIED as consistent summary |
| W5 | "1. The power price" mechanism description | Explanation | general market mechanism — |
— | Not found / open uncontested, general |
| W6 | "Beatrice's contract priceThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › is now £205.70/MWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more ›" | PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | as C11 as C11 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W7 | "Moray East's is £82.34/MWh" | PRIMARY | as C15 as C15 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W8 | "Beatrice has received £1.44bn this way since 2018." | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more ›, INV-BEA-001+002, all 5,583 records 2018-11-06 to 2026-09-22 sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/*.json |
computed total £1,439,634,766.71 | Verified VERIFIED (rounds to 2 s.f. as stated) |
| W9 | "Across GB the top-ups came to £2.64bn in 2025." | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCC, all CfD_IDs, calendar 2025 (19,924 records) same files |
computed total £2,640,168,618.27 | Verified VERIFIED — matches to the penny |
| W10 | "3. Paying farms to switch off" mechanism | Explanation | NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › balancing mechanism — |
— | Not found / open uncontested, general |
| W11 | "GB balancing costsWhat the system operator spends keeping electricity supply and demand matched second by second, including constraint payments. more › were £2.7bn in 2024/25" | PRIMARY | NESO Annual Balancing Costs Report 2025 sources/crawl/www.neso.energy/document/362561/download.txt:723-727 |
"Overall balancing costs totalled £2.7bn in 2024/25, an increase of 10% compared to 2023/24" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W12 | "thermal constraint costsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › were £1.7bn" | PRIMARY | same document :768-775 |
"Thermal constraint costs have increased by 64% in 2024/25, totalling £1.7bn" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W13 | "including Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 landing at Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay" | PRIMARY | SSEN Transmission Aberdeenshire consultation booklet, Autumn 2026 sources/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.txt:376,451,453,480,533 |
"Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay to take forward to the marine routeing exercise" | Verified VERIFIED — genuine ambiguity in the source (two shortlisted sites), not a typo; page's "or" is justified |
| W14 | "Transmission charges totalled £5.1bn in 2025-26." | PRIMARY | NAO report sources/nao.txt §1.5, lines 725-732 |
"These charges totalled £5.1 billion in 2025-26." | Verified VERIFIED |
| W15 | "OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › forecasts the grid part of a typical household bill rising from £44 to £104 by 2030-31." | PRIMARY | NAO report (citing Ofgem) sources/nao.txt §1.19, lines 1490-1493 |
"...from £44 in 2025-26 to £104 in 2030-31." | Verified VERIFIED |
| W16 | "Ofgem lets transmission ownersA licensed company that owns and builds the high-voltage electricity grid in part of Great Britain. more › recover 100% of community fundMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › costs from billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›." | PRIMARY | Ofgem community fund pass-throughA cost Ofgem lets a network company recover in full from billpayers, rather than paying for out of its own profit. more › guidance sources/passthrough.txt §2.3, lines 176-181 |
"fully Pass-Through Cost... TOs may recover 100% of eligible Community Fund Costs... not financially disadvantaged" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W17 | "Under government guidance, buried cable earns no community fund, so the landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › coast is entitled to £0." | PRIMARY rule / page's own computed inference for "£0" | DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more › community funds guidance sources/commfunds.txt:201,181-182 |
"underground cables are not within scope... applicable only for overhead HVDC transmission" | Verified VERIFIED (rule); the "£0" figure itself is the page's sound inference, not a separately published number |
| W18 | "In the year to March 2026 SSEN Transmission agreed £2.0bn of guaranteed bank facilities" | PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:16569-16573 |
"Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W19 | "£800m guaranteed by the UK National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more ›" | PRIMARY | same report :6520-6534 (facilities table) |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W20 | "£0.5bn backed by EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more ›, Sweden's state export credit agency." | PRIMARY | same report :6520-6534 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W21 | "£0.5bn backed by SACE, Italy's state export credit agency." | PRIMARY | same report :6520-6534 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W22 | "None of the facilities had been drawn at 31 March 2026." | PRIMARY | same report :16569-16573 |
"As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings... on the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities." | Verified VERIFIED |
| W23 | "At least 84% of the offshore wind capacity landing or planned on this coast is owned outside the UK: that figure pools Beatrice, Moray East, Moray West and the consented but unbuilt Caledonia (2,000MW of the 4,420MW total), and counts the Guernsey-registered funds as UK." | COMPUTED | 4-project capacity-weighted foreign-ownership sum research/OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md:74-89 |
Beatrice 588MW (147MW foreign), Moray East 950MW (697MW foreign), Moray West 882MW (882MW foreign), Caledonia 2,000MW (2,000MW foreign, PRIMARY PSC); total foreign 3,726MW / 4,420MW = 84.3% | Fixed FIXED/VERIFIED — this wording now discloses that Caledonia (not yet built, 45% of the capacity base) is pooled in; previously the page implied only operating capacity |
| W24 | "Beatrice and Moray East paid £188.3m in dividends between them." | COMPUTED | 84.1+104.2 as C30 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W25 | "£97.5m went to owners in China, Japan, Portugal and France." | COMPUTED | as C20 — |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W26 | "£42.4m went to funds registered in Guernsey." | COMPUTED | as C21 — |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W27 | "£33.6m went to SSE, a UK company." | COMPUTED | 84.1×0.40 — |
= £33.64m | Verified VERIFIED |
| W28 | "£14.7m went to the Equitix fund vehicle at Beatrice, whose place of registration has not been traced." | COMPUTED | 84.1×0.175 — |
= £14.7175m | Fixed FIXED/VERIFIED — this bullet is new; it closes the gap the first check found (previously the three published buckets summed to only £173.5m of the stated £188.3m total, with the Equitix share silently missing). 97.5+42.4+33.6+14.7 = £188.2m ≈ £188.3m (rounding only, not an error) |
| W29 | "SSEN Transmission, which builds the grid, is 75% SSE plc and 25% Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan of Canada." | PRIMARY | SSE Annual Report 2026 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:2735-2745 |
"is owned 75% by SSE plc and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board." | Verified VERIFIED |
| W30 | "SSE reports adjusted net profit attributableThe share of a group's profit allocated to a particular shareholder on paper, which is not the same as cash actually paid to them. more › to that 25% holder of £188.3m in the year to March 2026." | PRIMARY | SSE Annual Report 2026 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:16945 (per main-session correction) |
"Adjusted net profit attributable to 25% non-controlling interest 188.3" | Verified VERIFIED, with caveat carried onto the page itself: this is profit attributable, not cash, and SHET's Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › filing ( SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:1074,871) separately shows FY2025/26 statutory profit of £522.1m and a nil dividend — "adjusted net profit attributable" (SSE's own reporting measure) is a different, smaller figure than statutory profit, and its numerical equality with the unrelated wind-farm dividend total (W24) is coincidental |
| W31 | "That is a share of profit, not cash paid out: the company declared no dividend that year." | PRIMARY | Companies House SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:871,1074 |
"The Board did not declare or pay a dividend"; "The Directors did not declare a dividend in the year" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W32 | "It happens to equal the two wind farms' combined dividend of £188.3m above; the two figures are unrelated." | Disclosure | — — |
— | Verified VERIFIED as an accurate, now-correct disclosure (this is the fix for what the first check flagged as a likely copy-paste error) |
| W33 | "Billpayers can see what each wind farm is paid in subsidy, down to the day. They cannot see what it spends. Vessel charters, day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more › and contracts are private." | Characterisation, grounded | LCCC publishes daily payments (PRIMARY, demonstrated by the DATA array itself); no public O&M/vessel cost breakdown exists (see M7, M10 below) — |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W34 | "Wind farm companies are private companies, not public authoritiesThe list in the Freedom of Information Act that defines which bodies the public can make FOI requests to. more ›, so the Freedom of Information Act 2000Legal rights to request information from public bodies (FOI) or environmental information from a wider range of bodies (EIR). more › does not apply to them (it covers only the bodies listed in its Schedule 1). Their subsidy contracts pay a fixed price per unit set at auctionThe competitive process by which wind farms bid for a fixed subsidy price, with the lowest bids winning a contract. more ›, so no regulator reviews their costs." | Legal characterisation (general law) + PRIMARY (auction mechanism) | FOIA 2000 s3/Schedule 1 (general statute, not locally re-crawled); CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › auction/strike-price mechanism research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md (auction/strike-price mechanism) |
— | Fixed FIXED/VERIFIED — this replaces wording the first check could not source ("not covered by Freedom of Information" had no supporting research file); the current wording is a defensible general statement of FOIA's scope (private companies are not listed bodies) rather than a claim resting on a specific local document, so no FOIA-specific research file is needed |
| W35 | "SSEN Transmission must publish its tenders, but often withholds contract values as commercially confidential. No value has been published for the Shetland HVDC Link 2 survey work." | PRIMARY (negative finding) | exhaustive search, Find a TenderThe UK government's public portal where major public contracts, including some SSEN Transmission tenders, must be advertised. more › / Contracts Finder / Reach SubseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more › site research/TENDERS-2026-10-02.md:5,13,30 |
"No tender notice, award notice or value located for this specific campaign" | Verified VERIFIED |
| W36 | "No capital cost has been published for Shetland HVDC Link 2." | PRIMARY (negative finding) | as W35 research/TENDERS-2026-10-02.md |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W37 | Callout: "The question this raises..." | Rhetorical | — — |
— | Not found / open not a factual claim |
| W38 | "Moray East currently pays money back: £8.3m so far in 2026." | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCC, net total, not sum-of-negative-days-only sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/*.json |
net −£8,286,522.87 (negative-days-only total would be −£14.6m, which does NOT match — confirms the page uses the net figure, correctly) | Verified VERIFIED |
| W39 | "Moray West's contract has not started." | PRIMARY | as C17 as C17 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W40 | "Dividends are a return on money the owners invested. Interest on shareholder loansMoney a company's own owners lend to it, on which the company pays interest back to them, separate from bank debt. more ›, which also goes to owners, is not counted." | Explanation, grounded | capitalisedInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more › shareholder-loan interest documented research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:13-14,42 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W41 | "The vessel day rates on the meter are the best estimates available, from an offshore vessel fleet manager, not published figures." | ESTIMATE (self-disclosed) | — counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:107 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| W42 | Sources paragraph | PRIMARY | as listed counter/who-pays.html:157 |
— | Verified VERIFIED consistent with findings above |
Every row from the register for counter/missing-figures.html. · 17 rows
| ID | Item | Class | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-H2 | "Anyone can ask OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › and NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › under the Freedom of InformationLegal rights to request information from public bodies (FOI) or environmental information from a wider range of bodies (EIR). more › Act, and SSEN Transmission under the Environmental Information Regulations." | Legal + PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › (correspondence) | SSEN Transmission handled a request under the EIR, Sept 2026; Ofgem and NESO publish FOI contact routes Correspondence held privately, not published; ICOThe regulators for information rights complaints: the UK Information Commissioner (ICO) for Ofgem and NESO; the Scottish Information Commissioner for SSEN Transmission, which handles requests under the Scottish regulations. more › guidance sources/crawl/ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/ |
VerifiedLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › VERIFIED (SSEN handling under EIR). Wording revised 7 Oct 2026. FOIA and EIR texts not held locally |
| M1 | "Capital cost of Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2" — 1.8GW / 2GW converter / 525kVThe voltage class of the bipole cable proposed for Shetland HVDC Link 2. more › / due 2035; no cost published; estimate "£3.2–4.8bn (our estimate)" | technical specs: PRIMARY; capital cost: NOT FOUND; estimate range: ESTIMATE | consultation booklet (2GW/525kV, 2035 confirmed); capital cost absence per TENDERS doc sources/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.txt:655,717,720,930 |
Not found / open VERIFIED (specs: "A 2GW... bi-poleAn HVDC link built using two conductors of opposite polarity, which can keep working at half capacity if one fails. more ›, 525kV HVDC link is proposed"; "2035" appears); capital cost genuinely NOT FOUND; the £3.2–4.8bn range is explicitly labelled "our estimate," not sourced — correctly flagged as such on the page |
| M2 | "Value of the marine survey contract (Reach SubseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more ›, LT374)" — no value published | PRIMARY (negative finding) | — research/TENDERS-2026-10-02.md:13,30 (VIKING REACH/C-TROJAN, LT374 campaign) |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M3 | "Cable corridorA broad, mapped band within which a cable route could run; not a chosen route, width or list of affected land. more › and easementA right to use a strip of someone else's land for the cable, without owning it outright. more › width, construction duration, compound sizes, traffic" — "None of the seven consultation booklets mentions" these | PRIMARY (negative finding), count not independently re-verified | — sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/globalassets/projects/shetland-hvdc-link-2/consultation-documents/* (4 booklets found specific to this project in this pass) |
Not found / open PARTIAL — the absence of the listed details was not independently re-checked line by line in this pass, and only 4 Shetland-Link-2-specific booklets were located (vs. "seven" claimed, which may count other related/Shetland-wide consultations); flag for a closer recount, not a contradiction |
| M4 | "Community benefitMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › for the landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › and cable-route communities" — "£0 under the published rules" | PRIMARY | as W17 sources/commfunds.txt:181-182,201 |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M5 | "Site-selection scoring: why Sandend was dropped and Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay kept" — two different reasons given, scoring not published | PRIMARY | booklet quotes RESPONSE-6NOV-DRAFT.md:37 (quotes booklet lines 381-386, 440-443, 480, 497, 611-614); research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md:63 |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M6 | "Supply contract values: HVDC converters, cable supply, installation" — no value found | PRIMARY (negative finding) | — research/TENDERS-2026-10-02.md |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M7 | "Operations and maintenance cost of each farm, including vessel spend" — "Beatrice records 3.2m kWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more › of vessel fuel a year but no cost. Moray East says only that O&M expenses increased." | PRIMARY | Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › accounts SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:267 ("Fuel used in transport (vessels) kWh 3,204,780.5"); 07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt strategic report (per research/MORAY-FARMS-ACCOUNTS.md:88) |
Verified VERIFIED — "3,204,780.5" kWh ≈ "3.2m kWh"; Moray East quote: "Operations and maintenance expenses increased, reflecting higher spending..." with no cost breakdown |
| M8 | "Who stands behind Beatrice's holding companiesA company that exists mainly to own shares in another company, often sitting between a wind farm and its ultimate owners. more ›" — press names vs. unconfirmed register match | PRIMARY (holding names) / SECONDARY (identity) | as C19/C23/C26/C28 SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71 |
Verified VERIFIED — consistent with the C-page caveat |
| M9 | "Where the Equitix vehicle at Beatrice is registered" — not traced | Acknowledged gap | — no CH filing found for Firenze Bidco One's parent |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M10 | "Moray West: interest and fees paid to shareholders, by recipient" — "£31.8m of guarantee feesA charge paid for a third party's promise to cover a loan if the borrower cannot repay it. more › and interest was capitalisedInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more ›" | PRIMARY | Companies House 10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.txt:767-768 (re-OCR PDF p.19) |
Verified VERIFIED — "guarantee fee and interest on guarantee fee capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £31,831k" ≈ "£31.8m" |
| M11 | "When Moray West's subsidy contract starts paying" — LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more › records it pre-start | PRIMARY (absence) | as C17 all 60 LCCC page_*.json files |
Verified VERIFIED |
| M12 | "SEVEN KESTREL: client and day rateThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more ›" — no notice names it | AISAutomatic Identification System: a tracking signal most ships broadcast, letting their position and route be followed publicly. more › (screenshot) / ESTIMATE (rate) | as C36 research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md |
Not found / open NOT FOUND in crawl files (as C36); rate explicitly labelled an estimate |
| M13 | "SKANDI ACERGY: job and day rate" | AIS (screenshot) / ESTIMATE | as C37 as C37 |
Not found / open NOT FOUND in crawl files (as C37); rate labelled estimate |
| M14 | "ESVAGT WIND 8: charter rate at Moray East" — daughter craft of the SOV ESVAGT ALBA per the fleet manager's assessment | AIS (screenshot) / ESTIMATE | as C38 as C38 |
Not found / open NOT FOUND in crawl files (as C38); rate labelled estimate |
| M15 | "WIND PEAK: day rate for the Moray West transformer exchange" — notice names vessel/job, not rate | PRIMARY (notice) / ESTIMATE (rate) | as C39 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice6142.html |
Verified VERIFIED (notice); rate labelled estimate |
| M16 | "Crew boatA Crew Transfer Vessel: a small, fast boat that ferries technicians out to offshore wind turbines. more › and guard vesselAn Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel: a standby ship providing safety cover for workers at an offshore site. more › rates at Beatrice and Moray West" (survey vesselA ship equipped to investigate seabed conditions, used before cables or foundations are installed. more › removed per C44) — notices name roles not vessels/rates | PRIMARY (notices) / ESTIMATE (rates) | as C42/C43/C44 notice6142.html; notice5902.html |
Verified VERIFIED (notices); rates labelled estimates |
Every row from the register for counter/leaving-uk.html. · 101 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | H1 "What leaves the country"; label "Moray Firth offshore wind · money leaving the UK" | — | — counter/leaving-uk.html:82-83 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open heading, no claim |
| L2 | Callout: "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | — supported by L74-L78 (guarantees) |
— | Not found / open Same wording as C3/W2. Consistent with the guarantee facts, but see Problem 19 (HANDOVER.md correction 27 on the word "taxpayer") |
| L3 | Lead: "DividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more ›, interest and fees that the Moray Firth wind farms and SSEN Transmission pay (or owe) to owners and lenders based outside the UK, drawn from each company's own Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › accounts and SSE plc's annual report." | Characterisation | — :85 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as a description of the sources used. The lender identities, however, rest on press, not on the accounts (L14, L40, L50) |
| L4 | Headline "£139.9m", "Dividends paid, cash out the door", "To owners outside the UK (including Guernsey vehicles), latest dividend declared and paid by each farm" | COMPUTEDLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | 84.1×0.25 + 84.1×0.175 + 104.2 :93-96 |
= £139.9425m → "£139.9m" | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic). Two caveats: "cash out the door" to foreign owners is inferred (Problem 2), and the TRIG domicile is SECONDARY (L8) |
| L5 | "Beatrice, year to 31 Mar 2025 … £84.1m" | PRIMARY | Companies House, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd accounts, year to 31 Mar 2025 BEA:184 (also :114, :662, :694) |
"Dividends paid during the year amount to £84.1m (2024: £69.6m)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L6 | "£21.025m to Red Rock Power (China), 25% of £84.1m" | stake: PRIMARY; identity: SECONDARY; £: COMPUTED | 84.1×0.25 BEA:68-71 |
"Beatrice Wind Limited (25%)" | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic = £21.025m exactly; stake). SECONDARY for the name: no CH folder exists for Beatrice Wind Ltd, and the link to Red Rock rests on press (as C23) |
| L7 | "Moray East, year to 31 Dec 2025: all of its £104.2m dividend" | PRIMARY | Companies House, Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) Ltd accounts, year to 31 Dec 2025 MEA:279 (also :119, :1004, :2601) |
"The Company has paid interim dividends totalling £104,202k for the year ended 31 December 2025"; "Dividend paid to Moray East Holdings Limited 104,202" | Verified VERIFIED. The payee is Moray East Holdings Ltd, the parent, not the owners directly (Problem 2) |
| L8 | "Beatrice's TRIG share, £14.7175m, is registered in Guernsey, outside the UK." | stake: PRIMARY; TRIG name and domicile: SECONDARY; £: COMPUTED | 84.1×0.175; research/BENEFICIAL-OWNERSHIP.md:45 ("[SECONDARY, WebSearch: Wikipedia, stockanalysis.com] … incorporated in Guernsey"); HANDOVER.md correction 22; FACT-SHEET.md 14HBEA:68-71; sources/crawl/www.trig-ltd.com/* (local TRIG pages do not state the domicile; the only "Guernsey" hit is a residence drop-down) |
"Offshore Wind Investmients Group 4 Limited (17.5%)" | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic = £14.7175m; stake). SECONDARY (Guernsey domicile: no locally quotable primary file). Consistent with correction 22 |
| L9 | "Beatrice's Equitix share (£14.7175m) is excluded: where that vehicle is registered has not been traced" | Acknowledged gap | — BEA:68-71 ("Firenze Bidco One Limited (17.5%)"); no CH folder for Firenze Bidco One or its parent |
— | Verified VERIFIED. This reading is right: the headline includes TRIG and excludes only the Beatrice Equitix share. It does not contradict correction 22, because FACT-SHEET.md 14H ties "the Equitix vehicle" in Guernsey to Moray East's 26.6% holder. The sentence is clumsy ("TRIG share … is registered"; see Problem 3) but not contradictory |
| L10 | "£21.025m + £14.7175m + £104.2m = £139.94m" | COMPUTED | — :98 |
21.025 + 14.7175 + 104.2 = 139.9425 | Verified VERIFIED (rounds to £139.94m) |
| L11 | Headline "£132.830m", "Bank interest paid, cash out the door", "filed figures, two farms" | COMPUTED | 52.4 + 80.430 :102-104 |
= £132.830m | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic). The label is wrong, though: both inputs are P&L interest expense, not cash paid (Problem 1) |
| L12 | "Beatrice £52.4m (FY2025, to 31 Mar 2025)" | PRIMARY | Beatrice accounts, note 6 BEA:1072 |
"Interest expense on other financing liabilities (52.4) (57.7)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L13 | "Moray East £80.430m (FY2025, to 31 Dec 2025)" | PRIMARY | Moray East accounts, note 9 MEA:1841 (also :1102) |
"Interest on borrowings and others 80,430 , 103,298" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L14 | Beatrice "syndicate of 13 commercial banks plus the European Investment Bank, all individually named" | SECONDARY | IJGlobal case study, 25 May 2016; Pinsent Masons announcement, 2016 sources/crawl/www.ijglobal.com/articles/100705/beatrice-offshore-wind-scotland.html:875; sources/crawl/www.pinsentmasons.com/about-us/announcements/beatrice-financing.html |
"Lenders on the £1.96 billion debt are BNP Paribas, CBA, European Investment Bank, ING, La Caixa, KfW, Lloyds, MUFG, Natixis, RBS, Santander, Siemens Bank, Societe Generale and SMBC."; Pinsent Masons: "funded by 13 commercial lenders, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Danish export credit agency" | Verified PARTIAL. The names are verified for the 2016 construction debt. The current (post-2019 refinancing) lenders are not named in any local file, and the same IJGlobal line records a further £70m ticket from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners that the page leaves out (Problem 7) |
| L15 | "about 86% foreign by count (Japan, France, Germany, Spain, Australia and others)" | COMPUTED | 12/14 (UK = Lloyds, RBS) as L14 |
12/14 = 85.7% | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic, on the 2016 list) |
| L16 | Moray East: "Japan's JBICJapan's state development bank, which lent directly to Moray East's construction financing. more › (which lent about £743m of the original debt package)" | SECONDARY (the lender's own press release) | JBIC press release, 29 Nov 2018 sources/crawl/www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1129-011637.html:374 |
"a loan agreement in project financing amounting up to approximately GBP743 million (JBIC portion) with British company Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) Limited" | Verified VERIFIED (the release says "up to approximately") |
| L17 | "roughly 16 further commercial banks that are not individually named in any source found" | SECONDARY | research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:23 (Windpower Monthly/Insider)sources/crawl/www.insider.co.uk/news/moray-east-offshore-windfarm-funding-13695623.html says only "a syndicate of commercial banks", with no count |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND. No local file contains the "16"; the Windpower Monthly source was not crawled |
| L18 | "and a Danish export-credit guarantee" | SECONDARY (JBIC release) | as L16 …/1129-011637.html:374 |
"EKF Denmark's Export Credit Agency will provide the guarantee for a part of the loan by the private financial institutions." | Verified VERIFIED |
| L19 | "the filing does not split the £52.4m by individual lender" / "does not split the £80.430m between JBIC and the unnamed banks" | PRIMARY (absence) | — BEA, MEA searched for lender names: no JBIC/EKF hit in MEA; BEA names only Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ as share pledgee (:73-80) |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| L20 | Headline "£44.147m", "Interest and fees accrued, not yet paid", "Owed to foreign shareholders on intercompany loans, added to construction cost" | COMPUTED | 7.962 + 4.354 + 31.831 :111-116 |
= £44.147m | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic). Who is owed the £4.354m is not established (L25) |
| L21 | "Caledonia £7.962m (2025) shareholder-loan interestMoney a company's own owners lend to it, on which the company pays interest back to them, separate from bank debt. more ›" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts, note 7 CAL:915 |
"Interest on shareholder loans 7,962 7,099" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L22 | "owed ultimately to OW Offshore S.L., Madrid (a Spanish joint ventureA company owned jointly by two or more other companies, set up to run a particular business or project together. more › of EDP Renováveis of Portugal and Engie of France)" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts CAL:148-149, :1112-1114 |
"back-to-back arrangements, whereby the ultimate funding is provided by OW FS Offshore, S.A., a fellow subsidiary of the Company"; "OW Offshore S.L. … Madrid, Spain. OW Offshore S.L. is a 50/50 joint venture between EDP Renovaveis S.A. and Engie S.A." | Verified VERIFIED in substance. In the filing the funder is OW FS Offshore S.A. and OW Offshore S.L. is the ultimate parentThe entity at the top of an ownership chain that genuinely controls a company, once holding companies and funds are traced through. more ›; the body text at L53 states this precisely, the headline simplifies it |
| L23 | "Moray West £4.354m (2024) shareholder-loan interest" | PRIMARY | Moray West accounts, cash-flow non-cash note MWE:766 |
"interest on shareholder loans capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £4,354k (2023: £3, 168k)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L24 | "plus £31.831m (2024) guarantee feeA charge paid for a third party's promise to cover a loan if the borrower cannot repay it. more › and interest on the guarantee fee" | PRIMARY | same MWE:767-768 |
"guarantee fee and interest on guarantee fee capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £31,831k (2023: £24,198k)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L25 | "owed to Ocean Winds (Portugal/France) and Ignitis (Lithuania)" | PRIMARY (guarantee fee) / INFERENCE (shareholder-loan recipient; Lithuania) | Moray West accounts MWE:1881-1890, :2372-2376 |
"The equity bridge loans and shareholder loans represent borrowings obtained by the Company from its parent entity, Moray West Holdings Limited. These funds were originally sourced by the parent (either directly or through facilities guaranteed by shareholders)"; "guarantee fees … charged by OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables" | Verified PARTIAL. The £31.831m guarantee fee is verified as owed to OW FS Offshore and Ignitis. The £4.354m is owed to the parent, and its ultimate source may be shareholder-guaranteed bank facilities. "Lithuania" appears nowhere in the filing (Problem 10) |
| L26 | "All three are described in the accounts as capitalised intoInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more › the cost of the asset under construction, not cash paid out in the year." | PRIMARY | Caledonia and Moray West accounts CAL:916; MWE:765-767 |
"Capitalised borrowing costs (8,060) (7,670)"; "Non-cash financing and investing activities include: … capitalised in Borrowings" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L27 | Route: "Beatrice Offshore Windfarm — dividend £84.1m, year to 31 Mar 2025" | PRIMARY | as L5 BEA:184 |
as L5 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L28 | "£21.025m … to Red Rock Power / Red Rock Renewables, ultimately China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission" | PRIMARY (Red Rock chain) / SECONDARY (link from Beatrice Wind Ltd to Red Rock) | CH PSCA person or entity recorded as having substantial ownership or control of a UK company, held on a public Companies House register. more › registers CH/SC284836/persons-with-significant-control.html (PSC: Redrock Investment Limited, notified 6 Apr 2016); CH/09980171/persons-with-significant-control.html |
"The State-Owned Assets Supervision And Administration Commission Of China Active … Beijing, China … Notified on 6 April 2016" | Verified VERIFIED (chain from Red Rock Renewables to SASAC); SECONDARY (that Beatrice Wind Ltd is Red Rock's vehicle) |
| L29 | "£14.7175m each to The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG), which is incorporated in Guernsey, and to Equitix, whose vehicle's place of registration has not been traced" | stakes: PRIMARY; names and TRIG domicile: SECONDARY; £: COMPUTED | 84.1×0.175 BEA:68-71 |
"Offshore Wind Investmients Group 4 Limited (17.5%) and Firenze Bidco One Limited (17.5%)" | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic, stakes); SECONDARY (TRIG/Equitix names and TRIG domicile), as C26/C28 |
| L30 | "Neither fund's own underlying investors have been traced." | Acknowledged gap | — FACT-SHEET.md 14H; research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:111-112 |
— | Verified VERIFIED (true statement of a gap) |
| L31 | "A further £16.0m interim dividendA dividend paid or declared during the financial year, or shortly after it, rather than waiting for the full year-end accounts. more › … was approved after the year end, to the same ownership split." | PRIMARY (amount) / INFERENCE (split) | Beatrice accounts BEA:253-254 (also :1608) |
"An interim dividend of £16.0m (£0.0061 per share) was approved on 29 July 2025." | Verified VERIFIED (amount, date). "To the same ownership split" is inference: the payee is Beatrice Offshore Windfarm HoldcoA company that exists mainly to own shares in another company, often sitting between a wind farm and its ultimate owners. more › Ltd |
| L32 | Route: "Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) — dividend £104.2m, year to 31 Dec 2025" | PRIMARY | as L7 MEA:279 |
as L7 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L33 | "All three owners of Moray East are outside the UK" | stakes: PRIMARY; ultimate owners: SECONDARY/PRIMARY mix | Moray East accounts; CH PSC MEA:72-74; CH/15065285/persons-with-significant-control.html |
"Moray Offshore Renewable Power Limited at 33.3%, Delphis Holdings Limited at 6.7%, Diamond Green Limited 33.4% and Equitix Aneomoi Bidco Limited 26.6%" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The filing names four UK-registered holding companies; grouping them into three foreign owners depends on look-through. Delphis now files "no registrable person" ( research/OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md:36); Diamond Green's Japanese owners are SECONDARY; Equitix Anemoi carries a UK-incorporated PSC as well (L37) |
| L34 | "£41.68m … 40% split to Ocean Winds (Portugal/France)" | COMPUTED | 104.202×0.40 (33.3% + 6.7%) MEA:72-73 |
= £41.6808m | Verified VERIFIED |
| L35 | "£34.803m … 33.4% split to Diamond Green (Kansai Electric and Inpex, Japan)" | stake: PRIMARY; owners: SECONDARY; £: COMPUTED | 104.202×0.334 MEA:73 |
= £34.803468m | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic, stake); SECONDARY (Kansai/Inpex) |
| L36 | "£27.717m … 26.6% split to Equitix Anemoi" | COMPUTED | 104.202×0.266 MEA:73-74 |
= £27.717732m | Verified VERIFIED. Strictly this rounds to £27.718m (truncated, not rounded: £0.001m). The three splits sum to £104.200m against £104.202m |
| L37 | "Equitix Anemoi, a Guernsey vehicle (manager based in the UK)" | PRIMARY (PSC) / SECONDARY (manager) | CH PSC register, Equitix Anemoi Bidco Ltd (15065285) CH/15065285/persons-with-significant-control.html |
"Equitix Anemoi Topco Limited … St Peter Port, Guernsey … Incorporated in Guernsey … Ownership of shares – 75% or more"; also "Equitix Ma 21 Capital Eurobond … Registration number 12747489 Incorporated in United Kingdom … Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%" | Verified PARTIAL. The Guernsey Topco is verified, but the same register lists a second, UK-incorporated PSC with more than 25% (Problem 4). Manager location is SECONDARY |
| L38 | "A further £56.790m interim dividend … was declared after the year end, to the same split." | PRIMARY | Moray East accounts MEA:185-187 (also :2625-2626) |
"The Company post year end has declared an Interim dividend of £56,790k to its parent (followed by MEHL issuing dividends to its shareholders)." | Verified VERIFIED (amount). The split is inference |
| L39 | Beatrice "£52.4m filed figureA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more › (FY2025); £57.7m filed figure the year before" | PRIMARY | Beatrice note 6 BEA:1072 |
"Interest expense on other financing liabilities (52.4) (57.7)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L40 | "Paid to a 2016 project-financeBorrowing raised against the future income of a specific project, repaid from that project's own cash flow rather than the parent company's wider finances. more › syndicate, refinanced in 2019 under MUFG Bank as security trusteeA bank that holds the legal security for a group of lenders, without itself being an owner or necessarily a lender. more ›: 13 commercial banks plus the EIBThe European Investment Bank, a lender to some of the Moray Firth wind farm financing syndicates. more › — BNP Paribas, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, EIB, ING, CaixaBank, KfW, Lloyds, MUFG, Natixis, RBS, Santander, Siemens Bank, Société Générale and Sumitomo Mitsui" | PRIMARY (charges) / SECONDARY (names) | CH charges register; IJGlobal 2016 CH/SC350248/charges.html ("Mufg Bank, LTD as Security Trustee" ×4, "Mufg Bank, LTD" ×2); IJGlobal :875 |
as L14 | Verified PARTIAL. The trustee and the 2016 names are verified. Nothing local shows the 2016 syndicate is the post-2019 lender group that received the £52.4m, and the £70m CIP ticket is omitted (Problem 7) |
| L41 | "with Denmark's export-credit agencyA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › EKF guaranteeing part of the EIB loan" | SECONDARY | IJGlobal 2016 …/100705/beatrice-offshore-wind-scotland.html:873 |
"the European Investment Bank approving a £525 million loan … Export credit agency EKF guaranteed £300 million of the EIB's loan." | Verified VERIFIED |
| L42 | "12 of 14, about 86%, are foreign institutions by count" | COMPUTED | 12/14 as L14 |
85.7% | Verified VERIFIED (on the 2016 list) |
| L43 | Moray East "£80.430m filed figure (FY2025); £103.298m filed figure the year before" | PRIMARY | Moray East note 9 MEA:1841 |
"Interest on borrowings and others 80,430 , 103,298" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L44 | "JBIC lent about £743m directly, as reported, JBIC press release" | SECONDARY | as L16 …/1129-011637.html:374 |
as L16 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L45 | "roughly 16 further commercial banks not individually named in any source checked, and a Danish EKF guarantee on part of the package" | SECONDARY | as L17/L18 as L17/L18 |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND ("16"); VERIFIED (EKF) |
| L46 | Moray West "£164.825m filed figure (FY2024, to 31 Dec 2024)" gross borrowing costs | PRIMARY | Moray West note 9 MWE:1540 |
"Borrowing costs (164,825) (83,447)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L47 | "of which £134.764m was capitalised into the asset under construction" | PRIMARY | same MWE:1541, :1727 |
"Capitalised borrowing costs 134,764 ' 83,447" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L48 | "and £30.061m was expensed through the profit and loss account" | COMPUTED | 164.825 − 134.764 MWE:1540-1541 |
= £30.061m | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic; not a separately printed line) |
| L49 | "The filing does not separate the bank-only share of either figure from the shareholder-loan and guarantee-fee elements" | PRIMARY (absence) | — MWE:1531-1545 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| L50 | "Lenders: an 18-bank club — AIB, Bank of China, Bank of China Luxembourg, BBVA, BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas Fortis, CIBC, CIC, Commerzbank, Crédit Agricole, KBC, Lloyds, MUFG Bank, NatWest, Siemens Bank, Société Générale, Standard Chartered and Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank" | SECONDARY | IJGlobal, 23 Jan 2023 (before financial close) sources/crawl/www.ijglobal.com/articles/169884/moray-west-commitments.html:864-886 |
"locked in commitments from a group of 18 lenders … The club financing debt package is being arranged by: AIB, Bank of China, Bank of China Luxemburg, … Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank (SMTB)" | Verified VERIFIED (all 18 names present). SECONDARY and dated before close, while the page states it as fact (Problem 8) |
| L51 | "15 of 18, about 83%, are foreign by count" | COMPUTED | 15/18 (UK = Lloyds, NatWest, Standard Chartered) as L50 |
83.3% | Verified VERIFIED |
| L52 | Caledonia "£7.962m … (2025); £7.099m the year before (2024)" | PRIMARY | as L21 CAL:915 |
"Interest on shareholder loans 7,962 7,099" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L53 | "back-to-back arrangements … ultimate funding provided by OW FS Offshore S.A., a fellow subsidiary of OW Offshore S.L., Madrid — a 50/50 joint venture of EDP Renováveis (Portugal) and Engie (France)" | PRIMARY | as L22 CAL:148-149, :1113-1114 |
as L22 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L54 | "Almost all of it is offset the same year by capitalised borrowing costs; none of it was a cash payment out of the UK in the year." | PRIMARY | Caledonia note 7 CAL:913-917 |
"Guarantee commission expense 98 571 / Interest on shareholder loans 7,962 7,099 / Capitalised borrowing costs (8,060) (7,670) / Total finance costs 15 ; 13" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L55 | "Loan balance at 31 Dec 2025: £113.617m." | PRIMARY | Caledonia note 12 CAL:1049 (also :498) |
"Shareholder loans . 113,617 93,957" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L56 | Moray West "£4.354m … shareholder-loan interest and £31.831m … guarantee fee and interest on the guarantee fee (both 2024)" | PRIMARY | as L23/L24 MWE:766-768 |
as L23/L24 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L57 | "owed to OW FS Offshore S.A. (Ocean Winds, Portugal/France) and UAB Ignitis Renewables / AB Ignitis grupė (Lithuania, state-controlled)" | PRIMARY (entity names) / INFERENCE-SECONDARY (Lithuania, state control) | Moray West related-party note MWE:1887, :2372-2376 |
"UAB Ignitis Renewables — Key shareholder (5%) in Moray West Holdings Limited"; "A.B.Ignitis grupé — Ultimate parent of UAB Ignitis Renewables"; "OW FS Offshore S.A. - Wholly owned subsidiary of OW Offshore S.L." | Verified PARTIAL. The names are verified. "Lithuania" and "state-controlled" do not appear in the filing. The shareholder-loan recipient is as L25 |
| L58 | "Both are capitalised into the cost of the asset under construction, not paid out in cash in the year." | PRIMARY | as L26 MWE:765-767 |
as L26 | Verified VERIFIED |
| L59 | Beatrice "has no shareholder loan to pay interest on … Holdco owes Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd … earns interest receivable of £2.8m (2025) / £2.9m (2024)" | PRIMARY | Beatrice note 22 BEA:1505, :1515, :1521-1524 (also :1069 "Other finance income 28 29") |
"Interest receivable on the loan, being charged at 2.33%, was charged throughout the year, totalling £2.8m (2024: £2.9m)." | Verified VERIFIED. No shareholder-loan payable appears in note 22 |
| L60 | "Holdco is incorporated in Perth, Scotland." | PRIMARY | Beatrice note 26 BEA:1597-1603 |
"Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Holdco Limited, incorporated in Scotland. The address … Perth, PHI 3AQ" | Verified VERIFIED. Strictly, it is incorporated in Scotland with its address in Perth |
| L61 | "Moray East's shareholder loan was repaid in full in FY2024 from the proceeds of selling its transmission asset to TC Moray East OFTOAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more › Ltd." | PRIMARY | Moray East accounts MEA:1997-2007 |
"on 15 February 2024 signed an agreement to dispose of its Transmission assets to TC Moray East OFTO Limited … The proceeds were used … to settle the Transmission loans and shareholder toans in their entirety" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L62 | "The filing records a £Nil accrual of shareholder-loan interest in the current year" | PRIMARY | same MEA:1075-1076 |
"accrual of Guarantee fee and interest on shareholder loans in Borrowings amounting to £Nil (December 2024: £1,821K)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L63 | "all of Moray East's finance costs are now bank-debt related" | PRIMARY | Moray East note 9 MEA:1837-1842 |
"Unwind of discount on provisions 3,595 / Interest on lease liabilities 88 / … Hedging ineffectiveness 3,289 / Interest on borrowings and others 80,430 / Total finance costs 87,402" | Not found / open PARTIAL. £6.972m of the £87.402m is discount unwind, lease interest and hedging ineffectiveness; the page should say "all its interest costs" (Problem 12) |
| L64 | "SSE plc's accounts attribute £188.3m (as reported) of SHET's profit to Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board's 25% stake for the year to 31 March 2026" | PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026, APM reconciliation AR26:16945, :16947 |
"Adjusted net profit attributable to 25% non-controlling interest 188.3 107.3"; "net profit after tax attributable to the Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission non-controlling interest holders of £188.3m (2025: £107.3m)" | Verified VERIFIED, with a caveat: this is SSE's adjusted (APM) measure. The statutory Group statement of changes in equity shows NCI profit of £130.0m (FY26) and £69.8m (FY25) ( AR26:12839, :12865), Group-wide (Problem 6) |
| L65 | "and £107.3m the year before" | PRIMARY | same AR26:16945 |
as L64 | Verified VERIFIED (same caveat) |
| L66 | "Cash dividend or distribution actually paid to Ontario Teachers' in either year: £0 … SHET's own accounts state plainly that 'the Board did not declare or pay a dividend' in either year" | PRIMARY | SHET accounts, year to 31 Mar 2026 SHET:1074-1075, :871 |
"The Board did not declare or pay a dividend during the current or prior year."; "The Directors did not declare a dividend in the year (2025: Enil)." | Verified VERIFIED. research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:28 mis-cites this as :189 |
| L67 | "the SSE plc Group's Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity shows no dividend or distribution line against the non-controlling-interestsA stake in a company held by someone other than its main parent company, such as Ontario Teachers' 25% of SSEN Transmission. more › column in either year" | PRIMARY | AR26 statement of changes in equity AR26:12838-12854 (FY26), :12864-12880 (FY25) |
NCI column: "628.8 … 130.0 … (7.2) … 751.6" and "554.9 … 69.8 … 4.1 … 628.8"; "Dividends to shareholders" and "Distributions to Hybrid equity holders" both show "–" under NCI | Verified VERIFIED (554.9 + 69.8 + 4.1 = 628.8; 628.8 + 130.0 − 7.2 = 751.6) |
| L68 | "The £188.3m and £107.3m are retained, unrealised profit — not cash that has crossed to Canada." | Characterisation | — L64-L67 |
— | Verified VERIFIED in substance (retained, not distributed). "Unrealised" is not the accounting term for this profit (Problem 6) |
| L69 | "SHET paid £25.8m (FY2025/26) and £25.2m (FY2024/25) filed figure of interest to its ultimate parent, SSE plc" | PRIMARY | SHET note 6 SHET:2203 |
"Interest payable to SSE Group companies 25.8 25.2" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The filing says "payable" to "SSE Group companies", not "paid" to SSE plc specifically (Problem 11) |
| L70 | "on internal loan stock and a facility advance" | PRIMARY | SHET note 14 SHET:2373-2382 |
"3.38% Loan Stock repayable to SSE plc …"; "Facility Advance - Internal 4.00% 970.0"; "5.63% Loan Stock repayable to SSE pic on 31 March 2028 … 30.0" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L71 | "Ontario Teachers' holds equity in SHET, not debt, and no shareholder-loan arrangement with Ontario Teachers' was found in the filing." | PRIMARY (absence) | SHET accounts SHET:119 |
"The Company is owned 75% by SSE pic and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP)." | Verified VERIFIED (equity holding; no OTPP debt instrument in note 14 :2367-2412) |
| L72 | "Ontario Teachers' … paid SSE plc £1,465.0m (as reported, SSE plc Annual Report 2023) gross … in November 2022 for its 25% stake in SHET" | PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2023, note 12.2 AR23:1998 |
"(‘OTPP’) for cash consideration of £1,465.0m, less transactions costs of £16.9m. The transaction completed on 30 November 2022" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L73 | "(£1,448.1m net of £16.9m transaction costs)" | COMPUTED / PRIMARY | 1,465.0 − 16.9 AR23:1998, :667 |
"Proceeds from divestments 12 1,448.1" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L74 | "SHET also agreed £2.0bn (as reported, FACT-SHEET.md fact 14E) of new foreign-guaranteed bank facilities in the year to 31 March 2026" | PRIMARY | AR26 AR26:16569-16570 |
"Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities" | Fixed FIXED on the page 4 Oct 2026 (the original wording was not supported by the source in wording. The £2.0bn is verified, but £1.0bn of it is guaranteed by the UK National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more ›, so "foreign-guaranteed" is wrong for half of it (Problem 5) |
| L75 | "a £1.0bn facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund" | PRIMARY | AR26 facilities table AR26:6529-6530 |
"a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L76 | "a £0.5bn facility guaranteed by Sweden's EKN" | PRIMARY | same AR26:6531-6532 |
"a £0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by EKN (Swedish ECA)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L77 | "a £0.5bn facility guaranteed by Italy's SACE" | PRIMARY | same AR26:6533-6534 |
"a £0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by SACE (Italian ECA)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L78 | "none of the three had been drawn at 31 March 2026" | PRIMARY | AR26 AR26:16570-16571 |
"As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities." | Verified VERIFIED |
| L79 | "If SHET defaulted, the guaranteeing governments — and, for the National Wealth Fund facility, UK taxpayers — would stand behind the lenders." | Explanation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation of how a guarantee works, consistent with L75-L77; not a figure |
| L80 | Contractors intro: "Vessels working for the Moray Firth farms and SSEN Transmission, and the main supply contracts found with a published value…" | Characterisation | — :208 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as a description. Only Boskalis and Lamprell have published values; the other rows say "not published" |
| L81 | VIKING REACH — Reach SubseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more › (vessel owned via the Eidesvik Reach AS joint venture) — Norway — press | PRIMARY (operatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more ›'s own site) | reachsubsea.no sources/crawl/reachsubsea.no/news.html:1279; …/reach-subsea-has-now-signed-survey-contract-with-major-scottish-energy-firm-ssen-transmission.html:1243, :15 |
"Haugesund, 04 August 2026 – Eidesvik Reach AS, the joint venture owning the IMR vessel Viking Reach and in which Reach Subsea ASA holds a 49.9% ownership interest, has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with an undisclosed buyer for the sale of the vessel"; "The ROV survey vessel Viking Reach … will be utilized" (Spittal to Peterhead corridor, Q4 2023) | Verified VERIFIED. The SSEN work was Spittal–Peterhead in 2023, not this coast, and a sale is pending (completion expected Q4 2026) |
| L82 | C-TROJAN — Reach Subsea UK Ltd — UK (operating subsidiary) / Norway (parent, Reach Subsea ASA) — notice | PRIMARY | Kingfisher BulletinA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more › notice 5822 ("Shetlands HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 LT374 - Survey Campaign") sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice5822.html:28 |
"The Survey Vessel C-Trojan will be conducted by Reach Subsea UK Ltd mobilising 28th August 2026 and is estimated to be completed on the 30th September 2026." | Verified VERIFIED (the parent's Norway location comes from the Haugesund dateline at L81) |
| L83 | SKANDI ACERGY — DOF Group ASA — Norway — own page | PRIMARY (operator) / INFERENCE (country) | dof.com fleet page sources/crawl/www.dof.com/fleet/skandi-acergy.html:1, :106, :208 |
"<title>Skandi Acergy | DOF"; "alternateName" : "DOF", "DOFG", "DOF Group ASA"; "The Skandi Acergy is a class leading ROV Construction Support Vessel (CSV)" | Verified VERIFIED (operator). The page itself does not say "Norway" |
| L84 | SEVEN KESTREL — Subsea 7 S.A. — Luxembourg (registered company) / London (headquartered) — press | SECONDARY | Wärtsilä reference case; Wikipedia sources/crawl/www.wartsila.com/…/seven-kestrel.html:3; sources/crawl/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsea_7.html:641 |
"the diving support vessel (DSV) to be built for Subsea 7"; "retaining Acergy's Luxembourg domicile and operational headquarters in London" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY) |
| L85 | WIND PEAK — Cadeler A/S — Denmark — press | SECONDARY | gCaptain sources/crawl/gcaptain.com/cadeler-launches-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-installation-vessel-wind-peak.html:641, :657 |
"Cadeler owns and operates the industry's largest fleet of jack-up offshore wind installation vessels"; "with both vessels to be registered in Denmark" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY) |
| L86 | SEACAT SOVEREIGN — Seacat Services Ltd — UK — own page | PRIMARY | seacatservices.co.uk sources/crawl/www.seacatservices.co.uk/our-fleet/seacat-sovereign.html:10, :202, :398 |
"Seacat Sovereign | Seacat Services | Offshore Windfarm Support"; "Copyright © 2026 Seacat Services Ltd." | Verified VERIFIED |
| L87 | NJORD ZEST — Njord Offshore Ltd — UK (minority shareholder PSA Marine, Singapore) — own page | PRIMARY | njordoffshore.com sources/crawl/www.njordoffshore.com/about-us.html:350, :542, :589 |
"Our head office is based in Tendring, UK"; "PSA Marine took a share in Njord Offshore Ltd."; "Njord Offshore took delivery of Njord Zest" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The word "minority" does not appear in the source (0 hits) |
| L88 | ESVAGT WIND 8 — "not established — not on ESVAGT's own fleet list; may be a small craft" | PRIMARY (absence) | esvagt.com fleet list sources/crawl/esvagt.com/fleet-list.html, fleet.html, fleet-index.html (0 hits for "Wind 8") |
— | Verified VERIFIED (absence). "May be a small craft" is unsourced speculation |
| L89 | "Vessel day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more › and most contract values are not published; the public pays for them through the mechanisms on the How the money works page." | Characterisation | — :224 and repeated verbatim at :239 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as consistent with W33/M16. The paragraph appears twice (Problem 18) |
| L90 | Moray East — Turbine supply (100 × V164-9.5MW) — MHI Vestas Offshore Wind — Denmark / Japan — not published — press | PRIMARY (supplier's press release) | Vestas, 6 Dec 2018 sources/crawl/www.vestas.com/en/media/mwow-press-releases/2018/moray-east-signs-firm-order-with-mhi-vestas-offshore-wind.html:1977-1986 |
"MHI Vestas will supply 100 V164-9.5 MW turbines for the 950 MW project"; "a joint venture between Vestas Wind Systems A/S 50% and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) 50%" | Verified VERIFIED (no value in the release) |
| L91 | Moray East — Inter-array cables (102 × 66kV, supply + install) — Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V. — Netherlands — ≈EUR 110m | PRIMARY (supplier's press release) | Boskalis, 6 Dec 2018 sources/crawl/boskalis.com/press/…/boskalis-acquires-inter-array-cabling-contract-for-moray-offshore-windfarm-east.html:4494-4497 |
"one hundred and two 66kV inter-array cables"; "The total value of the contract is approximately EUR 110 million." | Verified VERIFIED |
| L92 | Moray West — Turbines (60 × SG 14-222 DD) — Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy — Spain — not published | SECONDARY / INFERENCE (country) | offshorewind.biz, 24 Apr 2023 sources/crawl/www.offshorewind.biz/2023/04/24/moray-west-financial-close.html:2 |
"60 SG 14-222 DD wind turbines which will be supplied by Siemens Gamesa and have a capacity of 14.7 MW each" | Verified VERIFIED (supplier). The article does not state "Spain" |
| L93 | Moray West — Export cable system (220kV, turnkey) — Nexans S.A. — France — not published | PRIMARY (supplier's press release) | Nexans, 20 Dec 2021 sources/crawl/www.nexans.co.uk/dam/2021-12-20-pr-nexans-wins-contract-to-supply-offshore-wind-farm-Moray-West-project-cover.txt:18-20 |
"Paris, December 20, 2021 – Nexans has won a significant turnkey contract of with Ocean Winds to design, manufacture, install and protect the 220kV subsea and onshore export cable system" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L94 | Moray West — Transition pieces (60 × WTG + 2 × OSS) — Lamprell — UAE — >USD 200m | PRIMARY (supplier's press release) | Lamprell sources/crawl/www.lamprell.com/2024/11/27/contract-signed-for-moray-west-offshore-wind-farm.html:570 |
"signed the very large contract* … construction of 60 wind turbine generator transition pieces and two transition pieces for Moray West's two offshore substations"; "Very large contract: over USD 200 million" | Verified VERIFIED (a value band, not an exact figure). The UAE location rests on the site navigation only |
| L95 | Beatrice — Export cable — Nexans S.A. — France — not published | PRIMARY (incidental mention) | Nexans, 20 Dec 2021 same file :47 |
"Nexans has already delivered export cable infrastructure on the adjacent Beatrice offshore windfarm" | Verified VERIFIED |
| L96 | Shetland HVDC Link 2 — Cable supply + installation (frameworkA general agreement with a supplier for future work, without necessarily fixing the price of what is eventually ordered under it. more ›) — Sumitomo Electric Industries + Van Oord — Japan / Netherlands — not published — own page | PRIMARY (titles only) | SSEN Transmission news pages, May 2024 and Jul 2026 sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2024/5/ssen-transmission-selects-sumitomo-electric-van-oord-consortium-as-preferred-bidderThe contractor chosen to win a contract, ahead of final signature, often announced before the full contract value is disclosed. more ›-for-shetland-2-hvdc-link/index.html; sources/crawl/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2026/7/ssen-transmission-signs-long-term-framework-agreement-…/index.html |
"SSEN Transmission selects Sumitomo Electric Van Oord Consortium as Preferred Bidder for Shetland 2 HVDC link"; "…signs long-term framework agreement with Sumitomo Electric and Van Oord to support future subsea network delivery" | Not found / open PARTIAL. Only the page titles could be extracted (JavaScript-rendered pages), so "not published" really means "not extracted". The 2026 framework title does not name Shetland 2 (Problem 15) |
| L97 | Still not established: "Moray East foundation fabricator." | PRIMARY (absence) | morayeast.com sources/crawl/www.morayeast.com/project/index.html |
"The turbines are mounted on three-legged jacket foundations." (no fabricator named) | Verified VERIFIED (gap) |
| L98 | Still not established: "Shetland 2 converter supplier." | negative finding | — research/VESSELS-AND-SUPPLIERS.md:35 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as an accurately reported gap (not independently re-searched beyond that file) |
| L99 | Still not established: "Moray West monopile supplier (search snippet only, unverified)." | — | — no research file, FACT-SHEET.md or HANDOVER.md entry mentions a monopile supplier or the "search snippet" |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND. The hedge is honest, but the snippet itself is not recorded anywhere (Problem 14) |
| L100 | Still not established: "ESVAGT WIND 8 — operator and country." | PRIMARY (absence) | as L88 as L88 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| L101 | Sources paragraph | PRIMARY/SECONDARY as listed | — :251 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as consistent with the rows above. Two caveats: it lists AR25 and DTR5A rule requiring investors to tell a listed company once their shareholding crosses certain thresholds, such as 3% or 5%. more › notifications, on which no claim on this page rests, and it points to research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md, whose §4 is stale (Problem 17) |
Every row from the register for counter/risk.html. · 79 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | H1 "Who carries the risk, and what the public gets" + callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | — counter/risk.html:89-90 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Same as C3/W2. Explanation consistent with R16–R20 and R37 |
| R2 | Section intro: "£ per megawatt-hour of electricity actually delivered, from each farm's own filed accounts, set beside the contract priceThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › that applies to that farm's output today" (heading "What the public pays per unit") | Methodology / Characterisation | — counter/risk.html:95-96 |
— | Not found / open PARTIAL. The method (total revenue ÷ generation) is applied as described. But "what the public pays" counts all revenue, including PPA sales to private offtakers and, for Moray East, £87.4m of "Others" revenue (see R7 and Problem 2). The tiles also mix bases: indexedA price or allowance that rises each year in line with inflation, so its real value stays roughly constant. more › current prices for Beatrice and Moray East, 2012 prices for Moray West |
| R3 | Beatrice tile "£195.88/MWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more ›" = "£417.0m revenue ÷ 2,128.9 GWh (2,128,900 MWh) generation, year to 31 Mar 2025" | COMPUTEDLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | R4 ÷ R5 counter/risk.html:100,104 |
417,000,000 / 2,128,900 = 195.8758 → £195.88 | Verified VERIFIED |
| R4 | Beatrice revenue £417.0m, year to 31 Mar 2025 | PRIMARY | Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more ›, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd (SC350248) accounts y/e 31 Mar 2025 CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:85 (also :107, :551, :1096-1098) |
:85 "Revenue increased from £375.4m in 2024 to £417.0m in 2025"; :107 "Revenue 417.0 375.4"; :1096-1098 "Sale of renewable energy 172.5 … Contracts for difference compensation payments 244.5 … 417.0" |
Verified VERIFIED. Line correction: the revenue figure is at :85/:107/:551/:1098, not :270. Line 270 holds the generation figure (R5) |
| R5 | Beatrice generation 2,128.9 GWh | PRIMARY | same filing CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:270 (also :86) |
:270 "Total renewable generation output GWh 2,128.9 2,044.2"; :86 "2,044.2GWh in 2024 to 2,128.9GWh in 2025" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| R6 | "Current contract price: £205.70/MWh (22 Sep 2026, indexed)" | PRIMARY | as C11 LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more ›/full_actual/page_*.json, INV-BEA-001/002, latest record 2026-09-22 |
Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh = 205.7000 (earliest record 2018-11-06: 155.5300) | Verified VERIFIED |
| R7 | Moray East tile "£187.07/MWh" = "£321.411m revenue ÷ 1,718.14 GWh (1,718,140 MWh), year to 31 Dec 2025" | COMPUTED | R8 ÷ R9 counter/risk.html:109,113 |
321,411,000 / 1,718,140 = 187.0692 → £187.07 | Verified VERIFIED as arithmetic. Caveat: the revenue includes "Others 87,434" (£000), 27% of revenue ( CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:1778). Sale of electricity alone is £245.110m ÷ 1,718,140 = £142.66/MWh (:1774). The 2025 generation-weighted LCCC market reference priceThe average market electricity price used to calculate whether a wind farm is topped up or pays money back. more › was £80.87/MWh. See Problem 2 |
| R8 | Moray East revenue £321.411m | PRIMARY | Companies House, Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) Ltd (07101438) accounts y/e 31 Dec 2025 CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:80 (also :874, :1779) |
"Revenue from operations 321,411 306,851" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R9 | Moray East generation 1,718.14 GWh | PRIMARY | same filing CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:381-382 |
"The total renewable energy generation output for Moray East Wind Farm during the reporting period was 1,718.14 (2024: 1,814.89) Gigawatt hour (GWh)." | Verified VERIFIED. Line correction: :381-382, not the :498-499 cited in RISK-AND-RETURN.md |
| R10 | "LCCC's own CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more ›-eligible generation figure for the same calendar year is 1,633.0 GWh, about 5% lower … not been reconciled" | PRIMARY / COMPUTED | LCCC actual CfD generation, AR2One of the periodic government auctions at which Contracts for Difference are awarded to competing projects. more ›-MRY-107/207/307, 2025 LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (1,095 records for 2025) |
re-summed 1,633,047.969 MWh; 1,633.048/1,718.14 − 1 = −4.95%; gap 85,092 MWh | Verified VERIFIED. The non-reconciliation is honestly disclosed |
| R11 | "Current contract price: £79.95–82.34/MWh (indexed, 2025/26)" | PRIMARY | LCCC strike-price field; accounts LCCC/full_actual/*.json; CH/07101438/...txt:87,1215-1216 |
LCCC: 77.67 from 2024-04-01 to 2025-03-31; 79.95 from 2025-04-01 to 2026-03-31; 82.34 from 2026-04-01 to 2026-09-22. Accounts: "The strike price increased from £77.67/MWh to £79.95/MWh from April 2025"; "The Current Strike Price as displayed on the CfD Register is £82.34/MWh" | Not found / open PARTIAL. Both figures are real, but only £79.95 belongs to 2025/26. £82.34 is the 2026/27 price, and it is the single "current" price as at 22 Sep 2026. A range labelled "2025/26" does not match the intro's "contract price that applies … today" (compare R6) |
| R12 | "In 2025 the market reference price ran around £198/MWh, above the £82.34/MWh strike price" | PRIMARY (LCCC) | LCCC Market_Reference_Price, AR2-MRY units, 2025 LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json; repeats research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:190 |
2025 Moray East MRP: simple mean £80.74/MWh, median £81.46, generation-weighted £80.87. Only about 5 days in 2025 had MRP above £150. Records at £195–201 exist only for 2026-09-22 (198.15). Strike in 2025 was £77.67 (Jan–Mar) and £79.95 (Apr–Dec), not £82.34 | Fixed FIXED on the page 4 Oct 2026 (the original wording was not supported by the source.** £198 is one day in September 2026, not 2025. The research file itself framed it as "in some 2026 rows". In 2025 the market price sat at or just above the strike, not at about 2.4× it. See Problem 1 |
| R13 | "…so the farm's net CfD payment for the year was negative: money flowed back to billpayers" | PRIMARY / COMPUTED | LCCC 2025 net; accounts LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json; CH/07101438/...txt:1775 |
LCCC net 2025 = −£941,106.44 (gross +£14,772,962.28 / −£15,714,068.72); accounts "Contract for differences compensation payment (920)" (£000) | Verified VERIFIED. The net is negative but small: about 0.3% of revenue and near break-even. Gross flows ran about £15m each way |
| R14 | Moray West "Not computable … gap, not a zero": "Generation volume (GWh/MWh) is not disclosed in Moray West's FY2024 accounts" | PRIMARY (absence) | Companies House, Moray Offshore Windfarm (West) Ltd (10515140) accounts y/e 31 Dec 2024 CH/10515140/10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.txt (whole file) |
0 hits for "GWh". The 10 "MWh" hits are all strike-price or mechanism text (:105, :918, :920), none a generation total. NEEDS CHECK: the count of 10 "MWh" hits (new OCR text has 3 lines containing "MWh") |
Verified VERIFIED |
| R15 | "Contract prices awarded: £37.35/MWh (AR4) and £54.23/MWh (AR6), 2012 prices, neither yet started" | PRIMARY | LCCC Auction Outcomes + portfolio status + actuals filter; CH accounts LCCC/datastore_search_auction_q_Moray.json (_id 517, _id 737); LCCC/datastore_search_portfolio_q_Moray.json; LCCC/datastore_search_actual_filter_AR4-MRY-010.json, ..._AR6-MOW-010.json; CH/10515140/...txt:105 |
AR4 "Moray West Offshore Wind Farm" Strike 37.350, 294.00MW; AR6 "String 9" Strike 54.230, 73.50MW; portfolio: "Pre-Start Date" expected 2027-03-31 (220.5MW), "Pre-MDD" expected 2028-03-31 (73.5MW); both actuals filters total = 0; accounts: "awarded a Contract for Difference for 73.50 MW at a strike price of £54.23/ MWh" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R16 | Risk table, Price × Beatrice: "Public (billpayers) – two-way contractA subsidy contract that pays the generator when prices are low and takes money back when prices are high. more ›: the farm receives a fixed price per MWh; billpayers pay or receive the difference from the market price" | assessment / Characterisation (label); PRIMARY (mechanism) | Beatrice accounts, revenue note CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1088-1091 |
"The Investment CfD, secured in 2014, is set at £140 per Megawatt hour in 2012 prices. The PPA is linked to market prices and if market prices are below the level set out in the Investment Contract, the Company receives compensation … If market prices rise above the level in the Investment Contract, then the Company pays the differential." | Verified Characterisation: the "Public (billpayers)" label is the main session's editorial call. The two-way mechanism it rests on is VERIFIED (also consistent with C2, W6–W9) |
| R17 | Price × Moray East: "Public (billpayers) – two-way contract, same mechanism; in 2025 the market price ran above the strike so the farm paid the difference back" | assessment (label); PRIMARY (mechanism); PRIMARY/COMPUTED (2025) | ME accounts; LCCC CH/07101438/...txt:1210-1212; LCCC as R13 |
"…paid or must pay back (in respect of each MWh unit of electricity it generates) the difference between: a fixed 'strike price' and a 'market reference price'" | Verified Characterisation (label). Mechanism VERIFIED. 2025 clause VERIFIED on a net basis only: the 2025 mean MRP of £80.74 was just above the £79.95 strike, and the net was −£0.94m. It is correct, but not the large gap R12 implies |
| R18 | Price × Moray West: "Investor – full market-price exposure until its CfDs start (2027/2028)" | PRIMARY | LCCC portfolio and actuals as R15 |
as R15 | Verified VERIFIED (no CfD in force; expected starts 31 Mar 2027 / 31 Mar 2028). The "full exposure" wording ignores any PPA hedging, which was not researched; treat that part as an assessment |
| R19 | Price × Caledonia: "Not established – no CfD secured yet" | PRIMARY (absence) | LCCC datasets; CH accounts LCCC/*.json (0 files mention "Caledonia"); CH/13844888/13844888-accounts-2025-12-31.txt (no CfD reference) |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R20 | Price × SSEN Transmission: "Public (billpayers) – regulated allowedThe profit margin Ofgem lets a regulated grid company earn on shareholders' money, built into billpayers' charges. more › revenue, not a per-unit price sold to the public" | assessment / Characterisation | OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › RIIO-3Ofgem's current five-year price control, which sets how much transmission companies can charge billpayers and what return they earn. more › FDs; SHET accounts CH/SC213461/SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:194 ("Revenue growth is driven by allowances agreed with the regulator…") |
— | Not found / open Characterisation (main-session editorial call); consistent with RIIO-3 allowed-revenue frameworkA general agreement with a supplier for future work, without necessarily fixing the price of what is eventually ordered under it. more › |
| R21 | Volume × Beatrice / Moray East / Moray West: "Investor – paid per MWh actually generated" | PRIMARY (mechanism) | ME and MW accounts, CfD mechanism text; Beatrice revenue note CH/07101438/...txt:1210-1211; CH/10515140/...txt:918-920; CH/SC350248/...txt:1088-1091 |
"…in respect of each MWh unit of electricity it generates…" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R22 | Volume × Caledonia: "Not established – no generation yet" | PRIMARY | CH accounts CH/13844888/...txt:86,87,476 |
"Secured Offshore planning consent from the Scottish government in July 2026"; loss only, no revenue | Verified VERIFIED |
| R23 | Volume × SSEN Transmission: "Public (billpayers) – Ofgem's volume-driverAn Ofgem mechanism that adjusts a grid company's allowed income if the amount of generation or demand connected changes. more › mechanism flexes SHET's allowed revenue with connection volumes, within a threshold" | PRIMARY (mechanism) / assessment (label) | Ofgem RIIO-3 FD – SHET, §4.12-4.13 OFG-SHET:1445-1455 |
"These mechanisms will apply to projects with uncertain needs but predictable, repeatable, and measurable work, allowing revenue to adjustment with volumes… The atypical threshold … is set at ±£10.734m." | Verified VERIFIED. Nuance: the ±£10.734m threshold decides which funding route a project takes. It is not a cap on how far revenue flexes |
| R24 | CurtailmentMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › × Beatrice: "Not established – no per-farm figure found; not named among the largest-curtailed in sources checked" | SECONDARY (press) / acknowledged gap | Energy Voice, "Scottish wind farm constraint payments rise to £380m", 13 Jan 2025 sources/crawl/www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/wind/uk-wind/565451/index.html:1791 (title :868, date :891); research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:92-99 |
"…Moray East offshore wind farm and SSE's Viking onshore wind farm on Shetland round out the top three." | Verified VERIFIED. Beatrice is not named. Note: REF's constraint-payments page ( sources/crawl/www.ref.org.uk/constraints/index.html) lists "Beatrice" in its wind-farm selector, so it is in REF's constraint data, but no figure is visible (the data is login-gated) |
| R25 | Curtailment × Moray East: "Public (billpayers) – named among the most-curtailed Scottish wind farms; constraint payments are funded by billpayers via NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › balancing costsWhat the system operator spends keeping electricity supply and demand matched second by second, including constraint payments. more ›" | SECONDARY (ranking) / PRIMARY (funding route) | Energy Voice 13 Jan 2025 (2024 data); NESO ABC report 2025 as R24 :1791; sources/crawl/www.neso.energy/document/362561/download.txt:723-727 (as W11) |
as R24 | Not found / open VERIFIED (SECONDARY). Moray East is in the 2024 top three by volume. The 2025 "1.7TWh" figure in the research file was not found in a local press copy |
| R26 | Curtailment × Moray West: "Public (billpayers) – named among the most-curtailed Scottish wind farms, same mechanism" | SECONDARY | press aggregation per research/SCOTLAND-GRID-COSTS.md:16none found locally: Energy Voice 565451 does not name Moray West, and REF lists it only as a selector option |
research file: "[PRESS] aggregation of NESO/REF data, not independently verified against a REF table" | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY. It rests on the research file only, with no locally quotable source |
| R27 | Curtailment × Caledonia "Not established – no generation yet"; × SSEN Transmission "Not established – not researched for this entity" | Acknowledged gap | — as R22 |
— | Verified VERIFIED (accurate statements of gaps) |
| R28 | Construction overrun × Beatrice: "Investor – operational since 2019, risk already resolved; CfD milestoneDeadlines in a subsidy contract: missing a milestone can trigger penalties, and missing the final longstop date can end the contract. more ›/longstop rules put overrun risk on the generator generally" | PRIMARY (partial) / Explanation | Beatrice accounts; LCCC; DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more › AR8 Government Response, July 2026 CH/SC350248/...txt:72,1298; LCCC/full_actual first INV-BEA record 2018-11-06; sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/cfd-ar8-government-response-july-2026.txt:686-689 |
accounts: "Following Financial Close of the project in 2019…"; "Financial Close of the refinancing transaction was achieved on 9 July 2019"; AR8: "…a further extension of the Longstop Period to 36 months, and an extension of the current Milestone Delivery Date from 18 months to 24 months post-CfD award" | Not found / open PARTIAL. Operational and resolved: yes, and CfD generation is recorded from 6 Nov 2018. The specific year "2019" is not stated locally as a commercial-operation date (2019 is the refinancing). The AR8 text is respondents' wording about current CfD terms. It is not about Beatrice's 2014 Investment ContractAn early, CfD-equivalent support contract given to some wind farms, including Beatrice, before the CfD scheme fully started. more › |
| R29 | Construction overrun × Moray East: "Investor – operational, risk already resolved" | PRIMARY | ME accounts; LCCC portfolio CH/07101438/...txt:1782-1783 ("opted to commence its CfD arrangement … on 4 March 2024"); R9 generation |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R30 | Construction overrun × Moray West: "Investor – recorded cost increases from vessel and vendor delays during construction" | PRIMARY | MW accounts, impairment analysis CH/10515140/...txt:1741-1744 |
"…limited availability of shipping and installation vessels, and delays by vendors in meeting pre-agreed delivery schedules. These challenges have resulted in minor delays to the project timeline and an anticipated increase in costs." | Not found / open PARTIAL. The source says "anticipated increase in costs" and "minor delays". "Recorded cost increases" overstates it |
| R31 | Construction overrun × Caledonia: "Not established – not yet under construction" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts CH/13844888/...txt:86,87 |
"Secured Offshore planning consent … July 2026"; "capital spend of £17,662k … towards the activities" (development) | Verified VERIFIED |
| R32 | Construction overrun × SSEN Transmission: "Shared – Ofgem's Totex Incentive MechanismAn Ofgem rule that splits unexpected cost overruns or savings on a project between the company and billpayers. more › splits cost-risk exposure between investors and consumers; Ofgem has also raised its detailed-scrutiny threshold from £100m to £300m, relying more on the company's own assurance" | PRIMARY | NAO HC 589 §3.11-3.12; Ofgem RIIO-3 SSMD (July 2024) and FD sources/nao.txt:2491-2492, 2510-2511; OFG-SSMD:5723-5726; OFG-FD-FA:3526; OFG-SHET:200 |
NAO: "Ofgem therefore increasingly relies on information from Transmission Owners and their assurance processes…"; "increased the threshold at which it reviews costs in detail from £100 million to £300 million"; SSMD: "Totex Incentive Mechanism (TIM) rates and other mechanisms that allocate the relative exposure to operational risks between investors and consumers" | Verified VERIFIED. Provenance note: the TIM quote comes from the July 2024 SSMD, not the Final Determinations. The FD confirms TIM continues in RIIO-3 ( OFG-FD-FA:3526 "a modified Totex Incentive Mechanism sharing rate"; OFG-SHET:200). See Problem 8 |
| R33 | Financing × Beatrice: "Investor – project-financeBorrowing raised against the future income of a specific project, repaid from that project's own cash flow rather than the parent company's wider finances. more › bank debt (13 banks plus EIBThe European Investment Bank, a lender to some of the Moray Firth wind farm financing syndicates. more ›), Danish EKF guarantee on part of it" | SECONDARY | Pinsent Masons announcement (2016); IJGlobal case study 25 May 2016 sources/crawl/www.pinsentmasons.com/about-us/announcements/beatrice-financing.html:3819; sources/crawl/www.ijglobal.com/articles/100705/beatrice-offshore-wind-scotland.html:873; CH/SC350248/...txt:1297-1298 |
PM: "The project is funded by 13 commercial lenders, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Danish export credit agency Eksport Kredit Fonden…"; IJG: "Export credit agency EKF guaranteed £300 million of the EIB's loan"; accounts: borrowings £1,421.6m, "Financial Close of the refinancing transaction was achieved on 9 July 2019" | Verified SECONDARY, VERIFIED as quoted. These are the 2016 construction-financing lenders. The debt was refinanced in July 2019, and no local source names the post-refinancing lenders or confirms the EKF guarantee survived. See Problem 5 |
| R34 | Financing × Moray East: "Investor – JBICJapan's state development bank, which lent directly to Moray East's construction financing. more › plus commercial-bank syndicate, Danish EKF guarantee on part of it" | PRIMARY (lender's own release) | JBIC press release, 29 Nov 2018 sources/crawl/www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1129-011637.html:374 |
"…approximately GBP743 million (JBIC portion) … The loan is co-financed by private financial institutions and the total co-financing amount is approximately GBP1,517 million. EKF Denmark's Export Credit Agency will provide the guarantee for a part of the loan by the private financial institutions." | Verified VERIFIED |
| R35 | Financing × Moray West: "Investor – 18-bank syndicate, plus a growing capitalisedInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more › shareholder-loanMoney a company's own owners lend to it, on which the company pays interest back to them, separate from bank debt. more › and guarantee-fee component" | SECONDARY (syndicate) / PRIMARY (capitalised items) | IJGlobal 23 Jan 2023; MW accounts sources/crawl/www.ijglobal.com/articles/169884/moray-west-commitments.html:18 (also :864); CH/10515140/...txt:766-768 |
IJG: "…locked in commitments from a group of 18 lenders…"; accounts: "interest on shareholder loans capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £4,354k (2023: £3,168k)"; "guarantee fee and interest on guarantee fee capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £31,831k (2023: £24,198k)" | Verified VERIFIED. The syndicate is SECONDARY and pre-close ("commitments"). The capitalised items are PRIMARY and do grow year on year |
| R36 | Financing × Caledonia: "Investor – wholly funded by an intercompany/shareholder loan from its parent; no third-party bank debt" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts; CH charges register CH/13844888/...txt:146-149,1049; CH/13844888/charges.html |
"COWHL has entered into borrowing arrangements enabling it to draw down funding which it will pass on to the Company… back-to-back arrangements, whereby the ultimate funding is provided by OW FS Offshore, S.A., a fellow subsidiary"; "Shareholder loans 113,617 93,957"; charges page: "0 charges registered" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R37 | Financing × SSEN Transmission: "Public (taxpayers, via guarantee) – £2.0bn of new facilities agreed in FY2025/26, including an £800m UK National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › guarantee (plus Swedish EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › and Italian SACE guarantees); none drawnA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more › at 31 Mar 2026, a contingent not actual exposure" | PRIMARY (figures) / Characterisation (label) | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:16568-16570, 6529-6534 |
"Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities. As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings … or the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities"; "a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund"; "£0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by EKN (Swedish ECA)"; "…supported by SACE (Italian ECA)" | Verified VERIFIED (as W18–W22). The "contingent not actual" caveat is accurate |
| R38 | DecommissioningThe legal duty to remove offshore energy infrastructure and restore the site once it stops being used, paid for by the operator. more › × Beatrice: "Investor – Energy Act 2004 'polluter pays' regime; company already accruing a provision" | PRIMARY | BEIS decommissioning of OREIs guidance; Beatrice accounts sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/decommissioning-orei-guidance.txt:63,218-229; CH/SC350248/...txt:1073,915-918 |
guidance: "Sections 105 to 114 of the Energy Act 2004"; "(the 'polluter pays' principle)"; "…ensure taxpayers are protected against having to organise and fund decommissioning in the event of a default by a company"; accounts: "Decommissioning provision - unwinding of discount (5.2) (2.9)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R39 | Decommissioning × Moray East / Moray West: "Investor – same statutory regime"; × Caledonia: "same statutory regime, as a future obligation" | PRIMARY (regime) | as R38; MW accounts guidance as R38; CH/10515140/...txt:1339-1346 (decommissioning provision policy) |
— | Verified VERIFIED. The regime applies to OREIs generally. The Caledonia "future obligation" wording is accurate for a consented, unbuilt farm |
| R40 | Decommissioning × SSEN Transmission: "Not established – transmission assets are not subject to the same regime and were out of scope for this report" | Assertion / acknowledged gap | research/MORAY-FARMS-ACCOUNTS.md:191 (says out of scope only)guidance :530-532, 575, 654-655, 902-903 |
guidance: "…the process of their appointment as owner of offshore transmission assets or 'OFTO'…"; "…defer the decommissioning of electricity transmission infrastructure to align it with the decommissioning timetable of the related generation asset" | Not found / open PARTIAL. "Out of scope" and "Not established" are accurate. The clause "transmission assets are not subject to the same regime" is unsourced, and the guidance does cover offshore transmission (OFTOAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more ›) assets. Whether SHET's onshore-licensed HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › subseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more › link falls in or out of scope was not established |
| R41 | Class legend (filed / computed / allowed / assessment) | Explanation | — counter/risk.html:184 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as applied, except R46/R64, where "filed" covers a non-filed "stable" outlook (see R64) |
| R42 | Beatrice card: "Investment Contract (CfD-equivalent), two-way, strike £140/MWh (2012 prices)" | PRIMARY | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/...txt:1088-1091 |
as R16 | Verified VERIFIED |
| R43 | Beatrice "Op. profit marginProfit from a company's core operations, before interest on debt and tax are deducted. more › 56.1% of revenue" | COMPUTED | 234.0 / 417.0 CH/SC350248/...txt:109,555 ("Operating profit 234.0 175.4") |
= 56.12% | Verified VERIFIED |
| R44 | Beatrice "PATA company's profit once tax has been deducted: the amount available to pay dividends or keep in the business. more › 33.8% of revenue; 64.3% of closing equityProfit after tax shown as a percentage of the shareholders' stake, to measure how well that money has performed. more ›" | COMPUTED | 140.9/417.0; 140.9/219.3 CH/SC350248/...txt:82-84,111-112,560,657 |
"profit for the year after taxation amounted to £140.9m"; "net assets of £219.3m (2024: … £181.4m)" | Verified VERIFIED (33.79%; 64.25% → 64.3%) |
| R45 | Beatrice "DividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › £84.1m, 59.7% of PAT" | PRIMARY / COMPUTED | 84.1/140.9 CH/SC350248/...txt:184,114,662 |
"Dividends paid during the year amount to £84.1m (2024: £69.6m)" | Verified VERIFIED (59.69% → 59.7%) |
| R46 | Beatrice "Credit ratingAn independent agency's assessment of how likely a borrower is to repay its debts, shown as a letter-and-number grade. more ›: None found for the SPVA Special Purpose Vehicle: a company set up to own and run a single project, keeping its finances separate from its owners. more ›; parent SSE plc Moody's Baa1 / S&P BBB+, both stable" | PRIMARY (SSE releases) / absence | SSE plc news releases, 4 Dec 2025 and 13 Nov 2025 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/news-and-views/moody-s-affirms-sse-credit-rating.txt:1; .../sp-affirms-sse-credit-rating.txt:1 |
"Moody's has today affirmed SSE's credit rating of at Baa1 'stable outlook'"; "S&P Global Ratings has today affirmed SSE's credit rating of BBB+ 'stable outlook'" | Verified VERIFIED (ratings). Wording: SSE holds 40% of a JV (C19, C29), so "parent" overstates it. The research file correctly says "40% shareholder" |
| R47 | Moray East card: "Three CfDs (AR2), two-way, base strike £57.50/MWh (2012 prices)" | PRIMARY | ME accounts; LCCC auction outcomes; LCCC CfD IDs CH/07101438/...txt:1214-1215; LCCC/datastore_search_auction_q_Moray.json (_id 400: Strike 57.500); AR2-MRY-107/207/307 |
"Each CfD Agreement contains an initial Strike Price (as at a Base Year of 2012) of £57.50/MWh" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R48 | Moray East "Op. profit margin 38.3%" | COMPUTED | 123.062/321.411 CH/07101438/...txt:879 ("Operating Profit 6 123,062 111,869") |
= 38.29% | Verified VERIFIED |
| R49 | Moray East "PAT 14.0% of revenue; 10.3% of closing equity" | COMPUTED | 45.044/321.411; 45.044/437.791 CH/07101438/...txt:901,999 (PAT 45,044); :82,954,970,1005 (437,791) |
= 14.01%; 10.29% | Verified VERIFIED. (OCR noise at :1044 (LINE NOT RE-FOUND after OCR regeneration 4 Oct 2026; figure checked against PDF page 20) reads "75,044". The PBT 62,703 − tax 17,659 = 45,044 cross-check confirms 45,044) |
| R50 | Moray East "Dividends £104.2m, 231% of the year's PAT, funded substantially from reserves" | PRIMARY / COMPUTED | 104.202/45.044 CH/07101438/...txt:279,1004-1005 |
"The Company has paid interim dividends totalling £104,202k"; equity statement: retained earnings 327,004 → 267,846 after "(104,202)" | Verified VERIFIED (231.3%; retained earnings fell £59.2m in the year) |
| R51 | Moray East "Credit rating: None found for the SPV; no group-level rating (consortium, not SSE-led)" | absence / assessment | ownership per C24, C25, C27 CH/07101438/...txt:71-74 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as an absence finding; the consortium description matches C24–C27 |
| R52 | Moray West card: "Merchant exposure until its two CfDs start (2027/2028)" | PRIMARY | as R15 as R15 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R53 | Moray West "Op. profit margin 14.5% of revenue" | COMPUTED | 5.728/39.467 CH/10515140/...txt:604,608 |
"Revenue 5 39,467"; "Operating Profit/ (loss) 6 5,728 (111)" | Verified VERIFIED (14.51%) |
| R54 | Moray West "Loss after tax, −41.6% of revenue; −35.5% of closing equity" | COMPUTED | −16.401/39.467; −16.401/46.187 CH/10515140/...txt:611-614,670,684 |
"Net finance costs (27,655)"; "Loss before income tax (21,927)"; "Loss for the year (16,401)"; "Net assets 46,187 26,227" | Verified VERIFIED (−41.56%; −35.51%). Note: the filing's own strategic report ( :128) says "The Company's loss for the year was £21,927k", which is the pre-tax figure mislabelled. The page correctly uses post-tax £16.401m |
| R55 | Moray West "Dividends: None paid" | PRIMARY | MW accounts CH/10515140/...txt:128-129 |
"The directors do not recommend the payment of a dividend (2023: £nil)." | Verified VERIFIED |
| R56 | Moray West "Credit rating: None found" | absence | — — |
— | Verified VERIFIED as an absence finding |
| R57 | Caledonia card: "Pre-construction/consented; no CfD secured, no revenue" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts; LCCC (absence) CH/13844888/...txt:86,474-476; as R19 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R58 | Caledonia "Op. profit margin not applicable – no revenue"; "PAT: Loss £(23)k on negative net assetsA company's total assets minus its total liabilities: what would be left for shareholders if everything were sold and all debts paid. more ›; no return ratio is meaningful" | PRIMARY | Caledonia accounts CH/13844888/...txt:476,501,530-533 |
"Loss for the year (23) (81)"; "Net liabilities (208) (185)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R59 | Caledonia "Dividends: Not applicable"; "Credit rating: None; not applicable to a company with no third-party debt" | PRIMARY (no third-party debt) / assessment | as R36 CH/13844888/charges.html; ...txt:221-226 |
"0 charges registered" | Verified VERIFIED |
| R60 | SHET card: "Regulated return: Ofgem RIIO-T3, allowed cost of equity 5.70% CPIH-real" (allowed) | PRIMARY | Ofgem, RIIO-3 Final Determinations – Finance Annex, 4 Dec 2025, Table 16 OFG-FD-FA:3610-3617 |
"Table 16: Final Determinations on the RIIO-3 baseline allowed return on capital (average for five years end 31 March 2031, CPIH real) … SHET … Cost of equity allowance (real) 6.12% 5.70% 5.70% 5.70%" (columns GD> / NGET / SPT / SHET) | Verified VERIFIED. Citation fault in research/RISK-AND-RETURN.md:289: it cites riio3_finance_annex.txt, the July 2024 SSMD, which contains no "5.70". FACT-SHEET.md:35 cites the correct file |
| R61 | SHET "Op. profit margin 63.5% of revenue" | COMPUTED | 770.4/1,213.6 CH/SC213461/SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:1675,1680 |
"Revenue 2 1,213.6 807.0"; "Operating profit 3 770.4 435.5" | Verified VERIFIED (63.48%) |
| R62 | SHET "PAT 43.0% of revenue; 18.5% of closing book equity, several times the 5.70% allowed cost of equity – though … not computed on an identical basis" | COMPUTED / assessment | 522.1/1,213.6; 522.1/2,821.3; vs R60 CH/SC213461/...txt:1074,1685,1740 |
"The profit for the financial year amounted to £522.1m (2025: £262.0m)"; "Equity Shareholders' funds 2,821.3 2,320.3" | Verified VERIFIED (43.02%; 18.51%; 18.5/5.70 = 3.2×). The basis caveat is disclosed on the page |
| R63 | SHET "Dividends: None paid; profit retained for capex" | PRIMARY (nil dividend) / Characterisation (reason) | SHET accounts CH/SC213461/...txt:871,1074,194-195 |
"The Directors did not declare a dividend in the year (2025: £nil)"; "The Board did not declare or pay a dividend"; "Revenue growth is driven by allowances agreed with the regulator to fund increasing capital investment…" | Verified VERIFIED (nil dividend). "Retained for capex" is a reasonable gloss; no sentence in the filing states it as the reason |
| R64 | SHET "Credit rating: Moody's Baa1 / S&P BBB+, both stable, per SHET's own regulatory filing (filed); matches parent SSE plc" | PRIMARY | SSEN Transmission RFPR commentary 2025; SSE releases sources/crawl/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/globalassets/information-centre-media/financial-information/regulatory-financial-performance-report/et2-she-rfpr-commentary-2025.txt:767-768; SSE releases as R46 |
"The Company also operates under investor rate credit ratings; Moody's "Baa1"; Standard & Poor's "BBB+"." | Verified PARTIAL. The ratings are VERIFIED in SHET's own filing, but that filing gives no outlook: "stable" appears nowhere in the RFPR file. "Stable" comes from SSE plc's group releases. The RFPR is the 2025 commentary (FY2024/25) |
| R65 | Risk rating "Beatrice – Low (assessment)": "Operational since 2019 and contracted; investor downside is mainly refinancing/interest-rate risk, not volume or price." | assessment | supporting figures: interest cover 234.0/(59.3−2.8) = 4.1× CH/SC350248/...txt:556-558,1298-1300 (floating-rate facilities swapped) |
— | Not found / open assessment, consistent with filed figures. "Not volume" sits oddly beside R21, which puts volume risk on the investor. "2019" caveat as R28 |
| R66 | Beatrice public line: "billpayers already carry the two-way CfD price risk – they can pay out or claw back depending on the market" | Characterisation | as R16 as R16 |
— | Verified Characterisation, grounded in the VERIFIED two-way mechanism |
| R67 | "Moray East – Low-medium (assessment)": "weaker interest cover than Beatrice, and its £104.2m dividend was funded from reserves rather than the year's earnings" | assessment / COMPUTED | ME 123.062/60.359 = 2.04× vs Beatrice 4.14× CH/07101438/...txt:879-882; R50 |
"Finance costs - net (60,359)" | Verified VERIFIED (interest-cover comparison and reserves funding both hold) |
| R68 | Moray East public line: "two-way CfD price risk, same as Beatrice" | Characterisation | as R17 — |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, grounded |
| R69 | "Moray West – Medium-high (assessment)": "Full market-price exposure today, the highest leverage of the four, and loss-making after tax – though partly state-guaranteed lending sits behind it." | assessment / COMPUTED / unsupported | leverage: debt/equity 2,561.2/46.2 = 55.4× (Beatrice 1,421.6/219.3 = 6.5×; Moray East 1,301.4/437.8 = 3.0×); MW accounts; PROJECT-FINANCE.md CH/10515140/...txt:790,670,1886-1889; research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:31 |
accounts: guarantees were "charged by OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables… guarantees provided in connection with the equity bridge loan facilities and standby equity facilities extended by the respective shareholders"; PROJECT-FINANCE: "no UK Infrastructure Bank or National Wealth Fund role found in any source for this deal" | Not found / open PARTIAL / NOT FOUND. Market exposure and loss-making are VERIFIED. "Highest leverage of the four" holds among the three operating farms only: Caledonia has negative equity and is wholly debt-funded. "Partly state-guaranteed lending" is NOT FOUND: the only guarantees in the filing come from shareholders, and no ECA, NWF or state guarantee is in any local file. See Problem 3 |
| R70 | Moray West public line: "billpayers carry no CfD risk yet – only the state-guaranteed lending exposure described under SSEN Transmission's financing row applies elsewhere, not to Moray West itself" | Characterisation | — counter/risk.html:260 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as to "no CfD risk yet" (R15). It contradicts R69 in the same card ("partly state-guaranteed lending sits behind it") |
| R71 | "Caledonia – Very high (assessment)": "Consented but undeveloped; outcome depends on a future CfD auction … and on raising third-party project debt" | assessment | Caledonia accounts CH/13844888/...txt:86,146-152 |
facility "available to be drawn down until 30 September 2028" | Not found / open assessment, consistent with filed facts |
| R72 | Caledonia public line: "none yet – no generation, no billpayer payment of any kind" | PRIMARY (absence) | as R19, R22 — |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R73 | "SSEN Transmission – Very low (assessment)": "Regulated monopoly revenue, licence-backed cost recovery, an investment-grade rating, and government-guaranteed lending facilities; 25% owned by Ontario Teachers'." | assessment / PRIMARY components | R60, R64, R37; SSE AR26 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:2740-2745 |
"…owned 75% by SSE plc and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board" | Verified assessment; components VERIFIED (as W29) |
| R74 | SHET public line: "billpayers carry the full regulated-return cost through network charges, and taxpayers carry a contingent, undrawn guarantee exposure through the National Wealth Fund, EKN and SACE facilities" | Characterisation / PRIMARY | as R37; W14 as R37 |
— | Verified VERIFIED. Precision note: EKN and SACE are Swedish and Italian state agencies, so UK taxpayers are exposed only via the NWF £800m. The page's financing row (R37) says this correctly; this line blurs it |
| R75 | Not established #1: "No per-farm curtailment figures … only aggregate, press-sourced estimates exist" | acknowledged gap | REF per-farm data login-gated research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:92-99; sources/crawl/www.ref.org.uk/constraints/index.html ("Login to access subscription-only data") |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R76 | Not established #2: "No SPV-level credit ratings. Only the corporate parents (SSE plc, for Beatrice and SHET) are rated; Moray East, Moray West and Caledonia have no rated anchor shareholder" | acknowledged gap | — — |
— | Not found / open PARTIAL. It conflicts with R64, where SHET carries its own Baa1/BBB+ rating per its own filing, not just its parent's. The "parent" wording for Beatrice is the same issue as R46 |
| R77 | Not established #3: "The 15-year CfD term is not confirmed from a document. LCCC's portfolio-status dataset gives a start date but no contract-end-date field" | PRIMARY (absence) | LCCC portfolio dataset schema LCCC/datastore_search_portfolio_q_Moray.json (fields) |
fields = _id, CFD_ID, Name_of_CFD_Unit, Allocation_Round, Technology_Type, Transmission_or_Distribution_connection, Status, Expected_Start_Date, Maximum_Contract_Capacity_MW, rank | Verified VERIFIED (no end-date field) |
| R78 | Not established #4: "Moray West's generation volume (MWh/GWh) was not found in its FY2024 accounts" | PRIMARY (absence) | as R14 as R14 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| R79 | Sources paragraph | PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as listed counter/risk.html:287 |
— | Not found / open PARTIAL. Every listed source exists locally. "RIIO-3 Final Determinations (Finance Annex…)" also needs the July 2024 SSMD Finance Annex, because that is where the TIM quote comes from (R32). The press sources behind R24–R26 and R33/R35 (Energy Voice, IJGlobal, Pinsent Masons) are not listed |
Every row from the register for counter/glossary.json. · 72 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | levyA charge added to suppliers' costs, which they pass on in bills, to fund things like the Contracts for Difference subsidy. more ›: CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › funded by a compulsory charge on suppliers, passed on through the unit rateThe price charged per unit of electricity used, the main component of most household and business electricity bills. more ›; source "Energy Act 2013, Part 2, Chapter 2 (the CfD supplier obligation)" | Legal characterisation | Energy Act 2013 No legislation.gov.uk copy of EA2013 in sources/crawl/ |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled). "Through the unit rate on every bill" is explanation and is not sourced. |
| G2 | cfd: two-way strike-price mechanism; "Payments and clawbacks are administered by the Low Carbon Contracts CompanyThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more › and published daily"; source EA2013 Pt 2 Ch 2 | PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › (daily publication) / legal | LCCC "Actual CfD Generation and avoided GHG emissions" sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/full_actual/page_*.json (117,196 records, one row per CfD unit per Settlement_Date) |
fields Settlement_Date, CFD_Payments_GBP, Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh, Market_Reference_Price_GBP_Per_MWh |
Not found / open VERIFIED (daily data, as C2). The statute citation is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G3 | investment-contract: Beatrice's Investment ContractAn early, CfD-equivalent support contract given to some wind farms, including Beatrice, before the CfD scheme fully started. more › "sets a strike priceThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › of £140 per megawatt-hour at 2012 prices, which rises each year with inflation" | PRIMARY | Beatrice FY2025 accounts note 8; LCCC indexedA price or allowance that rises each year in line with inflation, so its real value stays roughly constant. more › strike series CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1088; LCCC JSON (INV-BEA-001 earliest £155.53, latest £205.70, per research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:55) |
"The Investment CfD, secured in 2014, is set at £140 per Megawatt hour in 2012 prices." | Not found / open VERIFIED (£140, 2012 prices, two-way). The statute citation "Part 2, Chapter 2 (transitional investment contracts)" is NOT FOUND LOCALLY; see Problem 7. |
| G4 | strike-price: "Beatrice's current contract price is £205.70/MWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more ›; Moray East's is £82.34/MWh" | PRIMARY | LCCC, as C11/C15 LCCC JSON, recomputed this session: latest record 2026-09-22 |
INV-BEA-001/002 Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh = 205.7000; AR2-MRY-107/207/307 = 82.3400 |
Verified VERIFIED |
| G5 | two-way-contract: "In 2025 the market price ran above Moray East's strike price for periods, so the farm paid money back rather than receiving a top-up" | PRIMARY/COMPUTED | LCCC, AR2One of the periodic government auctions at which Contracts for Difference are awarded to competing projects. more ›-MRY-107/207/307, calendar 2025 LCCC JSON, recomputed this session |
2025 net CFD_Payments_GBP = −£941,106.44; 597 negative unit-days against 461 positive |
Verified VERIFIED. Net figure matches research/RISK-AND-RETURN.md:131 and research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:54. |
| G6 | reference-price: averaged market price compared with the strike price; "calculated and published independently of the generator"; source "LCCC, CfD methodology" | PRIMARY (field exists) / characterisation | LCCC dataset LCCC JSON field Market_Reference_Price_GBP_Per_MWh |
— | Not found / open PARTIAL. The field is published per unit per day. No LCCC methodology document is held locally, so the "independently of the generator" wording is unsourced. |
| G7 | indexed-cpi: Beatrice's 2012-price contract "has grown to £205.70/MWh today"; OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › returns set in "CPIH-real" terms | PRIMARY | As G3/G4; Ofgem RIIO-3Ofgem's current five-year price control, which sets how much transmission companies can charge billpayers and what return they earn. more › FD Finance Annex Table 16 LCCC JSON; sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/RIIO-3-Final-Determinations-Finance-Annex.txt:3610-3615 |
"Table 16: … (average for five years end 31 March 2031, CPIH real)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G8 | allocation-round: auction "run by the UK government, through the Low Carbon Contracts Company" | Legal/institutional characterisation | DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more ›, CfD AR8 Government Response, July 2026 sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/cfd-ar8-government-response-july-2026.txt:931 (and :1457, :1506) |
"…will be treated as withdrawn by the Delivery Body"; eligibility set out in "the Delivery Body's 'Contract Allocation Process…'" | Fixed FIXED on the page 4 Oct 2026 (the original wording was not supported by the source (wording). The local DESNZ document gives the auction to a "Delivery Body", not to LCCC. LCCC appears in it only as the contract counterparty and administrator (:159, :447, :456). See Problem 3. |
| G9 | lccc: "a company owned by the UK government which acts as the counterparty to every Contract for Difference … publishes detailed daily data" | PRIMARY | DESNZ, *CfD and Capacity Market Scheme Update 2025* (HC 1590, 17 Dec 2025); LCCC data portal sources/crawl/www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-difference-and-capacity-market-scheme-update-2025/…-accessible-webpage.html (single-line HTML, search "wholly owned"); LCCC JSON |
"…wholly owned by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero … operate within two main frameworks: the Energy Act 2013 …" | Verified VERIFIED (government ownership, EA2013 frameworkA general agreement with a supplier for future work, without necessarily fixing the price of what is eventually ordered under it. more ›, daily data). "Collects the levy from electricity suppliers" is not quoted from a local file. |
| G10 | constraint-curtailmentMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more ›: "GB-wide thermal constraint costs were £1.7bn in 2024/25" | PRIMARY | NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more ›, 2025 Annual Balancing CostsWhat the system operator spends keeping electricity supply and demand matched second by second, including constraint payments. more › Report, as W12 sources/crawl/www.neso.energy/document/362561/download.txt:768-775 |
"Thermal constraint costs have increased by 64% in 2024/25, totalling £1.7bn." | Verified VERIFIED |
| G11 | balancing-costs: "GB balancing costs totalled £2.7bn in 2024/25, of which £1.7bn was thermal constraint costs"; recovered through bill charges | PRIMARY | NESO report, as W11/W12; NAO HC 589 §1.5 (BSUoS) NESO download.txt:723-727, :768-775; sources/nao.txt:737-741 |
NESO: "Overall balancing costs totalled £2.7bn in 2024/25…"; NAO: "Balancing Services Use of System (BSUoS) charges are levied on electricity suppliers … They totalled £2.7 billion in 2024-25" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G12 | neso: public body operating the GB system; source "Energy Act 2023, Part 5 (Independent System OperatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more › and Planner)" | Legal characterisation | Electricity Act 1989The UK statute that underpins transmission licensing, the bill discount scheme and compulsory acquisition powers for projects like this one. more › s.6 (as amended) sources/crawl/www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/section/6.txt:1 (single line) |
"(da) … a licence authorising a person to co-ordinate and direct the flow of electricity onto and over transmission systems … ('an electricity system operator licence')"; annotation F5 "inserted (31.1.2024) by Energy Act 2023 (c. 52), ss. 166(4)" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The local file confirms the Energy Act 2023 created the ESO licence (s.166). No local copy of EA2023 confirms "Part 5" or its title. |
| G13 | tnuosTransmission Network Use of System charges: the part of a bill that pays for building and running the high-voltage grid. more ›: "TNUoS charges totalled £5.1bn in 2025-26"; source NAO HC 589, 11 September 2026 | PRIMARY | NAO, *Upgrading the electricity transmission network*, as W14 sources/nao.txt:729-735 (date :13-15, "11 SEPTEMBER 2026 / HC 589") |
"Transmission costs: Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) charges … These charges totalled £5.1 billion in 2025-26." | Verified VERIFIED. "These charges" is confirmed to mean TNUoS. The quote sits at :729-735; W14 cites :725-732, a small line drift. |
| G14 | ofgem: licenses SSEN Transmission, sets recoverable charges; "independent of government but accountable to Parliament"; source Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989 | Legal characterisation | Electricity Act 1989 s.6 …/ukpga/1989/29/section/6.txt:1 |
"(1) The Authority may grant any of the following licences— … (b) … ('a transmission licence')" | Not found / open PARTIAL. EA1989 s.6 confirms the Authority grants transmission licences. No Gas Act copy is held. "Accountable to Parliament" is unsourced. |
| G15 | riio-t3: five-year settlement "covering the years to 31 March 2031"; SSEN Transmission allowed cost of equityThe profit margin Ofgem lets a regulated grid company earn on shareholders' money, built into billpayers' charges. more › "5.70% CPIH-real" | PRIMARY | Ofgem RIIO-3 FD Finance Annex, 4 Dec 2025, Table 16 …/2025-12/RIIO-3-Final-Determinations-Finance-Annex.txt:3612-3618 |
"Cost of equity allowance (real) 6.12% 5.70% 5.70% 5.70%" (SHET column = 5.70%); heading "average for five years end 31 March 2031, CPIH real" | Verified VERIFIED. "RIIO stands for Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs" is explanation and not quoted locally. |
| G16 | cost-of-equity: "SSEN Transmission's allowed cost of equity under RIIO-T3 is 5.70%, CPIH-real" | PRIMARY | As G15 As G15 |
As G15 | Verified VERIFIED |
| G17 | regulatory-asset-value: "Ofgem forecasts SSEN Transmission's Regulatory Asset ValueThe value of a grid company's assets that Ofgem allows it to earn a regulated return on, recovered from billpayers over time. more › to grow from £9,150.2m to £35,250.3m between 2027 and 2031" | PRIMARY | Ofgem RIIO-3 FD Finance Annex, Table 53 "SHET RAV (£m nominal)" …Finance-Annex.txt:8163-8175 |
"Opening RAV 9150.2" (column "31 Mar 2027") … "Closing RAV … 35250.3" (column "31 Mar 2031") | Verified VERIFIED (figures). The columns are financial years ending 31 Mar 2027 to 31 Mar 2031, so the opening value is at the start of 2026/27. The figures are £m nominal and the glossary does not say so. See Problem 12. |
| G18 | pass-throughA cost Ofgem lets a network company recover in full from billpayers, rather than paying for out of its own profit. more ›-cost: Ofgem guidance says the mechanism ensures the TO is "not financially disadvantaged"; source dated 1 April 2026 | PRIMARY | Ofgem, *Community FundsMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › for Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Pass-Through: Guidance*, as W16 sources/passthrough.txt:4 (date), :176-181 |
"fully Pass-Through Cost, meaning that TOs may recover 100% of eligible Community Fund Costs … designed to ensure that TOs are not financially disadvantaged" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G19 | totex-incentive-mechanism: shares over- and underspend risk between company and billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›; company "keeps part of any saving" | PRIMARY | Ofgem RIIO-3 FD Finance Annex sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/riio3_finance_annex.txt:5724-5726, :9810-9811 |
"Totex Incentive Mechanism (TIM) rates and other mechanisms that allocate the relative exposure to operational risks between investors and consumers"; "…totex incentive mechanism sharing factor…" | Verified VERIFIED (mechanism and sharing). The SHET sharing rate itself is not quoted. |
| G20 | volume-driverAn Ofgem mechanism that adjusts a grid company's allowed income if the amount of generation or demand connected changes. more ›: allowed revenue adjusts if connected generation or demand volume differs from forecast, "within a set threshold" | PRIMARY | Ofgem RIIO-3 FD for SHET §§4.12-4.13 sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/RIIO-3-Final-Determinations-SHET.txt:1447-1452 |
"…allowing revenue to adjustment with volumes … The atypical threshold … is set at ±£10.734m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G21 | community-fund: guidance "expects" funds at recommended rates, "not a legal entitlement"; buried cable out of scope; Ofgem lets the TO recover 100% | PRIMARY | DESNZ, *Community Funds for Transmission Infrastructure: Guidance*; Ofgem pass-through guidance, as W16/W17 sources/commfunds.txt:181-182, :201, :320-329, :380-384; sources/passthrough.txt:176-181 |
"underground cables are not within scope"; "the government's expectation of the level of funding that developers should provide"; "If developers depart from this guidance, we expect them to explain why to communities." | Verified VERIFIED. The "landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more ›" qualifier is correct: the converter stationA large facility that converts electricity between the direct current used by a subsea cable and the alternating current used by the onshore grid. more › at the hub is in scope at £530,000 ( commfunds.txt:327). |
| G22 | transmission-owner: licensed by Ofgem; "There are three: SSEN Transmission … SP Transmission … National Grid Electricity Transmission"; source Electricity Act 1989 s.6(1)(b) | PRIMARY (statute) / characterisation | EA1989 s.6(1)(b) …/ukpga/1989/29/section/6.txt:1 |
"(b) a licence authorising a person to participate in the transmission of electricity for that purpose ('a transmission licence')" | Verified PARTIAL. s.6(1)(b) is verified. "There are three" rests on FACT-SHEET.md:25, an editorial note with no source, and leaves out OFTOs (see Problem 10). |
| G23 | oftoAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more ›: "Moray East sold its transmission asset to TC Moray East OFTO Ltd, using the proceeds to repay its shareholder loanMoney a company's own owners lend to it, on which the company pays interest back to them, separate from bank debt. more ›"; source "Energy Act 2004, Chapter 6" | PRIMARY (fact) / legal | Moray East FY2025 accounts CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:1998-2007 |
"signed an agreement to dispose of its Transmission assets to TC Moray East OFTO Limited … received £666,095k … The proceeds were used by the subsidiary to settle the Transmission loans and shareholder loans in their entirety" | Not found / open VERIFIED (sale and repayment). The statute citation is NOT FOUND LOCALLY, and it gives no Part number (Problem 7). |
| G24 | converter-station: Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 "includes a 2GW converter station, larger than the 1.8GW capacity of the cable link itself" | PRIMARY / characterisation | SSEN Autumn 2026 booklet; Ofgem tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more › consultation (1 Aug 2024); SSEN news, Sept 2024 sources/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.txt:717-720; sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-07/Consultation_…CSNP2_projects.txt:2384; sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2024/9/early-engagement-…/index.html |
Booklet: "HVDC Converter Station - A 2GW bi-pole, 525kV HVDC link is proposed"; Ofgem: "SHL256 New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland - Coachford"; SSEN 2024: "planned to be built to a capacity of 1.8GW" | Not found / open PARTIAL. Both numbers are in the sources, but the 2026 booklet calls the 2GW the *link* (under a converter-station heading). Reading it as "converter 2GW > link 1.8GW" is an inference carried from FACT-SHEET fact 2. See Problem 8. |
| G25 | hvdc: "Shetland HVDC Link 2 is a planned 1.8GW HVDC cable from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire/Moray coast" | PRIMARY | As G24; booklet; SSEN project page As G24; FACT-SHEET.md:12 (project page :952, "parts of Aberdeenshire and Moray") |
As G24 | Verified VERIFIED (1.8GW per Ofgem 2024 and SSEN 2024), with the same 1.8/2GW caveat as G24 |
| G26 | bipoleAn HVDC link built using two conductors of opposite polarity, which can keep working at half capacity if one fails. more ›: SSEN describes the converter station as part of "a 2GW bi-pole, 525kVThe voltage class of the bipole cable proposed for Shetland HVDC Link 2. more › HVDC link" | PRIMARY | SSEN Autumn 2026 booklet …autumn-2026.txt:717-720 |
"HVDC Converter Station - A 2GW bi-pole, 525kV HVDC link is proposed" | Verified VERIFIED (verbatim) |
| G27 | nameplateThe maximum power a wind farm is rated to generate, which is usually higher than the capacity actually covered by its subsidy contract. more ›-capacity: Moray East "nameplate capacity, as recorded in the government's Auction Outcomes dataset, is 950MW"; unit capacities sum "about 938MW"; source "DESNZ, CfD Allocation Round Auction Outcomes dataset" | PRIMARY | LCCC data portal, Auction Outcomes and Contract Portfolio Status, as C14 sources/crawl/dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/datastore_search_auction_q_Moray.json; …/datastore_search_portfolio_q_Moray.json |
Auction: "Project_Name": "Moray Offshore Windfarm (East)", "Capacity_MW": "950.00"; Portfolio: Maximum_Contract_Capacity_MW 309.469 + 309.363 + 318.770 = 937.602 |
Verified VERIFIED (figures). The local copy is LCCC's portal, not a DESNZ file, so the publisher attribution is unconfirmed (Problem 11). |
| G28 | capacity-under-contract: "938MW under contractThe generating capacity actually covered by a subsidy contract, which can be a smaller number than a farm's full nameplate capacity. more › (950MW nameplate)"; source "LCCC, CfD register" | PRIMARY | As G27 / C14 As G27 |
As G27 | Verified VERIFIED. "The 938MW figure is what the farm's subsidy payments are calculated against" is a characterisation: payments are per metered MWh, and 938MW is the maximum contract capacity. |
| G29 | dividendA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more ›: definition; source "Companies Act 2006, Part 23" | Legal | CA 2006 No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled). Definition is uncontested. |
| G30 | interim-dividend: "Beatrice declared a further £16.0m interim dividendA dividend paid or declared during the financial year, or shortly after it, rather than waiting for the full year-end accounts. more ›, and Moray East a further £56.790m interim dividend, both after their latest accounts were filed, to the same ownership split as the main dividend" | PRIMARY | Beatrice FY2025 and Moray East FY2025 accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:253-254; CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:2625-2626 (also :185) |
Beatrice: "Post year end, the directors have approved an interim dividend prior to the issue of the financial statements, An interim dividend of £16.0m … was approved on 29 July 2025." Moray East: "The Company post year end has declared an Interim dividend of £56,790k to its parent (followed by MEHL issuing dividends to its shareholders)." | Fixed FIXED on the page 4 Oct 2026 (the original wording was not supported by the source (timing) / PARTIAL (split). Both amounts are right. Both were declared after the year end but before the accounts were issued; they appear in those accounts as subsequent events, not "after … filed". The filings do not state the onward split. See Problem 1. |
| G31 | profit-after-tax: definition; source CA 2006 Part 15 | Legal | CA 2006 No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled) |
| G32 | operating-profit: "Beatrice's operating profitProfit from a company's core operations, before interest on debt and tax are deducted. more › marginA profit figure expressed as a percentage of revenue, showing how much of each pound of income is kept as profit. more › is 56.1% of revenue" | COMPUTED from PRIMARY | Beatrice FY2025 accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:109 (operating profit 234.0), :85 (revenue £417.0m) |
"Operating profit 234.0 175.4"; "Revenue increased from £375.4m in 2024 to £417.0m in 2025" | Not found / open VERIFIED (234.0 ÷ 417.0 = 56.1%). The CA 2006 Part 15 citation is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G33 | margin: worked example "operating profit margin of 56.1%" | COMPUTED | As G32 As G32 |
— | Verified VERIFIED (as G32) |
| G34 | book-equity: definition; source CA 2006 Part 15 | Legal | CA 2006 No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled) |
| G35 | return-on-equity: "Beatrice's profit after taxA company's profit once tax has been deducted: the amount available to pay dividends or keep in the business. more › … 64.3% of its closing equityThe value of a company's assets minus its liabilities, as recorded in its own accounts: the shareholders' stake on paper. more ›, high partly because the company is financed mostly by debt" | COMPUTED from PRIMARY | Beatrice FY2025 accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:82-84 (PAT £140.9m; net assetsA company's total assets minus its total liabilities: what would be left for shareholders if everything were sold and all debts paid. more › £219.3m); :1297 (borrowings 1,421.6) |
"profit for the year after taxation amounted to £140.9m … net assets of. £219.3m" | Verified VERIFIED (140.9 ÷ 219.3 = 64.25%, rounds to 64.3%; £1,421.6m borrowings against £219.3m equity) |
| G36 | project-financeBorrowing raised against the future income of a specific project, repaid from that project's own cash flow rather than the parent company's wider finances. more ›: "Beatrice, Moray East and Moray West were all built this way, each with its own syndicate of lending banks" | PRIMARY (charges) / SECONDARY (syndicates) | Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › charges registers; financial-close press via research/PROJECT-FINANCE.mdCH/SC350248/charges.html:430 (opened); Moray East/West charges reused from research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:16-19, :25-32 |
"Mufg Bank, LTD as Security Trustee" | Verified VERIFIED (Beatrice charges opened; Moray East/West reused). Syndicate membership is SECONDARY. |
| G37 | shareholder-loan: "Caledonia and Moray West both owe shareholder-loan interest to their owners; Moray East's was repaid in full and Beatrice has none" | PRIMARY | CH accounts CH/13844888/13844888-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:915, :147-149; CH/10515140/10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.txt:766; CH/07101438/…:2004-2007; Beatrice: no "shareholder loan" string anywhere in CH/SC350248/…txt, and the only group loan is receivable at 2.33% (:1229) |
Caledonia: "Interest on shareholder loans 7,962 7,099"; MW: "interest on shareholder loans capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £4,354k"; ME: "no further amounts payable on account of borrowings for transmission loans and shareholder loans" | Verified VERIFIED. Caledonia's lender is its parent COWHL, funded back-to-back by OW FS Offshore S.A., a fellow subsidiary. "Their owners" is a fair summary. |
| G38 | guarantee-fee: "Moray West has paid a guarantee feeA charge paid for a third party's promise to cover a loan if the borrower cannot repay it. more ›, together with interest on it, to its shareholders Ocean Winds and Ignitis, capitalised intoInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more › the cost of the project rather than paid out in cash" | PRIMARY | Moray West FY2024 accounts CH/10515140/10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.txt:767, :1886-1890 |
"guarantee fee and interest on guarantee fee capitalised in Borrowings amounting to £31,831k"; "The guarantee fee loans comprise amounts payable in respect of guarantee fees and accrued interest on unpaid guarantee fees, charged by OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables … Repayment … will commence upon … COD" | Fixed FIXED on the page 4 Oct 2026 (the original wording was not supported by the source (wording). The filing says the fees are unpaid and have been turned into loans. "Has paid" contradicts both the source and the entry's own "rather than paid out in cash". See Problem 2. |
| G39 | export-credit-agency: EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › (Sweden) and SACE (Italy) "have guaranteed bank facilities agreed by SSEN Transmission" | PRIMARY | SSE plc AR2026, committed facilities table, as W20/W21 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:6531-6534 |
"a £0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by EKN (Swedish ECA)"; "a £0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by SACE (Italian ECA)" | Verified VERIFIED. "The Swedish and Italian governments, not UK taxpayers, would stand behind those specific guarantees" is a characterisation that follows from ECA status; the report does not say it. |
| G40 | national-wealth-fund: "£800m guarantee from the National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › on a £1.0bn bank facility, undrawnA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more › as of 31 March 2026"; source "National Wealth Fund (Accounts and Audit) Act 2025" | PRIMARY (facility) / legal | SSE AR2026, as W19/W22 …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:6529-6530, :16569-16571 |
"a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund"; "no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities" | Not found / open VERIFIED (figures). The statute named in "source" appears in no local file. NOT FOUND LOCALLY, and the title is unconfirmed (Problem 4). |
| G41 | non-controlling-interest: OTPP holds a 25% NCI in SSEN Transmission alongside SSE plc's 75%; source CA 2006 Pt 15 / IFRS 10 | PRIMARY | SSE AR2026, as W29 …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:2740-2743 |
"is owned 75% by SSE plc and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board" | Not found / open VERIFIED (stake). CA 2006 and IFRS 10 are NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G42 | profit-attributable: "Ontario Teachers' had £188.3m of profit attributableThe share of a group's profit allocated to a particular shareholder on paper, which is not the same as cash actually paid to them. more › to its 25% stake … in the year to March 2026, while the company paid no dividend that year" | PRIMARY | SSE AR2026; SHET FY2025/26 accounts, as W30/W31 …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:16945; CH/SC213461/SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:871,1074 (per W31, reused) |
"Adjusted net profit attributable to 25% non-controlling interest 188.3 107.3" | Verified VERIFIED. The source figure is adjusted net profit; the glossary drops "adjusted" (Problem 13). The no-dividend line is reused from W31 and was not reopened. |
| G43 | pscA person or entity recorded as having substantial ownership or control of a UK company, held on a public Companies House register. more ›: substantial stake "(generally more than 25%)"; register public; source CA 2006 Part 21A | PRIMARY (register practice) / legal | Companies House PSC registers e.g. CH/10700891/persons-with-significant-control.html |
"More than 25% but not more than 50%" | Not found / open VERIFIED (threshold banding as shown on the register). CA 2006 Pt 21A is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G44 | crown-dependency: "The Renewables Infrastructure Group and the Equitix vehicle holding stakes in Beatrice and Moray East are incorporated in Guernsey" | PRIMARY (Equitix Anemoi) / SECONDARY (TRIG) | PSC filing for 15065285; press, as C26/C27 As C27 (Equitix Anemoi Bidco: "Incorporated in: Guernsey"); TRIG as C26 |
— | Not found / open PARTIAL. Correct if read as TRIG (Beatrice) plus Equitix Anemoi (Moray East). It can also be read as saying the Equitix vehicle at Beatrice is in Guernsey, which C28/C32/M9 record as not traced. See Problem 5. |
| G45 | credit-rating: Moody's Baa1An independent agency's assessment of how likely a borrower is to repay its debts, shown as a letter-and-number grade. more › and S&P BBB+; "SSE plc and SSEN Transmission share these ratings; the individual wind farm companies generally have no rating" | PRIMARY | SHET RFPR commentary 2025; SSE press releases sources/crawl/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/globalassets/…/et2-she-rfpr-commentary-2025.txt:768-769; sources/crawl/www.sse.com/news-and-views/moody-s-affirms-sse-credit-rating.html; …/sp-affirms-sse-credit-rating.html |
"The Company also operates under investor rate credit ratings; Moody's "Baa1"; Standard & Poor's "BBB+"; SSE: "Baa1 'stable outlook'", "BBB+ 'stable outlook'" | Verified VERIFIED. "No SPVA Special Purpose Vehicle: a company set up to own and run a single project, keeping its finances separate from its owners. more › rating" is a negative finding reused from research/RISK-AND-RETURN.md:391-393. |
| G46 | foiLegal rights to request information from public bodies (FOI) or environmental information from a wider range of bodies (EIR). more ›: FOIA covers only Schedule 1The list in the Freedom of Information Act that defines which bodies the public can make FOI requests to. more › bodies; EIR wider; "requests to SSEN Transmission are made under the EIR" | Legal + PRIMARY (correspondence) | SSEN Transmission handled a request under the EIR, Sept 2026 Correspondence held privately, not published |
Subject line of SSEN's acknowledgement names the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 | Not found / open VERIFIED (SSEN handling under EIR). FOIA and the EIR text are NOT FOUND LOCALLY (as W34); EIR reg 2(3) is only in research/EIR-applicability.md, not reopened. |
| G47 | schedule-1-public-authority: private companies, "even regulated utilities", not listed; source FOIA 2000 Sch 1 | Legal | FOIA 2000 No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled), consistent with W34 |
| G48 | kingfisherA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more ›-bulletin: notices "often name the vessels involved", e.g. Wind Peak at Moray West; source "Kingfisher Information Service, Fishsafe Wind" | PRIMARY | Kingfisher notices 6142, 5822 sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice6142.html; …/notice5822.html:28 |
6142: "…utilising the jack-up vessel 'Wind Peak'…" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G49 | jack-upA vessel with legs that lower to the seabed, lifting the hull clear of the water to work steadily on offshore structures. more ›: "The vessel Wind Peak worked as a jack-up on a transformer exchange at Moray West" | PRIMARY (planned work) | Kingfisher notice 6142, as C39 …/notice6142.html |
"…transformer exchange which will be carried out at two locations: WTG EO8 and WTG L09 … utilising the jack-up vessel 'Wind Peak'"; metadata "notice_completed":"0", endDate 2026-11-17 |
Not found / open PARTIAL. The notice describes planned work and is not marked complete. "Worked" in the past tense goes further than the notice. |
| G50 | errvAn Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel: a standby ship providing safety cover for workers at an offshore site. more ›: "One was recorded on 24-hour cover for the jack-up vessel Wind Peak during its work at Moray West, named in a Kingfisher Bulletin … notice"; source notice 6142 | PRIMARY | Kingfisher notice 6142, as C42 …/notice6142.html |
"There will be a ERRV (Emergency Response & Rescue Vessel) in the field 24 hours a day to provide cover for the JUV" | Verified VERIFIED (planned cover, as notified). Same tense caveat as G49. |
| G51 | survey-vessel: "A survey vesselA ship equipped to investigate seabed conditions, used before cables or foundations are installed. more › was recorded working on a geotechnical survey for the consented Caledonia wind farm" | PRIMARY | Kingfisher notice 5902, as C44 …/notice5902.html |
title "Geotechnical Survey - Caledonia Offshore Wind Farm Array Area", startDate 2026-05-05, endDate 2026-10-31; "notice_completed_text":"This activity is now complete. All vessels have been demobilised and no further work is planned." |
Verified VERIFIED for the glossary's past-tense wording. The completion flag affects C44; see Problem 6. |
| G52 | day-rate: vessel-meter rates are the best estimates available, from an offshore vessel fleet manager who runs this site | ESTIMATE (self-disclosed) | As W41/C35 counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:107 (per C35) |
— | Verified VERIFIED (consistent with W41; not reopened) |
| G53 | aisAutomatic Identification System: a tracking signal most ships broadcast, letting their position and route be followed publicly. more ›: source "IMO, SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 19" | Legal | SOLAS No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (international convention, not crawled) |
| G54 | landfall: "proposed landfall is at Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay … roughly 30km of underground cable would run to a hub near Huntly" | PRIMARY | SSEN Autumn 2026 booklet, as W13 …autumn-2026.txt:376, :626-627, :641 |
"Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay to take forward to the marine routeing exercise"; "The onshore cable will run for approximately 30km from the landfall to the substation site"; "…to the north-east of Huntly" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G55 | scottish-sacA nature conservation designation protecting habitats and species of European importance. Not to be confused with SACE, Italy's export credit agency. more › (SACE): "has guaranteed a £0.5bn bank facility agreed by SSEN Transmission" | PRIMARY | SSE AR2026, as W21 …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:6533-6534 |
"a £0.5bn committed ECA facility supported by SACE (Italian ECA)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G56 | companies-house: public filings "can be searched and downloaded free of charge"; source CA 2006 Part 35 | Legal | CA 2006 No local copy |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND LOCALLY (general statute, not re-crawled). The 300+ local CH downloads are consistent with it. |
| G57 | security-trustee: "MUFG Bank acts as security trusteeA bank that holds the legal security for a group of lenders, without itself being an owner or necessarily a lender. more › for Beatrice's lending syndicate; it is not an owner of Beatrice" | PRIMARY | Beatrice charges register CH/SC350248/charges.html:430,475,520,565 |
"Mufg Bank, LTD as Security Trustee" | Verified VERIFIED (trustee role). "Not an owner" rests on FACT-SHEET 14D / research/OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md §1, reused. |
| G58 | spv: "Beatrice, Moray East, Moray West and Caledonia are each run through their own SPV" | PRIMARY | Companies House Separate company folders CH/SC350248, CH/07101438, CH/10515140, CH/13844888 |
— | Verified VERIFIED (a separate operating company for each project) |
| G59 | net-assets: "Ontario Teachers' paid £1,465.0m for a 25% stake … when the whole company's net assets were £2,319.3m, 2.53 times its 25% share" | PRIMARY + COMPUTED | SSE plc AR2023 financial statements, note 12.2 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/21katfhx/financial-statements.txt:1997-2000, :2008-2014 |
"…cash consideration of £1,465.0m, less transactions costs of £16.9m … the consolidated carrying value of SHET's net assets was £2,319.3m"; "Carrying value of non-controlling interests disposed (579.8)" | Verified VERIFIED (1,465.0 ÷ 579.8 = 2.527, rounds to 2.53). The figure is the *consolidated carrying value* of SHET's net assets. |
| G60 | contingent-exposure: "£2.0bn of National Wealth Fund, EKN and SACE-guaranteed facilities were undrawn at 31 March 2026" | PRIMARY | SSE AR2026, as W18/W22 …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:16569-16571 |
"Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities. As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities." | Verified VERIFIED |
| G61 | milestoneDeadlines in a subsidy contract: missing a milestone can trigger penalties, and missing the final longstop date can end the contract. more ›-longstop: missing a milestone "can trigger penalties", missing the longstop "can end the contract"; source "LCCC, CfD standard terms and conditions" | PRIMARY (partial) | DESNZ AR8 Government Response, July 2026 sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/cfd-ar8-government-response-july-2026.txt:686-690 (per research/RISK-AND-RETURN.md:66-70; line 687 seen this session) |
"…a further extension of the Longstop Period to 36 months, and an extension of the current Milestone Delivery Date from 18 months to 24 months post-CfD award" | Not found / open PARTIAL. Milestone Delivery Date and Longstop Period exist. No LCCC standard terms are held locally, so "penalties" and "end the contract" are not quoted. |
| G62 | decommissioningThe legal duty to remove offshore energy infrastructure and restore the site once it stops being used, paid for by the operator. more ›: polluter pays; source "Energy Act 2004, Part 2, Chapter 3; Scotland Act 2016"; installations in Scottish waters "built on or after 1 April 2017, including these wind farms, are administered by Scottish Ministers" | PRIMARY | DESNZ/BEIS, *Decommissioning of OREIs under the Energy Act 2004: guidance notes* (March 2019) sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/decommissioning-orei-guidance.txt:136-138, :157-162, :219, :350-352 |
"functions under Part 2, chapter 3 of the Energy Act 2004"; "Scotland Act 2016 … came into force on 1 April 2017"; "this guidance does not apply to installations in Scottish waters constructed on or after 1 April 2017"; footnote: the SoS keeps functions where infrastructure "was partly or fully constructed at 01 April 2017" unless an approved programme and security are in place | Verified PARTIAL. Statute citation, date and polluter-pays are VERIFIED. "Including these wind farms" is not established for Beatrice, which may have been partly built at 1 April 2017 and so fall under the footnote's transitional rule. See Problem 9. |
| G63 | find-a-tender: SSEN Transmission must publish some notices there but can withhold values; source "Procurement Act 2023" | PRIMARY (practice) | Find a TenderThe UK government's public portal where major public contracts, including some SSEN Transmission tenders, must be advertised. more › notice 2026/S 000-069101 (SHET, 22 Jul 2026) sources/crawl/www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/069101-2026/index.html |
"SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC UK4: Tender notice - Procurement Act 2023 … Published 22 July 2026 … Special regime Utilities" | Not found / open VERIFIED (SHET publishes on Find a Tender under the PA 2023 utilities regime). Withholding of values is as W35. "Replacing the EU's equivalent system after Brexit" is unsourced. PA 2023 text is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G64 | dtr5A rule requiring investors to tell a listed company once their shareholding crosses certain thresholds, such as 3% or 5%. more ›: notification required "once their holding crosses set percentage thresholds, starting at 3%"; source FCA DTR 5 | PRIMARY (partial) | SSE AR2026 substantial-shareholdings note …sse_ar26_interactive-report.txt:11999-12000 |
"…percentage interests in the Ordinary Share capital of SSE plc had been notified under Rule 5 of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTR 5)" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The DTR 5 regime is confirmed. The 3% threshold is in FACT-SHEET 14B but was not found quoted in the AR text this session, and the FCA handbook is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G65 | auction-subsidy: lowest strike-price bids win; "the regulator does not separately check what the project actually costs" | Explanation, grounded | As W34 research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md (per W34) |
— | Not found / open VERIFIED as a characterisation consistent with W34. EA2013 is NOT FOUND LOCALLY. |
| G66 | verification-status: "MISMATCH means the source does not actually support the claim as worded; none were found in this register" | Self-description | EVIDENCE-REGISTER.md counts research/EVIDENCE-REGISTER.md:167 ("MISMATCH: 0") |
— | Not found / open Accurate for Tables 1-3. It becomes false once this table is added (G8, G30, G38). See Problem 14. |
| G67 | desnz: guidance "rather than statute, sets the recommended rates and exclusions, such as buried cable earning no community fund" | PRIMARY | DESNZ guidance, as W17/G21 sources/commfunds.txt:201, :320-329 |
"underground cables are not within scope"; "Recommended levels of benefit…" | Verified VERIFIED |
| G68 | eibThe European Investment Bank, a lender to some of the Moray Firth wind farm financing syndicates. more ›: one lender in Beatrice's syndicate "alongside thirteen commercial banks, with part of its loan … guaranteed by Denmark's export credit agency, EKF" | SECONDARY | Pinsent Masons/IJGlobal, financial close 20 May 2016, via research/PROJECT-FINANCE.mdresearch/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:13 (reused; press source not reopened) |
"13 commercial banks + EIB. EIB's own £525m loan was guaranteed to the extent of £300m by Denmark's EKF" | Not found / open SECONDARY, consistent with research. Note: research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:15 says "12 banks + EIB" (Problem 15). |
| G69 | jbicJapan's state development bank, which lent directly to Moray East's construction financing. more ›: lent "about £743m directly toward Moray East's construction, according to its own press release … roughly sixteen further commercial banks"; source JBIC press release, 29 November 2018 | PRIMARY (£743m, date) / SECONDARY (16 banks) | JBIC press release sources/crawl/www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1129-011637.html:374 |
"…amounting up to approximately GBP743 million (JBIC portion) with British company Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) Limited … total co-financing amount is approximately GBP1,517 million. EKF … will provide the guarantee for a part of the loan"; page dated "November 29, 2018" | Verified VERIFIED (£743m, date, EKF). "Sixteen" banks is SECONDARY (Windpower Monthly/Insider via research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:23). |
| G70 | framework-agreement: SSEN Transmission "has a cable supply and installation framework with Sumitomo Electric Industries and Van Oord for Shetland HVDC Link 2, but no value has been published" | PRIMARY (title only) | SSEN Transmission news, July 2026 sources/crawl/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2026/7/ssen-transmission-signs-long-term-framework-agreement-with-sumitomo-electric-and-van-oord-to-support-future-subseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more ›-network-delivery/index.html (<title>) |
"SSEN Transmission signs long-term framework agreement with Sumitomo Electric and Van Oord to support future subsea network delivery" | Not found / open PARTIAL. The title confirms the framework but does not name Shetland HVDC Link 2, and the article body could not be extracted (JS page). Absence of a value is as M6. See Problem 16. |
| G71 | preferred-bidderThe contractor chosen to win a contract, ahead of final signature, often announced before the full contract value is disclosed. more ›: Sumitomo Electric and Van Oord announced "as preferred bidders for Shetland HVDC Link 2's cable supply and installation", value unpublished | PRIMARY (title only) | SSEN Transmission news, May 2024 sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2024/5/ssen-transmission-selects-sumitomo-electric-van-oord-consortium-as-preferred-bidder-for-shetland-2-hvdc-link/index.html (<title>) |
"SSEN Transmission selects Sumitomo Electric Van Oord Consortium as Preferred Bidder for Shetland 2 HVDC link" | Verified VERIFIED (title). "Cable supply and installation" scope is not in the title and the body was not extractable. |
| G72 | joint-venture: "Ocean Winds … is itself a 50/50 joint ventureA company owned jointly by two or more other companies, set up to run a particular business or project together. more › between EDP Renováveis of Portugal and Engie of France" | PRIMARY | Caledonia FY2025 accounts, controlling-parties note CH/13844888/13844888-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:1112-1114 |
"The ultimate parent undertaking … is OW Offshore S.L. … Madrid, Spain. OW Offshore S.L. is a 50/50 joint venture between EDP Renovaveis S.A. and Engie S.A." | Verified VERIFIED. Equating "Ocean Winds" with OW Offshore S.L. is standard but the filing does not state it. |
Every row from the register for counter/the-bill.html. · 86 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Kicker "Net zero and renewables · the bill to the UK public" and H1 "The bill: what it has cost the UK public, and what is still to come" (counter/the-bill.html:96-97) |
— | — counter/the-bill.html:96-97 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open heading, no claim |
| B2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." (:98) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:98 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with B7/B28 (OBR fiscal cost), B36 (National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › loan of up to £36.6bn to Sizewell C) and B64 (OBR calls levies taxes). HANDOVER correction 27 (transmission is billpayer-funded, not taxpayer-funded) is respected: the taxpayer clause rests on the loans |
| B3 | "Every figure on this page is from a government body, a regulator or the national auditor. Where this site has added figures up, the arithmetic is shown. Where official figures conflict, or a forecast turned out wrong, that is shown too." (:99) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:99 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The page itself carries figures from other kinds of source, and labels them: the 2.8GW / 2.3GW row is "press" (B73); the Kintyre outturn of £197m and "on time and on budget" are the company's own words (B74); the 4.3% cumulative share is "secondaryLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more ›" (Our World in Data, B41); the £139.9m is computed from company filings (B47). "Every figure" is therefore too strong. The arithmetic and conflict clauses hold (B19, B25, B65, B66–B75). See Problem 1 |
| B4 | Label legend: official / computed / press; "Price years differ between sources and are stated, not converted." (:100) |
Explanation | — counter/the-bill.html:100 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with use, except the "stated" clause: no price year is given for the £803bn (2024-25 prices), the £70bn (none stated by the NAO) or the £21.7bn (nominal, over 25 years). See B13 and Problem 2 |
| B5 | Tile "Paid through bills so far £97bn. At least. Three lines only: the Renewables Obligation, Contracts for DifferenceA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more ›, and the cost of the grid bottleneck." (:106) |
COMPUTED | B14 + B16 + B18 counter/the-bill.html:106 |
74.670 + 13.806 + 9.07 = 97.546 → "£97bn", "at least" | Verified VERIFIED as gross payments on three lines. The "at least" holds against the lines left out (B20). The page says at :240 that the net figure, after the wholesale-price effect, is below £97bn. That is consistent, because the tile is a gross figure |
| B6 | Tile "Paid each year now £12.2bn … About £420 for every household in the UK." (:107) |
COMPUTED | B22 + B23 + B24; ONS households counter/the-bill.html:107; C/ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/datasets/familiesandhouseholdsfamiliesandhouseholds/current/familiesandhouseholdsuk2025.xlsx sheet 5 row 21 |
7.703 + 2.640 + 1.90 = 12.243bn; ONS "All households" 2025 = 29,003 thousand; 12,243 / 29.003 = £422 → "about £420" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B7 | Tile "Cost to the public finances to 2050-51 £803bn. The Office for Budget Responsibility's central estimate." (:108) |
PRIMARY | OBR, Fiscal risks and sustainability, July 2025, ¶1.32 OBR:932-933 (also :6469-6470) |
"Our latest central estimate of the fiscal cost of climate change mitigation through to 2050-51 is £803 billion (21 per cent of GDP)" | Verified VERIFIED. Price base 2024-25 (Chart 1.10 axis, OBR:982), not stated on the page |
| B8 | Tile "About £27,700 for every household" (:108), tile labelled official |
COMPUTED | B7 ÷ ONS households as B6 |
803,000 / 29.003 = £27,687 → "about £27,700" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The arithmetic is right, but the tile's only label is "official". The per-household figure is this site's computation (an OBR total divided by an ONS count). The tile should carry both labels |
| B9 | Tile "Extra investment needed, 2025 to 2050 £670bn. The Climate Change Committee's own figures, added up." label official, summed (:109) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | CCC, Seventh Carbon Budget costing data CCC-DATA row 165 ("Net capex"), cols L–AK |
26 values (2025 16.93 … 2050 −2.28); sum = 670.116 → £670.1bn | Verified VERIFIED. 2023 prices ( CCC7:4725 "All our cost analysis is in 2023 prices") |
| B10 | Same tile: "Its headline is the net figure, £108bn." (:109) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | CCC7; CCC-DATA CCC7:4639, :4835, :323; CCC-DATA rows 165–167 |
CCC7:4639 "the overall cost of meeting the Balanced Pathway is estimated to be around £4 billion per year"; executive summary :323 "around 0.2% of UK GDP per year". Net = 670.116 − 562.157 = 107.96 → £108bn |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The CCC's headline is "around £4 billion per year", or 0.2% of GDP. It never states £108bn: grep of CCC7 for "108" with "billion" finds nothing. £108bn is this site's sum of the data sheet (26 × £4bn would be £104bn). It should be labelled "official, summed". See Problem 3 |
| B11 | Scale-bar values (:117-124): £9.1bn constraints 2018-19 to 2025-26; £13.8bn CfD 2016 to 22 Sep 2026; £74.7bn RO 2002 to Mar 2025; £21.7bn carbon capture "first two clusters, over 25 years"; £38.2bn Sizewell C "baseline cost"; £70bn grid 2025 to 2031; £670bn net zero investment 2025 to 2050; £803bn public finances to 2050-51. Key "Already paid through bills" / "Committed or officially forecast" (:116) |
PRIMARY (each) | as table rows see B18, B16, B14, B34, B35, B32, B9, B7 |
— | Verified VERIFIED by cross-reference to the table rows named. The key's "officially forecast" fits the CCC, OBR and NAO/OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › figures |
| B12 | Scale-bar widths (:117-124): 1.13%, 1.72%, 9.30%, 2.70%, 4.76%, 8.72%, 83.4%, 100% |
COMPUTED | value ÷ 803 counter/the-bill.html:117-124 |
9.07/803 = 1.130%; 13.806/803 = 1.719%; 74.670/803 = 9.299%; 21.7/803 = 2.702%; 38.2/803 = 4.757%; 70/803 = 8.717%; 670.1/803 = 83.45%; 803/803 = 100% | Verified VERIFIED (83.45% shown as 83.4%) |
| B13 | Note: "Each bar is the same scale … The bars overlap and are not added together. The investment figure includes the grid, and the public-finance figure counts lost tax as well as spending. Price years differ and are given in the tables below." (:126) |
Explanation | OBR; CCC-DATA OBR:932-936; CCC-DATA (capex rows include electricity supply) |
OBR: "two-thirds can be attributed to lost receipts" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The scale, overlap and lost-tax clauses are accurate. "Price years … are given in the tables below" is not true for the £803bn (2024-25 prices, OBR:982), the £70bn or the £21.7bn: no price year is given for any of them in the tables (:163, :166, :168). See Problem 2 |
| B14 | RO "£74.7bn", "April 2002 to March 2025", "Ofgem's own 'scheme value' for each of 23 years. Money of the day." label official, summed (:134) |
PRIMARY (summed) | Ofgem, Renewables Obligation Annual Report, Scheme Year 23, published 30 March 2026, dataset sheet "Figure 5.12" RO-XLSX "Figure 5.12" rows 35–57; date: C/www.ofgem.gov.uk/ro_annual_report_sy23.html:3800-3801 |
23 values, first 250,439,567.06 (SY1 2002-03), last 7,702,867,432.03 (SY23 2024-25); sum = £74,669,876,778.02 → £74.67bn; landing page "Publication date: 30 March 2026" | Verified VERIFIED. Ofgem's sheet labels SY2 and SY3 "SY8 (2003-04)" and "SY9 (2004-05)", a labelling slip in the source that does not affect the sum. The sheet states no price base, so "money of the day" is the site's reading. It is reasonable for a yearly scheme value |
| B15 | RO "£0.25bn in the first year, £7.70bn in the latest" (:134) |
PRIMARY | as B14 RO-TXT:3200-3203 |
"The value of the scheme was £0.25 billion in SY1 … reaching £7.70 billion in SY23 (2024 to 2025)." | Verified VERIFIED |
| B16 | CfD "£13.8bn", "June 2016 to 22 September 2026", "Every daily payment in the Low Carbon Contracts CompanyThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more ›'s data, 117,196 rows." label official, summed (:135) |
PRIMARY (summed) | LCCC, Actual CfD Generation and avoided GHG emissions LCCC/ (60 files), field CFD_Payments_GBP |
re-summed 117,196 unique records: £13,805,896,240.25; first Settlement_Date 2016-06-30, last 2026-09-22 | Verified VERIFIED |
| B17 | "Net of money paid back: in 2022, when gas prices spiked, generators paid back £0.35bn." (:135) |
PRIMARY (summed) | as B16 LCCC/, 2022 records |
2022: positive payments £465.2m; payments back £810.8m; net −£345.5m | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. £0.35bn is the net for 2022. Generators actually paid back £0.81bn that year, and received £0.47bn on other days or units. Read straight after "net of money paid back", "paid back £0.35bn" understates the paybacks by more than half. See Problem 4 |
| B18 | Constraints "£9.1bn", "2018-19 to 2025-26", "National Audit Office, from the system operatorThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more ›'s figures. 2024 prices. £0.56bn in the first year, £1.90bn in the latest." label official, summed (:136) |
PRIMARY (summed) | NAO HC 589, ¶8, ¶1.10, Figure 4 NAO:266, :942-943 (text), :996-998 (Figure 4 values), :1020-1022 (note) |
Figure 4 series 0.56, 0.52, 0.65, 1.21, 1.04, 1.54, 1.65, 1.90; sum = 9.07; text "from £0.6 billion in 2018-19 to £1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)"; note "taken this from … NESO's 2025 Annual Balancing Costs Report" | Verified VERIFIED. These are thermal constraint costsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › only ( NAO:963-964: voltage and frequency costs are "relatively minor" and excluded). Price base: the text says 2024 prices, but the Figure 4 note says the values were adjusted "to 2023-24 prices" (NAO:1022). The page discloses this at :217 (B65) |
| B19 | "Total of these three lines £97.5bn … 74.67 + 13.81 + 9.07. Two lines are in the money of the day and one is in 2024 prices, so read it as 'at least £97bn'." label computed (:137) |
COMPUTED | B14 + B16 + B18 counter/the-bill.html:137 |
74.67 + 13.81 + 9.07 = 97.55; unrounded 74.670 + 13.806 + 9.07 = 97.546 → £97.5bn | Verified VERIFIED. The mixed price base is disclosed |
| B20 | "Not in that total … the Feed-in Tariff scheme, the Capacity Market, the Renewables Obligation since March 2025, the carbon price paid by gas power stations and passed into bills, and the charges for the grid itself. Grid charges were £5.1bn in 2025-26. Each would raise the total." (:140) |
PRIMARY (£5.1bn) / acknowledged gap | NAO ¶1.5 NAO:732-735 |
"Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) charges … These charges totalled £5.1 billion in 2025-26." | Verified VERIFIED. The £5.1bn is TNUoSTransmission Network Use of System charges: the part of a bill that pays for building and running the high-voltage grid. more ›, the transmission part of grid charges. The exclusion list matches research/UK-BILL-TOTALS.md:21 (lead only). "Each would raise the total" is true of a gross total |
| B21 | NAO quote: "The majority goes to generators to increase output at short notice. These are mainly gas power stations in England, with costs linked to global gas prices. The remainder goes to generators to reduce output. These are often wind farms in Scotland." (:141) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589 ¶8 NAO:266-269 |
as quoted, verbatim | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with HANDOVER correction 53 |
| B22 | Latest year RO "£7.70bn", "Ofgem, year to March 2025" (:149) |
PRIMARY | as B14/B15 RO-TXT:3203; RO-XLSX row 57 |
"reaching £7.70 billion in SY23 (2024 to 2025)"; 7,702,867,432.03 | Verified VERIFIED |
| B23 | Latest year CfD "£2.64bn", "LCCC, calendar 2025" (:150) |
PRIMARY (summed) | as B16 LCCC/, 2025 records |
2025 sum = £2,640,168,618.27 | Verified VERIFIED (matches the exact figure in the sources line :263) |
| B24 | Latest year constraints "£1.90bn", "NAO, 2025-26, 2024 prices" (:151) |
PRIMARY | as B18 NAO:266, :996 |
"£1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)"; Figure 4 value 1.90 | Verified VERIFIED (same price-base note as B18) |
| B25 | Total "£12.2bn … Divided by 29.0 million UK households, about £420 each. Households pay part of this directly on their bills. Businesses pay the rest." (:152) |
COMPUTED / Characterisation | as B6; ONS bulletin C/ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2025.txt:105 |
"In 2025, there were 29.0 million households in the UK"; 12,243 / 29.003 = £422 | Verified VERIFIED. The households-and-businesses clause is an accurate caveat. The total adds two money-of-the-day lines to one 2024-price line, which this row does not repeat (B80) |
| B26 | "On a typical household bill of £1,641 a year in April 2026, £83 went to the transmission grid, up from £51 the year before, and £40 to balancing the system." label official, NAO (:155) |
PRIMARY | NAO ¶1.6 NAO:750-755 |
"For a typical dual-fuel household paying by direct debit, annual electricity and gas costs were £1,641 at the price cap level set in April 2026. Within this, £83 went towards network costs (TNUoS), up from £51 in 2025-26, and £40 went towards balancing the grid (BSUoS)." | Verified VERIFIED. The £1,641 is a dual-fuel bill, electricity plus gas. The page's "household bill" is accurate but does not say dual-fuel |
| B27 | "Ofgem forecasts the grid part alone at £104 by 2030-31, up from £44 in 2025-26." label official (:155) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | NAO summary; ¶12 NAO:175-179, :307-308 |
"£44 the amount a typical household paid towards building and maintaining the grid in 2025-26"; "£104 the amount that Ofgem forecasts …" (2025-26 prices); "annual network charge to £104 in 2030-31, £60 higher than 2025-26" | Verified VERIFIED, and labelled as a forecast. Note: the same sentence on the page gives two different 2025-26 grid figures, £51 (B26, NAO ¶1.6) and £44 (NAO summary, 2025-26 prices). Both are the NAO's, but the page does not explain the difference. See Problem 5. Consistent with HANDOVER correction 55 |
| B28 | "Cost of reaching net zero to the public finances, to 2050-51 £803bn … OBR central estimate, 21% of GDP, £30bn a year on average. Two-thirds is tax that stops coming in, mainly fuel duty. One-third is extra public spending." (:163) |
PRIMARY (official estimate) | OBR ¶1.32, ¶4.31 OBR:932-936, :6469-6471 |
"£803 billion (21 per cent of GDP), or £30 billion a year on average, of which two-thirds can be attributed to lost receipts"; "Receipts losses – mainly from lost fuel duty receipts"; "Around two-thirds of this comes from lost receipts, and one-third from additional spending." | Verified VERIFIED. No price year is given on the page (2024-25 prices, OBR:982) |
| B29 | "Extra investment across the economy, 2025 to 2050 £670bn … Climate Change Committee, 2023 prices. Its report gives '£26 billion per year'. Its data sheet adds up to £670.1bn." (:164) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | CCC7; CCC-DATA CCC7:4626, :4725; CCC-DATA row 165 |
"an average investment of £26 billion per year will be needed"; "All our cost analysis is in 2023 prices"; sum 670.116 | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with HANDOVER correction 48 |
| B30 | "Most of it is private money, recovered from bills and prices." (:164) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | CCC7; OBR ¶1.32 CCC7:4643; OBR:940-942 |
CCC: "The private sector can provide the majority of the required investment"; OBR: "we assume that government bears around 36 per cent of the CCC's latest estimate of the whole-economy costs" | Verified VERIFIED ("most … private"). "Recovered from bills and prices" is the site's explanation of how private investment is repaid, and is consistent with the sources |
| B31 | "The same, after forecast savings on fuel and running costs £108bn" label official; "The Committee's net figure. It rests on £562bn of forecast savings." (:165) |
COMPUTED (on PRIMARY rows) | CCC-DATA rows 165–167; CCC7 CCC-DATA row 166 ("Net opex"); CCC7:4631-4632 |
row 166 sum = −562.157 (26 values, first −2.31, last −33.00); 670.116 − 562.157 = 107.96; CCC7: "offset by savings of around £22 billion per year on average" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The £562bn is VERIFIED as the data-sheet sum. The £108bn is real arithmetic, but the CCC does not state it (see B10). The label should be "official, summed" or "computed", not "official" |
| B32 | "Grid upgrades, 2025 to 2031 about £70bn … Ofgem's estimate, reported by the NAO, 'quadrupling the current rate of investment'. Recovered from bills with a regulated return." (:166) |
PRIMARY (official estimate) | NAO ¶11 NAO:297-299 |
"Ofgem estimates that Transmission Owners will need to spend up to around £70 billion over 2025-2031 on grid upgrades, quadrupling the current rate of investment." | Verified VERIFIED. The source says "up to around"; the page says "about". "Recovered from bills" is consistent with B26 and HANDOVER correction 27 |
| B33 | "Managing the bottleneck in 2030 £1bn to £12.7bn a year … System operatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more ›, 2024 prices. £1bn to £1.9bn if eight upgrades are brought forward, £2.8bn to £3.6bn if three are, £12.7bn with no upgrades." (:167) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | NESO, Nov 2024, via NAO ¶10 NAO:281-291 |
"Constraint costs could reach £6.6 billion to £7.8 billion in 2030 if grid upgrades are not accelerated … accelerate three existing projects to reduce constraint costs to £2.8 billion to £3.6 billion … accelerate eight projects to limit constraint costs to £1 billion to £1.9 billion … without any upgrade at all to the grid, constraint costs could reach £12.7 billion a year … stated in 2024 prices" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Each figure the page gives is right. But it leaves out the NAO's own lead scenario: £6.6bn to £7.8bn if upgrades are not accelerated, which is the case Ofgem's £30 saving is measured against (B57). The £12.7bn "no upgrades" case is an outer bound that the NAO introduces with "In contrast". See Problem 6 |
| B34 | "Carbon capture, first two clusters £21.7bn … Government announcement, October 2024, over 25 years." (:168) |
PRIMARY | DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more ›, UK CCUS collection page; GOV.UK press release 24 April 2025 C/www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-carbon-capture-usage-and-storage-ccus.txt:104 (also :94, :96); C/www.gov.uk/government/news/major-carbon-capture-project-to-deliver-jobs-and-growth.txt:100 |
collection: "on 4 October 2024 the government has committed £21.7 billion over 25 years to support the CCUS clusters in the North West and North East of England"; ":94" "The first 2 clusters … HyNet … and the East Coast Cluster" | Verified VERIFIED. Citation note: the file cited in the page's sources line ( :264, release :100) is the April 2025 release. It confirms the £21.7bn and "October" but not "over 25 years". The collection page :104 holds all three |
| B35 | "Sizewell C nuclear station £38.2bn … NAO, May 2026, 2024-25 prices." (:169); bar "baseline cost" (:121) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, 20 May 2026 SZC:183-184, :314, :413; date C/www.nao.org.uk/reports/sizewell-c.txt:6 |
"(real terms 2024‑25 prices) £38.2 billion the Company's current cost estimate"; ":413" "SZC's project baseline construction cost"; "Date: 20 May 2026" | Verified VERIFIED. The same table gives £40.5bn (lower regulatory threshold) and £47.7bn (higher threshold, "Government and investors have committed to fund up to this amount", SZC:186-189). The page says "baseline", which is accurate |
| B36 | "The state holds 44.9% and its National Wealth Fund lends up to £36.6bn." (:169) |
PRIMARY | as B35 SZC:174-176 |
"Equity DESNZ 44.9% …"; "Debt up to £36.6 billion from the government's National Wealth Fund and £5 billion from commercial lenders in nominal terms" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B37 | "These rows overlap and are not added together." (:172) |
Explanation | — counter/the-bill.html:172 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the page (no forward total is given) |
| B38 | "Share of UK electricity generated from renewables, 2025 52.1% … DESNZ. Wind and solar alone were 36.3%." (:180) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, UK Energy in Brief 2026 C/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a6cb5f00c36759b5ccaa2f5/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2026.txt:939-941 |
"The renewable share of generation continues its upward trend, up 1.6 percentage points to 52.1 … Wind and solar's combined share rose to a record 36.3 per cent" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B39 | "Change in UK greenhouse gas emissions, 2015 to 2025 −26.9% … EU Joint Research Centre, EDGAR. The largest fall of the 17 countries compared on The real cost." (:181) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | EU JRC, EDGAR 2026 booklet data C/edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/booklet/EDGAR_2026_GHG_booklet_2026.xlsx, sheet GHG_totals_by_country, row 71 (UK), row 52 (Germany) |
UK 2015 514.599, 2025 376.294 MtCO2e: 376.294/514.599 − 1 = −26.88%; Germany 902.793 → 660.444 = −26.84% | Verified VERIFIED. The 17 rows on real-cost.html include the EU-27 bloc, so 16 are countries. The UK leads Germany by 0.04 points, which is within rounding ( research/COUNTRY-CLIMATE-SPEND.md:184 says so). EDGAR excludes land use (LULUCF) |
| B40 | "UK share of world emissions, 2024 0.65% … 373 million tonnes (DESNZ) of 57.7 billion (UN Environment Programme)." label computed (:182) |
COMPUTED (on PRIMARY) | DESNZ final UK GHG statistics 2024, 5 Feb 2026; UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 (UN-hosted copy) C/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6982292019d3abdb495f37cd/2024-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics-statistical-release.txt:2-5; C/www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/library/EGR2025.txt:1335, :1394 |
"total UK net territorial greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 373 million tonnes"; "reached a record of 57.7 GtCO2e"; 373 / 57,700 = 0.646% → 0.65% | Verified VERIFIED. Basis notes: the UNEP figure includes international aviation and shipping, and the DESNZ territorial figure does not. On EDGAR's own basis the 2024 share is 0.69% (373.12/53,769.6), and real-cost.html uses 0.69% for 2025. The page's 0.65% is the lower end of the range in research/UK-SHARE-OF-EMISSIONS.md. The UNEP figure was read from a UN-hosted mirror (disclosed at :265) |
| B41 | "The UK's share of all fossil carbon dioxide since 1750 is about 4.3%" label secondary (:182) |
SECONDARY | Our World in Data / Global Carbon Project, cumulative CO2 C/ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions.GBR-WORLD.csv:276, :551 |
UK 2024 80,079,450,000 t; World 2024 1,849,123,900,000 t; 80.08/1,849.12 = 4.33% | Verified VERIFIED as SECONDARY, and labelled so. Fossil and industry CO2 only, land-use change excluded |
| B42 | "Subsidy paid per tonne of emissions avoided, Contracts for Difference £442 … £13.8bn paid for 31.2 million tonnes avoided, both from the scheme operator's own data. Offshore wind alone: £545." label computed (:183) |
COMPUTED | LCCC fields CFD_Payments_GBP and Avoided_GHG_tonnes_CO2e LCCC/ |
13,805,896,240 / 31,242,166 t = £441.90 → £442; offshore wind £10,283.7m / 18.883 Mt = £544.6 → £545 | Verified VERIFIED |
| B43 | "The government's own value of a tonne of carbon, 2025 £260 … Central value for policy appraisal, 2020 prices. Range £130 to £390." (:184) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions for policy appraisal, Annex 1 C/www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation.txt:225, :268-271 |
"Annex 1: Carbon values in £2020 prices per tonne of CO2"; 2025: Low 130, Central 260, High 390 | Verified VERIFIED |
| B44 | "The scheme operator's avoided-emissions factor falls from 0.36 tonnes per megawatt-hour in 2016 to 2018 to about 0.11 since 2022" (:187) |
COMPUTED (on PRIMARY) | LCCC Avoided_GHG ÷ CFD_Generation_MWh by year LCCC/ |
2016 0.361, 2017 0.358, 2018 0.351; 2022 0.102, 2023 0.103, 2024 0.106, 2025 0.106, 2026 0.105 t/MWh | Verified VERIFIED |
| B45 | "Had the early factor applied throughout, the figure would be about £180 a tonne, below the government's central value. On the operator's own figures it is above it." The figure counts the subsidy top-up only (:187) |
COMPUTED | LCCC; B43 LCCC/ |
generation 210,923,403 MWh × 0.36 = 75.93 Mt; 13,805.9m / 75.93 Mt = £181.8 → "about £180"; £181.8 < £260 < £442 | Verified VERIFIED. Price-base note: the £442 and £180 are in money of the day; the £260 is in 2020 prices. In 2025 money the central value would be higher than £260, which does not change either comparison. The page states the 2020 price year at :184 |
| B46 | "UK-listed shares owned from abroad, 2024 58.8% … Office for National Statistics, a record high." (:195) |
PRIMARY | ONS, Ownership of UK quoted shares: 2024, released 29 Jan 2026 C/www.ons.gov.uk/economy/investmentspensionsandtrusts/bulletins/ownershipofukquotedshares/2024.txt:1 (single-line file) |
"the proportion of UK shares owned by the rest of the world reaching a record high of 58.8% in 2024, up from 57.7% in 2022" | Verified VERIFIED. It covers all UK quoted shares, not energy companies specifically (as FACT-SHEET.md:55 notes) |
| B47 | "DividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › to owners outside the UK from two Moray Firth wind farms, latest year £139.9m … From the farms' filed accounts." label computed (:196) |
COMPUTED (on PRIMARY) | Beatrice (SC350248) accounts y/e 31 Mar 2025; Moray East (07101438) accounts y/e 31 Dec 2025; ownership per Table 4 CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:184; CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:279; research/register-tables/table-4.md:20 (L4) |
"Dividends paid during the year amount to £84.1m"; "paid interim dividends totalling £104,202k"; 84.1 × 0.25 + 84.1 × 0.175 + 104.2 = 139.9425 → £139.9m | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic and dividends). It carries Table 4's caveats: the TRIG Guernsey domicile is SECONDARY (L8), and "outside the UK" includes Guernsey vehicles |
| B48 | "Electricity price for large industrial users, UK, 2025 24.35p per kWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more › … DESNZ. The median of 14 EU countries and the UK is 11.04p. The UK is the dearest of the 15." (:197) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Energy Prices International comparisons, table 5.4.1, published 28 May 2026 C/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a1565099819be865f421cda/table_541.xlsx.txt:206 (sheet "Annual incl tax", headers :150) |
Row "Large 2025": UK 24.3464; "EU 14 plus UK median" 11.0441; "UK relative to EU 14 plus UK rank" 15 (rank 15 = highest, per sheet Note 2) | Verified VERIFIED. Band: "Large consumers: consuming 20,000 - 69,999 MWh per annum"; prices include taxes, exclude VAT. The table says "non-domestic", which the page renders as "industrial" |
| B49 | "UK crude steel output 10.9Mt in 2015, 4Mt in 2024 … The government's Steel Strategy, from World Steel figures. It names energy cost as one cause among several." (:198) |
PRIMARY | DBT/HMG, The UK Steel Strategy (web version) C/www.gov.uk/government/publications/steel-strategy/the-uk-steel-strategy-web-version.txt:989, :78, :680 |
":989" "Based on data from World Steel in Figures … UK total production of crude steel in 2015 of 10.9Mt, falling to 4Mt in 2024"; ":78" "The challenges of global overcapacity compounded by high operating costs"; ":680" "The UK government recognises the challenge high electricity prices pose for the sector" | Verified VERIFIED. The decline passage ( :78) gives "global overcapacity" and "high operating costs". Electricity prices are named separately (:680, and :294 for consultation respondents). "One cause among several" is fair |
| B50 | "Emissions from producing gas: imported liquefied gas against UK gas, 2024 85 against 28 … North Sea Transition Authority, kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent. Burning the gas is not included." (:199) |
PRIMARY | NSTA, Emissions intensity of producing natural gas factsheet, Sept 2025 C/www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/nupk5sx1/emissions-intensity-of-producing-natural-gas-factsheet-sept-2025.txt:4-5, :10-11, :17-18 |
"UK domestic gas production was 28 kgCO2e/boe"; "LNG had a significantly higher average emissions footprint of 85 kgCO2e/boe"; "the emissions do not include downstream combustion emissions" | Verified VERIFIED. The same source gives 8 kgCO2e/boe for pipeline imports, over 99% of them from Norway ( :16-17), which is lower than UK gas. The page does not mention this. NSTA's estimates come from Rystad Energy's dashboard (:38) |
| B51 | "Oil and gas output, UK against Norway, 2025 1.09 against 4.12 … Each regulator's own data, million barrels of oil equivalent a day. Both peaked near 4.5." (:200) |
PRIMARY | NSTA, February 2026 production projections workbook; Sodir via norskpetroleum.no, historical and expected production, 20 Feb 2026 C/www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/wvvnoyqe/nsta-february-2026-production-projections-plus-ccc-and-desnz-demand-projections.xlsx.txt:37, :11; C/www.norskpetroleum.no/wp-content/uploads/40-Historisk-og-forventet-prod-av-olje-og-gass-1970-2030-20022026.xlsx.txt:80, :59 (headers :23-24) |
UK 2025 oil+net gas 1.09368; UK 1999 4.49197; Norway 2025 "Total per day" 4.1221; Norway 2004 4.54031 | Verified VERIFIED |
| B52 | "Each of these is a matter of record. None is a claim about anyone's motive." (:207) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:207 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with HANDOVER rule A3. The individual items are checked in B53–B65 |
| B53 | Item 1: "The Climate Change Committee's summary gives a cost of 'around £4 billion per year'. The same report says investment of '£26 billion per year' is needed. It does not state the 25-year total. Its own data sheet adds up to £670.1bn." (:209) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | CCC7; CCC-DATA CCC7:4639, :4626, :323; CCC-DATA row 165 |
"the overall cost of meeting the Balanced Pathway is estimated to be around £4 billion per year"; "an average investment of £26 billion per year"; sum 670.1 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Both quotes are verbatim, and no cumulative total appears in CCC7 (grep for "billion over", "total of £" and "trillion" in a cost sense finds nothing). Two wording slips: 2025 to 2050 is 26 years (26 data-sheet values; the OBR says "the 26 years from 2025 to 2050", OBR:6014-6015), not 25. And the "£4 billion" sentence is in the Chapter 4 key messages; the executive summary itself says "around 0.2% of UK GDP per year" (CCC7:323). See Problem 3 |
| B54 | Item 2: "The cost 'to the economy' is £116bn in 2025 prices. The cost to the public finances is £803bn. Both are in the same OBR report. The smaller one is the one usually quoted." (:210) |
PRIMARY / assertion | OBR ¶4.20, ¶1.32 OBR:6012-6015, :6018-6021, :932-934 |
"In its Seventh Carbon Budget 'Balanced Pathway', the net cost to the economy of reaching net zero is estimated to be £116 billion (in 2025 prices)"; "comprised of £720 billion of capital costs … partly offset by £604 billion of operational savings" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Both figures and the quote are VERIFIED. But the £116bn is the CCC's net figure restated in 2025 prices, not an OBR estimate. The two numbers measure different things: a net economic cost, and a fiscal cost that is two-thirds lost receipts (transfers such as fuel duty). "The smaller one is the one usually quoted" has no source on the page or in the local files. See Problem 7 |
| B55 | Item 3: "Hinkley Point C's guaranteed price is quoted as £92.50 per megawatt-hour. That is in 2012 prices. The auditor puts it at £129 in 2025 prices. Beatrice's price was set at £140 in 2012 prices and is £205.70 now." (:211) |
PRIMARY | NAO Sizewell C; Beatrice accounts; LCCC SZC:728, :418; CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1088; LCCC/ INV-BEA-001/002 |
"The strike price agreed for HPC in 2016 was £92.50 in 2012 prices"; "HPC's fixed in real terms £129 per MWh in 2025 prices"; "set at £140 per Megawatt hour in 2012 prices"; latest record 2026-09-22 Strike_Price 205.7000 | Verified VERIFIED ("now" = 22 Sep 2026, the latest LCCC record) |
| B56 | Item 4: "The headline cost of wind leaves out the system around it. The government's cost report puts this out of scope: 'Wider system costs beyond those faced by the developer'. The grid, the bottleneck payments and backup are billed separately." (:212) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Electricity Generation Costs 2025 GENCOST:262-268 |
"Out of scope: … Wider system costs beyond those faced by the developer, and wider system benefits of deploying generation assets. These cannot be assessed without whole power system modelling." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The quote is verbatim, but it stops mid-sentence. The same bullet also puts "wider system benefits" out of scope, and it applies to every technology in the report, not only wind. Under the same burden of proof both ways, the page should show both halves. See Problem 8 |
| B57 | Item 5: "Ofgem says grid upgrades will save a household £30 a year. The comparison is with bottleneck costs that, in the auditor's words, 'assume that all planned renewable generation is added to the grid … regardless of whether the grid is ready to accommodate it'. The bill still rises by £60." (:213) |
PRIMARY | NAO ¶10, ¶12 NAO:289-291, :305-308, :311-312 |
"These estimates all assume that all planned renewable generation is added to the grid under the Clean Power 2030 plan regardless of whether the grid is ready to accommodate it"; "Ofgem estimates this investment will save consumers about £30 a year compared to the increased constraint costs if projects are not accelerated"; "increase a typical household's annual network charge to £104 in 2030-31, £60 higher than 2025-26"; "leaving consumers around £30 a year better off" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The £30 and the quote are VERIFIED, and the quote applies to the comparison case. But the NAO says the network charge rises by £60. It gives no figure for the whole bill, and Ofgem's estimate is that consumers end up about £30 a year better off overall. "The bill still rises by £60" overstates the scope (compare HANDOVER correction 55). The heading "a worst case the policy itself creates" is a characterisation. See Problem 9 |
| B58 | Item 6: the 2010 assessment did "not account for possible market power being exercised behind constrained boundaries, which was estimated to account for over half of constraints in 2008/09" (:214) |
PRIMARY | DECC, Improving grid access impact assessment, 27 July 2010 IA2010:106-108 (date :6, :57) |
"The modelling assumes economic dispatch across the network and does not account for possible market power being exercised behind constrained boundaries, which was estimated to account for over half of constraints in 2008/09." | Verified VERIFIED |
| B59 | Item 6: "The Climate Change Committee publishes no case in which fossil fuels are cheap." (:214) |
PRIMARY (absence) | CCC7; CCC-SUPP §2.3 CCC-SUPP:1776-1785, :1797-1799 |
"Our analysis for the Seventh Carbon Budget assumes largely flat fossil fuel costs after 2030 … we model the impact of a sudden spike in fossil fuel prices"; "apply the central value from the … (DESNZ) fossil fuel price assumptions" | Verified VERIFIED as an absence finding across the CCC documents held: the cost-side sensitivity is a price spike only. The lead research/CCC-SAVINGS-TEST.md:185-196 notes that DESNZ low and high price ranges are used on the emissions side only (CCC methodology report), not for the cost figures |
| B60 | Item 6: "Its savings leave out fuel duty, which the OBR counts as lost." (:214) |
PRIMARY | CCC7; OBR CCC7:4707-4708; OBR:936 |
CCC: "Since these are social costs, we do not include taxes or subsidies (including fuel duties and VAT)"; OBR: "Receipts losses – mainly from lost fuel duty receipts" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B61 | Item 7: "The government's 2025 cost report publishes no nuclear figure: the costs 'cannot be made available in this report because of their commercial sensitivity'." (:215) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Electricity Generation Costs 2025 GENCOST:1200-1202 |
"Project-specific and confidential costs and technical assumptions were used by DESNZ analysts for both projects but cannot be made available in this report because of their commercial sensitivity." | Verified VERIFIED. The next line ( GENCOST:1204) says "High-level cost assumptions for both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are in the public domain" (elsewhere) |
| B62 | Item 7: Ofgem on early grid funding: "For commercial reasons, ECF and PCF figures are not published" (:215) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem press release, 9 December 2025 C/www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-agrees-early-investment-and-updated-dates-proposed-electricity-superhighways:3981 (date: "Publication date: 9 December 2025") |
"For commercial reasons, ECF and PCF figures are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: The quote is cut before "at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published". The cut drops a time qualifier and the fact that percentages are published. The page's sources line ( :266) does not date the release. See Problem 10 |
| B63 | Item 7: "No capital cost has been published for Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2." (:215) |
PRIMARY (absence) | FACT-SHEET fact 7 and §8 FACT-SHEET.md:20, :197 |
"No capital cost for this project has been published by SSEN, Ofgem or NESO." | Verified VERIFIED as an absence finding (FACT-SHEET-level, across the sources held) |
| B64 | Item 8: "Charges on bills are called levies, and counted as taxes." The OBR: "The government also taxes carbon more directly through environmental levies and taxes." (:216) |
PRIMARY | OBR ¶4.28 OBR:6394 |
as quoted, verbatim | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with HANDOVER rule A5 |
| B65 | Item 9: "The auditor's text gives bottleneck costs 'in 2024 prices'. The note under its own chart says they were adjusted 'to 2023-24 prices'." (:217) |
PRIMARY | NAO ¶8, ¶1.10, Figure 4 note NAO:266, :942-943, :1022 |
"(in 2024 prices)"; "We have adjusted costs to 2023-24 prices, using inflators based on the Consumer Price Index" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B66 | Forecast: "About £24m a year, central estimate. Government impact assessment, July 2010." (:226) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | DECC IA, 27 July 2010 IA2010:63-71 |
"Price Base Year 2009 … Best Estimate … Average Annual (excl. Transition) (Constant Price) £24m … Total Cost (Present Value) £195m" | Verified VERIFIED. Unstated on the page: the price base is 2009, and it is an average over the 2010-20 period |
| B67 | Outturn: "£121.7m in the year to September 2015, measured by Ofgem." (:226) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem, sixth Connect and Manage report, 14 Dec 2015; NAO ¶1.13 OFG-CM6:26-28 (also :281); NAO:1176-1180 |
"The annual constraint costs attributable to generators connected under Connect and Manage have increased from £69.4m in the year to 30 September 14 to £121.7m in the year to 30 September 2015." | Verified VERIFIED. The two figures compare a 2009-price forecast with a money-of-the-day outturn; the gap (about 5×) far exceeds any price adjustment |
| B68 | Forecast: "To fall to 'nearly zero in 2017/18' (Ofgem, December 2015)." (:227) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | Ofgem, sixth C&M report OFG-CM6:30-32, :425-432 |
"National Grid expects these constraint costs to drop to nearly zero in 2017/18. The forecast of constraint costs after this date, and particularly in the early 2020s, depends on uncertain assumptions"; ":430-432" "Under the GG scenario, constraints are anticipated to start rising again from 2018/19 as new generators connect" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The quote is verbatim, but it is National Grid's expectation as reportedA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more › by Ofgem, not Ofgem's own forecast. The same report warns that the later forecast depends on uncertain assumptions, and expects constraints to rise again from 2018/19 under one scenario. The page leaves out both caveats. See Problem 11 |
| B69 | "The auditor records a forecast of 'zero by 2023-24'." (:227) |
PRIMARY | NAO ¶1.13 NAO:1181-1183 |
"However, it forecast these costs would fall to zero by 2023‑24, on the basis that planned reinforcement projects, including an East Coast subsea link, would be completed by then" | Verified VERIFIED ("it" = Ofgem, per the NAO) |
| B70 | Outturn: "All bottleneck costs were £1.54bn in 2023-24 and £1.90bn in 2025-26. That is the total from every cause, not the rule's share alone." (:227) |
PRIMARY | NAO Figure 4 NAO:996-998 |
Figure 4 values: 2023-24 1.54; 2025-26 1.90 | Verified VERIFIED. The like-for-like caveat is given. The values are thermal constraints only (B18) |
| B71 | "Hinkley Point C, cost: £17.9bn early estimate, 2015 prices → £35bn to £36bn, 2015 prices. NAO, May 2026." (:228) |
PRIMARY | NAO Sizewell C, Figure (international comparison) SZC:1020-1023 |
"Early cost estimate (price year) … £17.9bn (2015)"; "Actual cost or recent cost scenarios … £35bn – £36bn (2015)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| B72 | "Hinkley Point C, first power: 2025 → 2030 to 2031." (:229) |
PRIMARY | as B71 SZC:1012-1014 |
"Early estimate for operations … 2025 2025"; "Actual date operations began or revised scenarios … 2030 to 2031 [unit 1] 2031 to 2032 [unit 2]" | Verified VERIFIED (unit 1; the source says "operations", the page "first power") |
| B73 | "Wind farms behind the case for Shetland HVDC Link 2: 2.8GW in 2024 → 2.3GW in 2026, after part was handed back." label press (:230) |
SECONDARY / COMPUTED | Shetland News, 19 Mar 2024 and 20 Mar 2026 C/www.shetnews.co.uk/2024/03/19/national-grid-recommends-second-transmission/index.html:494; C/www.shetnews.co.uk/2026/03/20/lease-500mw-arven-offshore-wind/index.html (body text); FACT-SHEET.md:119-120 |
2024: "At the moment there is 2.8GW of proposed offshore wind development to the east of Shetland"; 2026: "Ocean Winds is to hand the lease option for the 500MW Arven South site … back to Crown Estate Scotland. But it will keep its lease for the larger 1.8GW Arven wind farm site"; 2.8 − 0.5 = 2.3 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-7.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. 2.8GW and the 500MW hand-back are press-sourced and labelled. But 2.3GW appears in no source: it is this site's subtraction, and should carry a "computed" label. The 2024 article speaks of "proposed offshore wind development to the east of Shetland", not of the farms "behind the case". Ofgem's need case named three prospective farms (FACT-SHEET.md:119). The 2026 article says "set to be handed back", not "handed back" |
| B74 | "Kintyre to Hunterston link, cost: £197.43m allowedThe profit margin Ofgem lets a regulated grid company earn on shareholders' money, built into billpayers' charges. more › by Ofgem, November 2013 → Completed 'on time and on budget' at £197m, per the company. A forecast that held." label press (:231) |
PRIMARY (allowance) / SECONDARY (company) | Ofgem final decision letter, 15 Nov 2013; SSEN Transmission news, March 2016 C/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2013/11/final_decision_letter_-_kintyre_hunterston.txt:6, :21, :295; C/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2016/3/project-boosting-electricity-network-from-kintyre-to-hunterston-completes-on-time-and-on-budget/index.html:492, :502 |
Ofgem: "cost £197.43 million (in 2013 prices)"; "Additional Allowed … £197.4m"; SSEN: "required an investment of £197 million"; "The Kintyre-Hunterston project has been completed on time and on budget" | Verified VERIFIED. The allowance is in 2013 prices, and the company's £197m has no stated price base; the page labels the outturn as the company's own. HANDOVER correction 46 is respected (£197.43m is the November 2013 allowance) |
| B75 | NAO finding: "DESNZ has allowed renewable electricity generation to expand faster than the grid, which has led to increased constraint costs. Successive governments' 'connect and manage' approach has allowed new generation projects to connect before the network was ready." official, NAO, September 2026 (:234) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589 ¶8, published 11 Sep 2026 NAO:262-265; date C/www.nao.org.uk/reports/upgrading-the-electricity-transmission-network/index.html ("datePublished":"2026-09-10T23:01:00+00:00", i.e. 00:01 BST 11 Sep) |
as quoted, verbatim | Verified VERIFIED |
| B76 | "The sums paid are gross. Wind and solar also push the wholesale price of power down when they are generating. No official estimate of that effect is held here … The true net cost to billpayers is below the £97bn by an amount this page cannot state." (:240) |
Explanation / acknowledged gap | — research/UK-BILL-TOTALS.md:21 (lead) |
"wholesale price effect of renewables (merit order). The last would reduce the net cost" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the research file. The merit-order mechanism itself is stated without a local source. As a gap statement it is accurate: no local official estimate was found |
| B77 | "Nobody can know what would have happened instead. The options and Wind or nuclear set out the alternatives at their documented costs, including their own overruns. They do not prove a different path would have been cheaper." (:241) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:241 |
— | Not found / open Explanation; the linked pages are checked in their own tables |
| B78 | "Subsidy and investment are not added together … Adding the two would count the same pound twice." (:242) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:242 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the page: no paid and forward figures are summed ( :126, :172) |
| B79 | "The forward figures are other people's forecasts. The £803bn, the £670bn and the £70bn are quoted as their authors give them, with the record of earlier forecasts beside them." (:243) |
Characterisation | OBR ¶4.32; OBR ¶4.20 OBR:6528-6531, :6014-6016 |
OBR: "21 per cent of GDP (£803 billion) by 2050-51. This is 9 per cent of GDP (£346 billion) less than the total cost (29 per cent of GDP or £1.1 trillion) estimated in our previous analysis in the 2021 FRR"; CCC net cost "a reduction of £204 billion (in 2025 prices)" on the Sixth Carbon Budget | Not found / open Characterisation, partly consistent. The three figures are labelled as forecasts (B28, B29, B32). But the forecast-against-outturn table ( :226-231) covers connect and manage, Hinkley Point C, Shetland 2 and Kintyre. It shows no earlier forecast for the £803bn, £670bn or £70bn themselves. The authors' own earlier estimates were higher (OBR 2021: £1.1trn), which cuts the other way. See Problem 12 |
| B80 | "Price years are not converted. Each figure keeps the price year of its source. Where figures in different price years are added, the page says so." (:244) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:137, :152 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, mostly consistent. The £97.5bn total says so ( :137). The £12.2bn total (:152) adds the same mixed bases without saying so on that row, although :151 labels the constraint line "2024 prices" |
| B81 | "This is not a page about climate science. It takes no position on it. It asks what was spent, what it bought, and who was paid." (:245) |
Characterisation | — counter/the-bill.html:245 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the page and with HANDOVER rule A4 |
| B82 | "The detail" link cards (:250-257), including "17 countries compared", "Subsidy paid to Moray Firth farms, live" |
— | — counter/the-bill.html:250-257 |
— | Not found / open navigation, no claim (the "17" is as in B39: 16 countries plus the EU-27) |
| B83 | Sources para 1 (:263): RO report "30 March 2026", sheet "Figure 5.12", RO_24-25_SY23_Annual_Report.txt:3200-3203; LCCC "60 saved pages", fields CFD_Payments_GBP and Avoided_GHG_tonnes_CO2e, "2025 total £2,640,168,618.27"; NAO HC 589 "11 September 2026", line list, "yearly series 0.56, 0.52, 0.65, 1.21, 1.04, 1.54, 1.65, 1.90" |
PRIMARY (citations) | as B14–B18, B26–B27, B69 RO-TXT:3200-3203; LCCC/ (60 files); NAO:179-181, :262-269, :284-291, :297-299, :305-308, :732-735, :750-755, :1022, :1176-1183 |
file count 60; 2025 sum £2,640,168,618.27; series sums to 9.07 | Verified VERIFIED. All cited lines hold the stated content (the £44/£104 lines are :175-179, inside the cited block's neighbourhood; :179-181 holds the £104 and £30) |
| B84 | Sources para 2 (:264): OBR July 2025 :932-934 (£803bn), :6012-6015 (£116bn), :6394 (levies); CCC Seventh Carbon Budget, February 2025, :4626-4641, data sheet rows 165 and 166; carbon capture release :100; NAO Sizewell C, 20 May 2026, :174-176, :184-185, :418, :1010-1023 |
PRIMARY (citations) | as B7, B9, B34–B36, B54–B55, B64, B71–B72 as cited |
— | Verified VERIFIED, with one citation note: the carbon capture release :100 lacks "over 25 years". The GOV.UK CCUS collection page :104 holds it (B34). Sizewell :184-185 is right for £38.2bn (:184; price-year header at :183) |
| B85 | Sources para 3 (:265): Energy in Brief :939-941; EDGAR 2026; DESNZ GHG 2024, 5 Feb 2026; UNEP EGR 2025 "from a UN-hosted copy"; ONS households 2025; carbon values Annex 1 "saved 5 October 2026"; ONS share ownership 2024; table_541 :206; Steel Strategy :989; NSTA factsheet Sept 2025 "lines 11 and 18"; NSTA projections Feb 2026; Norwegian Offshore Directorate via norskpetroleum.no |
PRIMARY (citations) | as B38–B43, B46, B48–B51 as cited |
— | Verified VERIFIED. The UN-hosted-copy disclosure is accurate ( C/www.uncclearn.org/...) |
| B86 | Sources para 4 (:266): DECC IA July 2010 :64-74 and the market-power passage; Ofgem sixth C&M report, December 2015, lines 30 and 426; DESNZ Generation Costs 2025 :266-268, :1200-1202; "Ofgem press release on early construction funding"; "Ofgem Kintyre to Hunterston decision, November 2013"; working files; "Compiled 5 October 2026" |
PRIMARY (citations) | as B56–B58, B61–B62, B66–B68, B74 as cited |
— | Verified VERIFIED. The Ofgem press release is undated on the page (9 Dec 2025 locally) |
Every row from the register for counter/real-cost.html. · 129 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K1 | Label "Scotland's renewables · the real cost"; H1 "The real cost: estimated numbers from government figures" (counter/real-cost.html:98-99) |
— | — counter/real-cost.html:98-99 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim |
| K2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." (:100) |
Characterisation | — counter/real-cost.html:100 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with K57: the only UK-taxpayer loan exposure on the page is the £800m National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › guarantee on an SSEN Transmission facility, undrawnA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more › at 31 Mar 2026. Same wording as R1 in Table 5 |
| K3 | Lead: "Each figure carries a label … Amounts are nominal with mixed price years unless stated." (:101) |
Characterisation | — counter/real-cost.html:101 |
— | Not found / open Method statement. Broadly kept; exceptions are noted in K11, K26 and K118 (NAO 2023-24/2024 prices, DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more › 2024 prices and CCC 2023 prices, each stated on the page) |
| K4 | Label definitions: official, filed, press, computedLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more ›, estimate, indicative (:102) |
— | — counter/real-cost.html:102 |
— | Not found / open Definitions, no claim |
| K5 | Meter "About £16bn", "estimate · money of the day"; split tile "Scottish renewable subsidies About £15.6–16.5bn, estimate" (:108-112) |
ESTIMATE | Sum of K7 + K8 + K9 counter/real-cost.html:109,112; R5:221-228; R4:13-18 |
Low 12,687.99 + 1,641.52 + 1,236.57 = £15,566.1m; high 14,906.24 + 1,641.52 = £16,547.8m (offshore RO not added to the high, see K10); midpoint 16.06 → "about £16bn" | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. All three components recomputed (K7–K9) |
| K6 | "Separately: managing the grid bottleneck, all of Britain, 2018-19 to 2025-26 About £9.1bn, official (NAO series), summed here" (:113) |
COMPUTED | NAO Figure 4 NAO:995-998 |
0.56 + 0.52 + 0.65 + 1.21 + 1.04 + 1.54 + 1.65 + 1.90 = 9.07 → £9.1bn | Verified VERIFIED. Prices are 2023-24 or 2024, not money of the day (the table row K12 says so) |
| K7 | Table: onshore wind and other non-offshore, Scotland, RO (scheme years 9–23, years 6–8 in the upper figure) plus CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › to 22 Sep 2026: £12.7–14.9bn, estimate; "OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › ROCs issued × buy-out price, plus summed LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more › payments" (:120) |
ESTIMATE | Ofgem RO SY23 dataset; LCCC actuals RO23 sheets Figure 3.5 (a-d) (Scotland column, SY6–SY23), Figure 5.10, Figure 5.11, Figure 3.2; LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json |
SY9–SY23 Scottish ROCs × buy-out (SY9–SY17 derived as worth − recycle, e.g. SY9 51.34 − 14.35 = 36.99; SY18–SY23 published 48.78 … 64.73) = £13,993.46m. Offshore share SY23 2,392,636 / 22,858,131 = 10.467%. Low 13,993.46 × 0.89533 = 12,528.72 + CfD 159.28 = £12,688.0m. High 13,993.46 + SY6–8 20,370,329 × 36.99 = 753.50 + 159.28 = £14,906.2m. Scottish onshore CfD re-summed: £159,276,115.29 (14 units) | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Note: the SY9–SY17 buy-out prices are derived by R5, not printed in the report; the method reproduces the published SY18–SY21 prices |
| K8 | Offshore wind, Scotland, CfD and Investment ContractAn early, CfD-equivalent support contract given to some wind farms, including Beatrice, before the CfD scheme fully started. more › (Beatrice, Moray East, Neart na Gaoithe) to 22 Sep 2026: £1.6bn, "official (exact sum of LCCC rows: £1,641.52m)"; "Moray East's net payments are close to zero" (:121) |
PRIMARY (sum) | LCCC Actual CfD Generation dataset LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (INV-BEA-001/002, AR2One of the periodic government auctions at which Contracts for Difference are awarded to competing projects. more ›-MRY-107/207/307, AAA-NEA-195) |
Re-summed: Beatrice £1,439,634,766.71 + Moray East £1,602,391.48 + Neart na Gaoithe £200,287,206.54 = £1,641,524,364.73; last settlement date 2026-09-22 | Verified VERIFIED. Moray East cumulative £1.60m is close to zero |
| K9 | Offshore wind, Scotland, RO, five older farms, to 30 Sep 2026: £1.2bn, "estimate, low confidence (£1,236.57m)"; "Latest filed ROC counts held flat over the years of operation" (:122) |
ESTIMATE | Filed accounts of Robin Rigg East/West, EOWDC, Hywind, Kincardine × Ofgem buy-out R4:180-188; spot-checks CH/SC475345/SC475345-accounts-31-December-2025.txt:1351; CH/08709450/08709450-accounts-31-December-2025.txt:912; CH/03568724/03568724-accounts-31-December-2025.txt:959 |
298,259,325 + 258,491,415 + 296,261,668.09 + 215,356,500 + 168,200,016.67 = £1,236,568,924.76; KI "ROC revenue 28,445,990 41,112,383"; HY "Renewable certificates 29,716 18,141"; RRE "£369k (2024: £366k)" | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Wording note: for Hywind and Kincardine the research held certificate revenue flat, not ROC counts |
| K10 | Sum row £15.6–16.5bn; "the upper onshore figure already includes offshore ROCs, so the offshore RO row is not added"; left out: FiT, ROCs for 2002–07, constraint paymentsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › to onshore wind (:123) |
ESTIMATE | As K5 R5:228-230 |
Exclusions listed at R5:230: "Excluded from the cumulative total: SY1 to SY5 ROCs, Feed-in Tariff, constraint payments" |
Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| K11 | "Constraint costs, Great Britain, 2018-19 to 2025-26 £9.1bn, official (NAO), summed here; NAO Figure 4: 0.56, 0.52, 0.65, 1.21, 1.04, 1.54, 1.65, 1.90 (£bn)" (:124) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589, Figure 4 NAO:995-998; text NAO:263-266, :942-943 |
Figure values as listed; :266 "in 2018-19 to £1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)" |
Verified VERIFIED. Caveat inside the NAO report itself: the Figure 4 title says "2018-19 to 2024-25" and its note says the history is from NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more ›'s June 2025 balancing report ( NAO:1021-1022), which cannot hold 2025-26 actuals, yet the NAO text treats £1.9bn for 2025-26 as outturn. The page reports the NAO faithfully |
| K12 | "The NAO text says 2024 prices; its figure note says 2023-24 prices." (:124) |
PRIMARY | NAO NAO:266, NAO:1022 |
:1022 "We have adjusted costs to 2023-24 prices, using inflators based on the Consumer Price Index" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| K13 | "The series covers payments to wind farms to turn down and to gas stations to turn up. It is Britain-wide, not Scotland only." (:124) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.9 and key finding 8 NAO:938-940, NAO:266-268 |
"paying Scottish offshore wind farms to turn down their supply and paying gas-fired power stations further south in England or Wales to increase theirs" | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with correction 53 |
| K14 | Sub-heading "Scotland's renewables now cost billpayers about £2.0bn a year" (:128) |
ESTIMATE | As K19 counter/real-cost.html:128 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate (see K19) |
| K15 | Scottish offshore wind 2025: CfD and Investment Contract £345.01m (:132) |
PRIMARY (sum) | LCCC actuals LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json |
Re-summed 2025: Beatrice £230,872,933.38 + Moray East −£941,106.44 + Neart na Gaoithe £115,080,252.38 = £345,012,079.32 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K16 | Scottish offshore wind 2025: RO £146.36m (:132) |
ESTIMATE | Filed accounts × calendar-year buy-out R4:162-170; filed lines as K9 |
24,530,197.50 + 21,405,755.00 + 42,258,251.01 + 29,716,000 + 28,445,990 = £146,356,193.51 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. EOWDC uses its 2024 volume as a proxy (2025 accounts not filed) |
| K17 | Scottish offshore wind 2025: constraint payments £181.32m; row total "About £0.67bn (£672.69m)", "estimate; constraint part indicative" (:132) |
PRIMARY (Elexon, indicative run) / ESTIMATE (total) | Elexon EBOCF indicative bid cashflows, 2025 ELX (365 files) |
Re-summed nine groups (BEATO, MOWEO, MOWWO, SGRWO, NNGAO, RREW/RRWW, ABRBO, HYWDW, KINCW): £181,317,948.91. 345,012,079.32 + 146,356,193.51 + 181,317,948.91 = £672,686,221.74 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled. Scope note: EBOCF bid cashflows are all accepted bids, mostly but not only thermal-constraint actions. Context the page omits: the NAO says wind turn-down payments are "usually paid fixed compensation … based on the subsidies or support payments they would have received", so "most payments to renewables for reducing output are not an additional cost to consumers" ( NAO:1051-1058) |
| K18 | Other Scottish renewables: RO £1,324.73m plus CfD £46.37m = £1,371.10m; RO scheme year Apr 2024–Mar 2025, CfD calendar 2025 (:133) |
ESTIMATE | RO23 Figure 3.2; LCCC RO23 sheet Figure 3.2 (Scotland column); LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json |
22,858,131 − 2,392,636 = 20,465,495 ROCs × £64.73 = £1,324.73m; Scottish onshore CfD 2025 re-summed £46,370,981.88; total £1,371.10m | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| K19 | Total, Scotland: "About £2.0bn (£2,043.79m)", periods differ (:134) |
ESTIMATE | K17 + K18 — |
672.69 + 1,371.10 = £2,043.79m | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| K20 | "Separately, all of Britain: managing the grid bottleneck £1.9bn, official (NAO), 2025-26, 2024 prices. … £0.18bn of it is already in the offshore line above." (:135) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | NAO NAO:266 |
"£1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. £1.9bn VERIFIED. "£0.18bn of it is already in the offshore line" is not like for like: the £181.32m is calendar 2025, nominal, indicative Elexon bid cashflows (all bids); the NAO figure is financial year 2025-26, 2024 prices, NESO thermal constraint costs. The overlap is likely but cannot be stated as an exact £0.18bn |
| K21 | "Scotland had 17.9 GW of renewable capacity at the end of 2025 (17,890.2 MWUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more ›): onshore wind 10,489.7 MW, offshore wind 4,300.8 MW. official, DESNZ" (:140) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Regional Renewable Statistics, 29 Sep 2026 DESNZ-REG/Regional_installed_capacity_MW_2003-2025.xlsx sheet MW2025 row 19; Notes note 2 |
"Scotland 10489.66 4300.775 … 17890.15"; note 2 "At the 31 December"; note 4 "Offshore wind is allocated … according to where the cabling comes ashore" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K22 | Sources note citing R4, R5, FACT-SHEET fact 26 (:141) |
— | — counter/real-cost.html:141 |
— | Not found / open Source list, no claim. FACT-SHEET.md fact 26 is at FACT-SHEET.md:130 and matches K11 |
| K23 | Built-and-committed intro: "Price years are mixed. Low and high are the lowest and highest figures found, not a forecast." (:146) |
Characterisation | — R1:7 |
"low = lowest whole-project figure read, high = highest whole-project figure read" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with R1 method |
| K24 | Ten Scottish-water wind farms built, incl. OFTOAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more › assets, nominal 2007–2026: £13.7bn–£16.1bn, "filed, press, estimate" (:151) |
ESTIMATE (filed and press inputs) | Farm accounts, Ofgem OFTO values, press R1:68-80, R1:137; spot-checks CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.capex1.txt:1961,2001; CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.capex1.txt:1191 |
Low 380.0 + 28.1 + 162.2 + 300.0 + 425.6 + 2,468.0 + 2,600.0 + 2,500.0 + 3,000.0 + 1,800.0 = 13,663.9; high 428.9 + 31.6 + 271.4 + 348.7 + 500.0 + 2,600.0 + 2,882.9 + 2,632.4 + 3,482.1 + 2,894.5 = 16,072.5 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled. The ten include the two-turbine Beatrice Demonstrator, costed from Wikipedia only ( R1:39) |
| K25 | Five transmission projects energised (Beauly–Denny, Caithness–Moray, Western Link, Shetland Link 1, Kintyre–Hunterston), price years 2009–2020/21: £3.1bn–£4.1bn, "official, press" (:152) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | Ofgem decisions; press R2:22-32; checked sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/12/decision_on_our_assessment_of_the_caithness_moray_transmission_project_0.txt:12; …/2021-11/Shetland%20Link%20Project%20Assessment%20Decision%20FINAL.txt:128; sources/crawl/www.insider.co.uk/news/beauly-denny-power-line-now-9868913:410 |
"allowance of £1,118 million (2013/14 prices)"; "allowance of £641.8m"; "The £820 million upgraded Beauly to Denny power line". Low 820 + 1,118 + 331.0 + 641.8 + 197.4 = 3,108.2; high 820 + 1,223 + 1,200 + 675.4 + 197.4 = 4,115.8 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Sums correct. The high figure counts the whole Western Link (£1.2bn) while the low uses the Scottish (SPTL 31.5%) share, £331.0m (R2:24). Most of the high Western Link figure is the English share, which correction 47 warns against adding to a Scottish total. The page does not say so |
| K26 | Onshore wind, whole Scottish fleet of 10,489.7 MW, at DESNZ generic capital cost, 2024 prices, central £17.8bn: £13.6bn–£24.4bn, estimate (:153) |
ESTIMATE | DESNZ Electricity Generation Costs 2025, Annex A GENCOST sheet Technical and Cost Assumptions column I (Onshore Wind) rows 3, 7–9, 19–21, 31–33; sheet Home |
Cells: plant 51.6 MW; pre-dev 40/80/210 £/kW; construction 1,000/1,300/1,700 £/kW; infrastructure 13,000/16,300/21,600 £k. 10,489,700 kW × (1,040 + 251.94) = £13.55bn; × (1,380 + 315.89) = £17.79bn; × (1,910 + 418.60) = £24.43bn. Home: "All costs are in real 2024 GBP" |
Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate (replacement-cost basis is disclosed at :163) |
| K27 | Stability and backup services in Scotland, contracted or priced, mixed price years: £0.4bn–£0.5bn, class "official" (:154) |
ESTIMATE (official inputs) | NESO Pathfinder results; Ofgem; SSE R3:276-283 |
Tier A 323.0 + 49.0 + 3.1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 375.1 (low); 323.0 + 59.2 + 3.1 + 53.8 + 64.4 + 0 = 503.5 (high) | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Sums correct. The class "official" understates the estimation. A2 is a computed or pro-rata share, A3 is pro rata, the A4 high is the whole northern black-start tender (NW, NE and Scotland) and A5 is computed (1,073 MW × £60/kW). The class should read "official, estimate" |
| K28 | Total built £30.7bn–£45.1bn, "About £31–45bn" (:155) |
ESTIMATE | K24 + K25 + K26 + K27 — |
13,663.9 + 3,108.2 + 13,552.0 + 375.1 = 30,699.2; 16,072.5 + 4,115.8 + 24,426.4 + 503.5 = 45,118.2 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate (subject to K25 and K27) |
| K29 | Inch Cape wind farm, under construction: £3.5bn–£3.7bn, "press, filed" (:157) |
SECONDARY / PRIMARY | Red Rock release 27 Jan 2025; Inch Cape accounts 2025 R1:65-66; sources/crawl/www.redrockrenewables.com/2025/01/27/inch-cape-reaches-financial-close.capex1.txt:29; CH/SC373173/SC373173-accounts-2025-12-31.capex1.txt:1208,2024 |
"raising more than £3.5 billion of funding"; AUC 1,896,819 + commitments 1,755,942 = £3,652.8m | Verified VERIFIED |
| K30 | Transmission under construction or approved: EGL1 and 2, Orkney link (low); SSEN's £22bn programme, EGL1 and SPT lines (high): £5.7bn–£24.9bn, "official, press, estimate" (:158) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | Ofgem ASTI decisions; SSE AR26 R2:52-71,79-99; checked sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/EGL1 Project Assessment Decision Final.txt:104-105; …/2024-08/EGL2_PA_Decision_Final.txt:105; AR26:240 |
"£2,001,104,429 (2018/19 prices)"; "£3,449,161,471 (2018/19 prices)"; "we plan to invest around £22bn". Low 2,001.1 + 3,449.2 + 260.0 = 5,710.3; high 2,001.1 + 22,000.0 + 893.5 = 24,894.6 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Sums correct. EGL1 (SPT + NGET) and EGL2 (SHET + NGET) are whole Scotland–England links with "no Scottish share stated" (R2:52-53), so the low figure counts English shares in a Scottish table (correction 47). The page note at :163 says the columns count projects differently, but not that these are whole cross-border links |
| K31 | Pumped hydro, announced with no FID (Coire Glas, Cruachan II): £0.0bn–£2.5bn, press (:159) |
SECONDARY | SSE 2023 release; trade press R3:161-166, R3:284-286 |
Coire Glas "£2 billion" (Aug 2025 press); Cruachan II "£500m"; 2,000 + 500 = 2,500 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K32 | Total including committed £39.9bn–£76.2bn, "About £40–76bn" (:160) |
ESTIMATE | K28 + K29 + K30 + K31 — |
30,699.2 + 3,500.0 + 5,710.3 + 0 = 39,909.5; 45,118.2 + 3,652.8 + 24,894.6 + 2,500 = 76,165.6 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate (subject to K25 and K30) |
| K33 | Note: rows rounded, totals summed before rounding; onshore figure is a 2024-price replacement-cost estimate for a generic 2030 plant, onshore wind only; transmission columns not additive (:163) |
Characterisation | — GENCOST row 2 "Commissioning Year … 2030"; R2:112 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with K26 and K30 |
| K34 | "The values of the offshore transmission assets (OFTOs), £1.8bn at final transfer values, are already inside the wind farm costs above." (:164) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | Ofgem cost assessments; accounts R1:92-101, R1:103-107 |
65.5 + 437.9 + 666.1 + 621.2 = £1,790.7m | Verified VERIFIED. R1 flags a risk that three press totals may exclude the OFTO ( R1:107), which would make the low total understated, not overstated |
| K35 | Crown Estate Scotland seabed option fees: £810.2m received to 31 Mar 2025 (£755.1m + £55.1m); up to £1,016.9m if INTOG fees paid in full; "filed, estimate for the sum" (:165) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | Crown Estate Scotland Annual Report to 31 Mar 2025; INTOG release sources/crawl/www.crownestatescotland.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%20to%2031%20March%202025%20-%20Web.txt:4135-4138; sources/crawl/www.crownestatescotland.com/news/intog-13-projects-selected-to-support-green-innovation-and-help-decarbonise-north-sea.capex1.txt:161 |
"During 2022-23 Crown Estate Scotland received 755.1m … from the payment of ScotWind option fees. During 2024-25 Crown Estate Scotland received £55.1m from the payment of INTOG option fees"; "£261,780,521". 755.1 + 55.1 = 810.2; 755.1 + 261.8 = 1,016.9 | Verified VERIFIED. Line correction: the receipts are at :4135-4138, not :4227-4229 as cited in R1. Any 2023-24 INTOG receipts were not read |
| K36 | "'Connect and manage' let new generators connect before the grid was ready." (:170) |
Characterisation / PRIMARY | NAO key finding 8 NAO:263-265 |
"Successive governments' 'connect and manage' approach has allowed new generation projects to connect before the network was ready." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K37 | Quote "The objective is to introduce grid access reforms that help to deliver energy security and a clear path to delivering the UK's renewable energy targets." DECC IA, 27 July 2010, IA:27 (:172-173) |
PRIMARY | DECC impact assessment URN 10/899 IA:27-28; date IA:6 "Date: 27/07/2010" |
"The objective is to introduce grid access reforms that help to deliver energy security and a clear path to delivering the UK's renewable energy targets." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K38 | Quote "Increased constraint costs occur due to increased generation capacity on the grid." IA:73 (:176-177) |
PRIMARY | IA IA:73 |
"Increased constraint costs occur due to increased generation capacity on the grid." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K39 | Quote on market power "estimated to account for over half of constraints in 2008/09", IA:106 (:180-181) |
PRIMARY | IA IA:106-107 |
"The modelling assumes economic dispatch across the network and does not account for possible market power being exercised behind constrained boundaries, which was estimated to account for over half of constraints in 2008/09." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K40 | Quote "National Grid expects these constraint costs to drop to nearly zero in 2017/18." Ofgem sixth monitoring report, 14 Dec 2015, OM6:30 (:184-185) |
PRIMARY | OM6 OM6:30-32, OM6:425-431 |
:30-32 "National Grid expects these constraint costs to drop to nearly zero in 2017/18. The forecast of constraint costs after this date, and particularly in the early 2020s, depends on uncertain assumptions"; :429-431 "constraints are anticipated to start rising again from 2018/19" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The quote is verbatim and correctly dated. The same bullet continues with an uncertainty caveat, and para 3.6 of the same report forecasts the costs rising again from 2018/19 (Gone Green scenario). The page omits both, which makes the forecast look more one-sided than the report |
| K41 | "The same impact assessment also says the solution had to be set in the context of protecting consumers, including minimising costs (IA:30)." (:187) |
PRIMARY | IA IA:30 |
"The solution will need to be set in the context of protecting consumers, including minimising costs." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K42 | Forecast increment: "Central £195m present value over 2010–20, 2009 prices, about £18m a year. Range £160m to £992m. official, forecast" (:195) |
PRIMARY | IA IA:65, IA:73-74, IA:797-799, IA:1047-1052 |
:65 "Price Base Year 2009 … Low: - £160m High: - £992m Best Estimate: - £195m"; :797-798 "They are the equivalent of £18m per year"; Table 4 incremental "£992m £827m £195m £160m" |
Verified VERIFIED. Labelled as a forecast |
| K43 | Outturn attributed to the rule by National Grid, reported by Ofgem: £4.4m (Apr 2011–Aug 2012); £22.2m (Sep 2012–Sep 2013); £69.4m (Oct 2013–Sep 2014); £121.7m (Oct 2014–Sep 2015) (:196) |
PRIMARY | OM3, OM5, OM6 OM3:237-238 (…/2012/11/20121120-monitoring-…-third-report-from-ofgem.txt); OM5:6-7,23-25 (…/2014/12/fifth_connect_and_manage_report_141216_1.txt); OM6:26-28 |
"£4.4m between 1 April 2011 and 31 August 2012"; "increased from £22.2m in 2012/13 to £69.4m in 2013/14" (OM5 covers "1 October 2013 to 31 September 2014 (2013/14)"); "from £69.4m in the year to 30 September 14 to £121.7m in the year to 30 September 2015" | Verified VERIFIED. The source labels the £22.2m "2012/13"; "Sep 2012 to Sep 2013" is inferred from the adjacent report periods |
| K44 | "Not reported after 2015 in the files held." (:196) |
Characterisation (absence) | — sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/ (OM1–OM6 held; OM6 is the last) |
— | Verified VERIFIED as a statement about the local files |
| K45 | Forecast total: "Central £999m present value over 2010–20 (£804m under the alternative rule). Range £571m to £2,019m." (:200) |
PRIMARY | IA IA:786-787, IA:1047-1049 |
"Constraint costs - 2010-20 NPV £804m £999m …"; Table 4 C&M columns "£2,019m £1,849m £999m £571m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K46 | Outturn: NAO thermal constraint costs by year (eight values), 2024/2023-24 price note; Ofgem totals £227.8m (2013/14), £365.3m (year to Sep 2015) (:201) |
PRIMARY | NAO Figure 4; OM5; OM6 NAO:995-998; OM5:242-243; OM6:281 |
"£69.4m, representing 30% of the total constraint costs of £227.8m"; "were £121.7m, representing 33% of the total constraint costs of £365.3m" | Verified VERIFIED (NAO caveat as K11) |
| K47 | "Not like for like" paragraph: forecast is increment over the alternative rule, outturn is total; PV 2009 prices vs annual 2023-24/2024 prices; "Only 2018-19 and 2019-20 fall inside the forecast window." (:205) |
Characterisation | — IA:65 ("Time Period Years 11", 2010–20) |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with K42, K45 and K46 |
| K48 | Note: "The NAO says Ofgem forecast these costs would fall to zero by 2023-24 (NAO:1181). The sixth monitoring report held here says 'nearly zero in 2017/18' and does not use the 2023-24 wording." (:206) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.13; OM6 NAO:1177-1184; OM6:425-443 |
NAO: "it forecast these costs would fall to zero by 2023-24, on the basis that planned reinforcement projects, including an East Coast subsea link, would be completed by then"; OM6 :440-443 "The modelling shows this falling on the completion of the Eastern HVDC link which the model assumes will be 2023/24." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. NAO quote VERIFIED. OM6 does not say "zero by 2023-24", but it does tie 2023/24 to the forecast fall (completion of the Eastern HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › link). So the note's implication, that the NAO's 2023-24 date has no basis in the report, overstates the gap |
| K49 | Sources note: CONNECT-AND-MANAGE lines; IA lines 65, 787, 797, 1047; OM6 lines 26, 30; OM3:237; OM5:24; NAO lines 263, 995–998, 1181 (:207) |
— | — as K37–K48 |
— | Not found / open Source list. Line references checked and correct (NAO "2024 prices" falls at :266, inside the paragraph starting :263) |
| K50 | "Scotland had 17.9 GW … and generated 39,023.2 GWh from it in 2025. official, DESNZ" (:215) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Regional Renewable Statistics DESNZ-REG/Regional_generation_GWh_2003-2025.xlsx sheet GWh 2025 row 18 |
"Scotland 21979.77 8870.24 … 39023.15" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K51 | "Moray East's contract paid slightly back to billpayers in 2025: a net −£0.94m. computed, LCCC data" (:215) |
COMPUTED | LCCC actuals LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (AR2-MRY-107/207/307) |
Re-summed 2025 net −£941,106.44 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K52 | "Ofgem estimates that bringing the grid upgrades forward leaves a typical household about £30 a year better off than if they were not accelerated, even though the grid charge itself rises by £60. official, as reportedA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more › by the NAO" (:215) |
PRIMARY | NAO summary para 12 NAO:305-312 |
"Ofgem expects the £70 billion of investment to increase a typical household's annual network charge to £104 in 2030-31, £60 higher than 2025-26 … leaving consumers around £30 a year better off than if the projects were not accelerated" | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with correction 55 |
| K53 | "DividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › to owners outside the UK come to £139.9m in the latest filed years. computed, from filed figures" (:219) |
COMPUTED | Beatrice accounts y/e 31 Mar 2025; Moray East accounts y/e 31 Dec 2025 CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71,114; CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:279 |
"Dividends paid 84.1 69.6"; stakes "Beatrice Wind Limited (25%), Offshore Wind Investnients Group 4 Limited (17.5%)"; "interim dividends totalling £104,202k". 84.1 × 0.25 + 84.1 × 0.175 + 104.2 = 139.9425 | Verified VERIFIED (arithmetic). Same as L4 in Table 4 |
| K54 | "£104.2m is Moray East's whole 2025 dividend, because its three owners are all outside the UK" (:219) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | Moray East accounts CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:72-74,279 |
"Moray Offshore Renewable Power Limited at 33.3%, Delphis Holdings Limited at 6.7%, Diamond Green Limited 33.4% and Equitix Aneomoi Bidco Limited 26.6%" | Verified VERIFIED. The dividend is paid to Moray East Holdings Ltd, and the owners' foreign or Guernsey domicile rests partly on secondary sources (Table 4 L7, L8) |
| K55 | "Beatrice paid £21.025m to Red Rock Power (China) and £14.7175m to TRIG, a Guernsey vehicle (as reported)." (:219) |
COMPUTED / SECONDARY | Beatrice accounts; press CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71,114 |
84.1 × 0.25 = 21.025; 84.1 × 0.175 = 14.7175 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The arithmetic is right, but these are pro-rata shares of the £84.1m paid to Beatrice Offshore Windfarm HoldcoA company that exists mainly to own shares in another company, often sitting between a wind farm and its ultimate owners. more › Ltd, the 100% shareholder. They are not payments recorded in the filing to Red Rock or TRIG. The holders are named in the filing only as Beatrice Wind Ltd and Offshore Wind Investments Group 4 Ltd; Red Rock, TRIG and Guernsey come from secondary sources (Table 4 L6, L8). "as reported" partly covers this, but "paid … to" overstates it |
| K56 | "The files record who holds the stakes. They do not give a reason for it." (:219) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, no figure |
| K57 | "SSEN Transmission has £2.0bn of new facilities agreed in 2025/26, including an £800m UK National Wealth Fund guarantee. That is the UK taxpayer's exposure, and it was undrawn at 31 March 2026. filed" (:223) |
PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 AR26:16568-16571; AR26:6529-6530 |
"Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities. As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities"; "a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K58 | "Denmark's export credit agencyA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › EKF guarantees part of the debt on Moray East, and Japan's JBICJapan's state development bank, which lent directly to Moray East's construction financing. more › lent about £743m directly to it. Those are foreign state bodies, not UK taxpayers. filed, as reported" (:223) |
SECONDARY (lender's own release) | JBIC press release, 29 Nov 2018 sources/crawl/www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1129-011637.html:374 |
"a loan agreement in project financing amounting up to approximately GBP743 million (JBIC portion) with … Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) Limited … EKF Denmark's Export Credit Agency will provide the guarantee for a part of the loan by the private financial institutions." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The facts match the JBIC release. The label "filed" is wrong: the Moray East filing names neither JBIC nor EKF (Table 4 L19). The release is from 2018 and says "up to approximately"; whether the loan is still in place after any refinancing was not checked |
| K59 | "When more power is made behind a bottleneck … the system operator pays the generators behind it to turn down (NAO, paragraph 1.9)." (:227) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.9 NAO:925-940 |
"NESO instructs: assets behind a network boundary … to turn down their generation or increase demand" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K60 | "Moray East's switch-off payments in 2025 were about £85.6m. indicative · Elexon indicative data, not the final settlement run" (:227) |
PRIMARY (indicative) | Elexon EBOCF ELX (T_MOWEO-1/2/3) |
Re-summed £85,635,652.58 (28,755,312.77 + 28,262,074.67 + 28,618,265.14) | Verified VERIFIED. Labelled indicative, per correction 49 |
| K61 | "Wind turn-down cost across Britain was £370m in 2024/25. official" (:227) |
PRIMARY | NAO Figure 5; DESNZ RNP NAO:1103; RNP:1865-1866 |
NAO "Wind turn down … 323 369"; DESNZ "In 2024/25 total wind generators were paid £370 million to turn down" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K62 | "Generators on the far side of the bottleneck are paid to turn up … in practice that has meant gas stations in England and Wales (NAO, paragraph 1.9)." (:231) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.9 NAO:933-940 |
"paying gas-fired power stations further south in England or Wales to increase theirs" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K63 | "In 2024/25 gas turn-up cost £910m and wind turn-down £370m, so gas took about 71% of those constraint costs and wind about 29%. official, computed" (:231) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | DESNZ RNP 2026; NAO Figure 5 RNP:1865-1868, RNP:1860; NAO:1102-1105 |
DESNZ: "£370 million … gas plants … was £910 million, or roughly two-thirds of the total constraint costs in that year"; total "£1.34 billion". 910 / (910 + 370) = 71.1%. NAO Figure 5: gas 916, wind 369, other 56; "Percentage gas turn up … 68%" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The £910m and £370m are DESNZ figures, but the card cites only the NAO, so a reader would take them as NAO numbers; the NAO's own figure is £916m. 71/29 is the share of gas plus wind only. Both sources put gas at about two-thirds (68%) of total constraint costs |
| K64 | "The NAO says the operatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more › pays a premium of around 30% over the day's wholesale price to turn gas up." (:231) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.10 NAO:956-958; NAO:1113-1115 |
"NESO pays a premium to increase gas-fired generation output, averaging around 30% over the wholesale electricity price for that day." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K65 | "The rules allow the operator to raise demand behind a bottleneck as well as cut generation (NAO, paragraph 1.9)." (:235) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.9 NAO:930-931 |
"to turn down their generation or increase demand" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K66 | "Transmission demand charges in Northern Scotland are nil (Zone 1). official, NESO" (:235) |
PRIMARY | NESO, Final TNUoSTransmission Network Use of System charges: the part of a bill that pays for building and running the high-voltage grid. more › Tariffs for 2025/26, Jan 2025, Table 9 sources/crawl/www.neso.energy/document/353086/download.txt:775-781 |
"Table 9 Demand Tariffs … 1 Northern Scotland - - -" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. True for the 2025/26 tariff year held; the page gives no year (it is now 2026/27, and no 2026/27 tariff file is held). The nil also applies to Zones 2–6 (Southern Scotland to N Wales & Mersey), so it is not special to Northern Scotland |
| K67 | "The government's own risk assessment of its work on connecting large new demand is Amber/Red (NAO, Figure 14). official" (:235) |
PRIMARY | NAO Figure 14 NAO:1933-1936, NAO:1994-1997 |
"Strategic demand connections — Accelerating strategic demand connections through new legislative powers … Amber/Red"; the assessment is DESNZ's "together with NESO and Ofgem" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K68 | "The files hold no case of a named firm being refused the power." (:235) |
Characterisation (absence) | — — |
— | Not found / open Statement of absence about the project files. Not tested exhaustively; no counter-example found in the research files read |
| K69 | Sources note for the six questions (:238) |
— | — counter/real-cost.html:238 |
— | Not found / open Source list. The 71/29 split is credited to UK-ENERGY-MESS-REVIEW, whose primary is DESNZ RNP, not the NAO (see K63) |
| K70 | "The CCC says its Balanced Pathway needs extra investment of £26bn a year on average from 2025 to 2050, peaking at £46bn in 2029. It does not state the total. official, CCC" (:243) |
PRIMARY | CCC Seventh Carbon Budget, Feb 2025 CCC7:4626-4627, CCC7:4903-4904 |
"Between 2025 and 2050, an average investment of £26 billion per year will be needed"; "peaking at around £46 billion in 2029" | Verified VERIFIED. No investment total found in CCC7 (consistent with correction 48). Data check: CCC-XLS row 165 peaks at 45.996 in 2029 |
| K71 | "The CCC's own costing sheet sums the investment to £670.1bn over the 26 years. official" (:243) |
PRIMARY (sum) | CCC costing data, May 2025 CCC-XLS sheet Whole economy charts row 165 ("Net capex"), cols L–AK |
Re-summed 26 values = 670.12 | Verified VERIFIED. The sum is the site's; the CCC text says "Over the 25-year period" ( CCC7:4839) |
| K72 | "The usual figure of about £110bn net cost assumes about £550bn of operating savings." (:244) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | CCC7 CCC7:4839-4840; CCC7:4631 |
"Over the 25-year period, we expect the total net cost (investment less operating savings) to be around £110 billion"; "savings of around £22 billion per year on average" | Verified VERIFIED. The £110bn is the CCC's own stated figure. The £550bn is not a CCC statement; it is 22 × 25 (CCC-SAVINGS-TEST.md section 0) |
| K73 | "The CCC's sheet sums those savings to £562.2bn and the net cost to £108.0bn. official. Prices are 2023." (:244) |
PRIMARY (sum) | CCC costing data CCC-XLS rows 166 and 167, cols L–AK; CCC7:5158 |
Re-summed: net opex −562.16; net cost 107.96; "In-year costs are in 2023 prices" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K74 | Heading "The cost to the taxpayer: £803bn"; "The OBR, the government's own fiscal watchdog, prices the cost of net zero to the public finances separately from the CCC's cost to the economy." (:246-247) |
Characterisation | OBR OBR25:928-930 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation consistent with K75. "Cost to the taxpayer" includes two-thirds lost receipts, which the page states at :252 and :281 |
| K75 | OBR quote, para 1.32, "£803 billion (21 per cent of GDP), or £30 billion a year on average, of which two-thirds can be attributed to lost receipts", OBR25:932–934 (:249-250) |
PRIMARY | OBR, Fiscal risks and sustainability, July 2025 OBR25:928-930 |
"Our latest central estimate of the fiscal cost of climate change mitigation through to 2050-51 is £803 billion (21 per cent of GDP), or £30 billion a year on average, of which two-thirds can be attributed to lost receipts" | Verified VERIFIED. Line note: in the current text file the paragraph sits at :928-930 (COUNTRY-CLIMATE-SPEND.md cites :932-933); the page's :932–934 is near enough to locate it |
| K76 | "Lost receipts are mainly fuel duty. The other third is extra public spending, mostly on homes, carbon removal and transport in the next decade (paragraph 4.31, lines 6469–6473)." (:252) |
PRIMARY | OBR25 OBR25:930-932; OBR25:6469-6473 |
"Receipts losses – mainly from lost fuel duty receipts"; "Around two-thirds of this comes from lost receipts, and one-third from additional spending … particularly public investment in residential buildings, removals and surface transport" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K77 | "UK greenhouse gas emissions, 2024: 373 million tonnes; official, DESNZ, final UK GHG emissions statistics, 5 Feb 2026" (:256) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ statistical release sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6982292019d3abdb495f37cd/2024-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics-statistical-release.txt:2-5 |
"5 February 2026"; "total UK net territorial greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 373 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K78 | "World greenhouse gas emissions, 2024: 57.7 billion tonnes; official, UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 (copy saved from a UN-hosted mirror)" (:257) |
PRIMARY (mirror copy) | UNEP EGR 2025 sources/crawl/www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/library/EGR2025.txt:1335 |
"reached a record of 57.7 GtCO 2 e, representing a 2.3 per cent" | Verified VERIFIED. The mirror is disclosed; the UNEP original is not held (Fetch needed) |
| K79 | "UK share of world emissions 0.65%, computed 373 ÷ 57,700. On the EU's EDGAR basis, 0.69%" (:258) |
COMPUTED | K77, K78; EDGAR EDGAR rows United Kingdom and GLOBAL TOTAL |
373 / 57,700 = 0.646% → 0.65%; EDGAR 2025 376.3 / 54,149.2 = 0.695% → 0.69% | Verified VERIFIED. The EDGAR 0.69% matches the 2025 row (K110). The research's 2024 EDGAR basis (373.12 / 53,769.6) also gives 0.69% |
| K80 | "UK share of all fossil CO2 emitted since 1750: 4.3%, secondary, Our World in Data, from Global Carbon Project data" (:259) |
SECONDARY | OWID cumulative CO2 grapher (GCP 2025) sources/crawl/ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions.GBR-WORLD.csv:276,551 |
UK 2024 80,079,450,000 t; World 2024 1,849,123,900,000 t; 80.079 / 1,849.124 = 4.33% | Verified VERIFIED. Fossil and industry CO2 only, excluding land-use change |
| K81 | "Public cost of net zero to 2050-51: £803bn, official, OBR" (:260) |
PRIMARY | as K75 OBR25:928-929 |
as K75 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K82 | "UK households, 2025: 29.0 million, official, ONS, Families and households in the UK: 2025" (:261) |
PRIMARY | ONS bulletin sources/crawl/ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2025.txt:105 |
"In 2025, there were 29.0 million households in the UK" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K83 | "Public cost per household: about £27,700, or about £1,030 a year; computed £803bn ÷ 29.0m; £30bn a year ÷ 29.0m" (:262) |
COMPUTED | K81, K82 — |
803,000 / 29.0 = £27,690 → £27,700; 30,000 / 29.0 = £1,034 → £1,030 | Verified VERIFIED. Labelled computed; includes lost receipts as well as spending |
| K84 | Note: "The UK's share of today's emissions is under 1%. Its share of everything emitted since the industrial revolution is higher, at about 4%, and that is the figure governments use when they argue the UK should go first." (:265) |
Characterisation | — research/UK-SHARE-OF-EMISSIONS.md (whole file) |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND for the clause "that is the figure governments use when they argue the UK should go first". No local source records any government using the cumulative share for that argument. The two shares themselves are VERIFIED (K79, K80) |
| K85 | "The OBR's average yearly public cost of net zero, £30bn, compared with what the government spent in 2025-26." (:268) |
— | — — |
— | Not found / open Heading, no claim beyond K75 |
| K86 | Police £31.6bn, 95% (:272) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | HM Treasury PSS July 2026, Table 5.2 PSS5:143 |
"3.1 Police services | 22507 | 25508 | 28146 | 29121 | 31557"; 30 / 31.557 = 95.1% | Verified VERIFIED. The line includes immigration and citizenship (£4.78bn, PSS5:144); police alone would be £26.8bn (112%) |
| K87 | Defence £65.4bn, 46% (:273) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | PSS Table 5.2 PSS5:141 |
"Total defence | … | 63701 | 65418"; 30 / 65.418 = 45.9% | Verified VERIFIED |
| K88 | Education, UK total £125.7bn, 24% (:274) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | PSS Table 5.2 PSS5:213 |
"Total education | … | 122968 | 125721"; 30 / 125.721 = 23.9% | Verified VERIFIED |
| K89 | Health, UK total £257.5bn, 12% (:275) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | PSS Table 5.2 PSS5:193 |
"Total health | … | 242429 | 257542"; 30 / 257.542 = 11.6% | Verified VERIFIED |
| K90 | Central government debt interest £96.9bn, 31% (:276) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | PSS Table 5.2 PSS5:129 |
"of which: central government debt interest | … | 85386 | 96946"; 30 / 96.946 = 30.9% | Verified VERIFIED |
| K91 | National and local roads £14.2bn, "more than twice" (:277) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | PSS Table 5.2 PSS5:161-162 |
"national roads | … | 6128"; "local roads | … | 8111"; 6.128 + 8.111 = 14.239; 30 / 14.239 = 2.11× | Verified VERIFIED |
| K92 | New Hospital Programme, all 46 schemes, total to 2045-46: £60bn; "half the whole programme, every year" (:278) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | NAO, Update on the New Hospital Programme, Jan 2026 sources/crawl/www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/update-on-the-new-hospital-programme.txt:457-458 |
"the total cost of the 46 hospital schemes will be £60 billion (of which £56 billion is capital) to build with a completion date of 2045-46"; 30 / 60 = 50% | Verified VERIFIED |
| K93 | Note: sources (HM Treasury PSS July 2026, 2025-26 outturn first estimate, Table 5.2; NAO NHP Jan 2026); "OBR figure is in 2024-25 prices and the spending in 2025-26 prices, so each share is about 3% too low"; "Two-thirds of the £30bn is tax no longer collected" (:281) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | OBR; PSS OBR25:982 ("£ billion (2024-25 prices)"); research/UK-SPENDING-COMPARATORS.md (PSS Table 4.1 ratio 1334.5 / 1290.0 = 1.0345); OBR25:930 |
1.0345 − 1 = 3.45% → "about 3%" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K94 | Intro: "The seventeen largest or most relevant emitters … The UK has cut its emissions the most since 2015 and is the only country found with an official estimate of the public cost of its own net zero. China, India, Indonesia, Russia and Iran are building new coal power." (:284) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | EDGAR; GEM; research search EDGAR; GEM:3566,3591,3592,3593,3643,3640; research/COUNTRY-CLIMATE-SPEND.md section 5 |
UK −26.9% vs Germany −26.8% (largest fall of the 17); GEM construction China 206,361, India 23,490, Indonesia 3,140, Russia 1,320, Iran 650 | Verified VERIFIED. "Most" is by 0.1 point over Germany, inside EDGAR's stated ±0.5% accuracy. "Only country found" is hedged correctly. The page's own table also shows EU-27 (Poland) with 100 MW under construction |
| K95 | China: 29.51%; +22.3%; 2060, policy; 3.23% *; none; 206,361 MW (:288) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | EDGAR; China LTS 2021; IEA WEI 2025; World Bank; GEM EDGAR (15,981.0 / 54,149.2; 15,981.0 / 13,064.4); sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/CHN/1900/china-s-mid-century-…_6351e786045e25b4fa444a15cce01f7c.txt:298; sources/crawl/iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/904392c0-caa0-45c1-a53a-90a6eacd2bfe/WorldEnergyInvestment2025.txt:6241; sources/crawl/api.worldbank.org/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD_2023-2025.json; GEM:3566 |
"realize carbon neutrality before 2060"; "China leads clean energy investment in 2025 at USD 630 billion"; GDP 19,498.0bn; 630 / 19,498.0 = 3.23%; GEM construction 206,361 | Verified VERIFIED (see K112 on the asterisk) |
| K96 | United States: 11.11%; −5.1%; none (federal target revoked Jan 2025); 1.36% *; none; 0 (:289) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | EDGAR; Federal Register; IEA chart share; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2025/01/28/2025-01901.xml:69; GEM:3673 |
6,018.3 / 54,149.2 = 11.11%; 6,018.3 / 6,340.3 − 1 = −5.1%; revocation list "(rr) Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021"; 19% × 2,200 = 418; 418 / 30,769.7 = 1.36%; construction 0 | Verified VERIFIED. 1.36% is labelled estimate (chart reading; band 1.29–1.43%) |
| K97 | India: 8.33%; +36.8%; 2070, policy; 2.78% *; none; 23,490 (:290) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | EDGAR; India LT-LEDS 2022; IEA chart; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/IND/1900/india-s-long-term-low-carbon-development-strategy_7489f24b6f5d58096efaf1448258a228.txt:934; GEM:3591 |
4,508.0 / 54,149.2 = 8.33%; +36.8%; "India will strive towards net-zero by 2070"; 110 / 3,956.1 = 2.78%; 23,490 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K98 | EU-27: 5.78%; −19.2%; 2050, in law; 1.84% *; none; 100 (:291) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | EDGAR; Reg. (EU) 2021/1119; IEA; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/EUR/2021/regulation-eu-2021-1119-…_3243a685f219b96c8fe3b1e542c2db63.txt:533; WEI25 :6922-6923; GEM:3640 |
3,127.2 / 54,149.2 = 5.78%; −19.2%; "reducing emissions to net zero by that date"; "almost USD 390 billion in 2025"; 390 / 21,243.2 = 1.84%; Poland construction 100 | Verified VERIFIED. The 100 MW is the site's sum of member rows (only Poland is non-zero); GEM gives no EU total |
| K99 | Russia: 4.75%; +14.8%; 2060, policy; not published; none; 1,320 (:292) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; Government Order 3052-r; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/RUS/1900/strategy-…_713ac7dbeafec36b8b47810715aef209.txt:974-975; GEM:3643 |
2,574.4 / 54,149.2 = 4.75%; +14.8%; "their absorption no later than 2060"; 1,320 | Verified VERIFIED. Net Zero Tracker labels Russia "in law"; the page uses the narrower reading |
| K100 | Indonesia: 2.51%; +53.6%; 2060 or sooner, policy; not published; none; 3,140 (:293) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; LTS-LCCR 2050; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/IDN/1900/long-term-strategy-…_51ebcbff4aecfdaa6a0a6223d21cbdda.txt:681-683; GEM:3592 |
1,358.9 / 54,149.2 = 2.51%; +53.6%; "further exploring opportunity to rapidly progress towards net-zero emission in 2060 or sooner"; 3,140 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K101 | Brazil: 2.41%; +5.9%; 2050, policy; not published; none; 0 (:294) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; NDC 2023; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/BRA/2023/brazil-s-first-ndc-2023-adjustment_0f7809ac8fab445ee3f13f80515448cf.txt:20; GEM:3560 |
1,306.6 / 54,149.2 = 2.41%; +5.9%; "reiterates its long-term objective to achieve climate neutrality by 2050"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K102 | Iran: 2.07%; +40.2%; none; not published; none; 650 (:295) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | EDGAR; Climate Action Tracker; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/climateactiontracker.org/countries/iran/net-zero-targets/index.html.txt:345; GEM:3593 |
1,119.3 / 54,149.2 = 2.07%; +40.2%; "Iran does not have a net zero target."; 650 | Verified VERIFIED. The "none" target rests on a secondary research-group source |
| K103 | Japan: 1.96%; −19.9%; 2050, in law; 1.74% with Korea *; none; 0 (:296) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | EDGAR; Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures Art. 2-2; IEA chart; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4479/en.txt:489; GEM:3608 |
1,063.1 / 54,149.2 = 1.96%; −19.9%; Art. 2-2 "realizing a decarbonized society in Japan by 2050"; 110 / (4,435.2 + 1,872.4) = 1.74%; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K104 | Saudi Arabia: 1.56%; +11.9%; 2060, pledge only; not published; none; not listed (:297) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | EDGAR; Net Zero Tracker; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/zerotracker.net/countries/saudi-arabia-cou-0177.data.txt:21; GEM (no row) |
845.0 / 54,149.2 = 1.56%; +11.9%; "aiming to reach net zero by 2060 through a circular carbon economy approach"; no Saudi row in GEM | Verified VERIFIED (secondary for the pledge). Line correction: the quote is at .data.txt:21; the research cites the .txt:62 file |
| K105 | Canada: 1.41%; +0.9%; 2050, in law; not published; none; 0 (:298) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act s. 6; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-19.3/page-1.html.txt:179; GEM:3564 |
764.5 / 54,149.2 = 1.41%; +0.9%; "The national greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050 is net-zero emissions."; 0 | Verified VERIFIED. +0.9% is within EDGAR's ±0.5% single-year marginA profit figure expressed as a percentage of revenue, showing how much of each pound of income is kept as profit. more › of a fall (−1.0% in 2024) |
| K106 | South Korea: 1.29%; −4.7%; 2050, in law; with Japan; none; 0 (:299) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; FrameworkA general agreement with a supplier for future work, without necessarily fixing the price of what is eventually ordered under it. more › Act on Carbon Neutrality Art. 7(1); GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoR.do_lsiSeq_284347_efYd_20260918_chrClsCd_010202.txt:121; GEM:3649 |
696.1 / 54,149.2 = 1.29%; −4.7%; "2050년까지 탄소중립을 목표로 하여"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K107 | Germany: 1.22%; −26.8%; 2045, in law; inside EU; none; 0 (:300) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; KSG s. 3(2); GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ksg/__3.html.txt:20; GEM:3582 |
660.4 / 54,149.2 = 1.22%; −26.8%; "Bis zum Jahr 2045 … Netto-Treibhausgasneutralität erreicht wird"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K108 | Australia: 1.07%; −3.1%; 2050, in law; not published; none; 0 (:301) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; Climate Change Act 2022 s. 10(1)(b); GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/api.prod.legislation.gov.au/v1/documents/C2022A00037-latest-primary.txt:373; GEM:3553 |
578.1 / 54,149.2 = 1.07%; −3.1%; "reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K109 | France: 0.70%; −18.4%; 2050, in law; inside EU; scenario only; 0 (:302) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR ("France and Monaco"); Loi 2019-1147 (Senate text); France Stratégie 2023; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.senat.fr/leg/tas18-146.html.txt:574; sources/crawl/www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/289488_1.txt:5435; GEM:3580 |
377.3 / 54,149.2 = 0.70%; −18.4%; "d'atteindre la neutralité carbone à l'horizon 2050"; "le risque pour la dette publique à l'horizon 2040 aux alentours de 25 points"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K110 | United Kingdom: 0.69%; −26.9%; 2050, in law; not published; £803bn, 21% of GDP; 0 (:303) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; Climate Change Act 2008 s. 1(1); OBR; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/section/1.txt:138; OBR25:928-929; GEM:3672 |
376.3 / 54,149.2 = 0.695%; 376.3 / 514.6 − 1 = −26.9%; "net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least [F1100%] lower than the 1990 baseline"; 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| K111 | Norway: 0.10%; −14.2%; "2050 low-emission society, in law"; not published; none; not listed (:304) |
PRIMARY | EDGAR; klimaloven 2017; GEM EDGAR; sources/crawl/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/NOR/2017/climate-change-act_0342a3ae3d0443deefa2264faa058f1e.txt:58 |
52.9 / 54,149.2 = 0.10%; −14.2%; "Målet skal være at Norge skal bli et lavutslippssamfunn i 2050."; no Norway row in GEM | Verified VERIFIED |
| K112 | Note: EDGAR 2026; net zero sources incl. Climate Policy Radar copies; "IEA … estimates for China and the EU official; figures marked * for the US, India and Japan with Korea are read from the IEA's charts estimate; GDP from the World Bank"; no UK IEA figure; France scenario; GEM May 2026 (:307) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | as K95–K111 GEM:195 "Published May 2026" |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The sources are as described. But in the table China (3.23%) and EU-27 (1.84%) also carry the *, which the note reserves for the chart-read US, India and Japan–Korea cells. Every % of GDP cell is the site's division of IEA dollars by World Bank GDP, so none is an IEA figure as such |
| K113 | Heading "Savings test: partly supported" (:310) |
Characterisation | CCC-SAVINGS-TEST verdict research/CCC-SAVINGS-TEST.md:192 |
"Verdict on the £550bn: PARTLY SUPPORTED" | Not found / open The site's own assessment, consistent with its research file |
| K114 | "The savings figure is the CCC's own. It reproduces from the CCC's data. It is a saving in resource cost, not on household bills." (:312) |
PRIMARY | CCC-XLS; CCC7 CCC-XLS row 166; CCC7:4707-4709 |
sum −562.16; "Since these are social costs, we do not include taxes or subsidies (including fuel duties and VAT). Therefore, these operating costs will not align to the running cost that is paid" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K115 | "At Ofgem's October to December 2026 price cap rates, a typical heat pump home pays £680 to £820 a year to run, against £757 for gas. estimate, from Ofgem rates and CCC and DESNZ efficiency figures" (:313) |
ESTIMATE | Ofgem cap Oct–Dec 2026; CCC methodology; DESNZ heat pump report; RHPP sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/your-energy-supply/your-energy-bill/energy-price-cap-unit-rates-and-standing-charges.html:3962,3973; sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/Summary-of-changes-to-energy-price-cap-1-October-to-31-December-2026.txt:73-74; CCC-METH :2718, :6041-6043; sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a4519a2d200ca05e289e2ac/cfp-report-heat-pump-transition.txt:1588; sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82b8faed915d74e62374d8/DECC_RHPP_161214_Final_Report_v1-13.txt:712 |
Gas 9,500 × 7.97p = £757.15. Heat pump 7,600 kWh heat × 26.32p: COP 2.94 → £680; 2.94 + 15% → £782; SPF 2.8 → £714; RHPP 2.44 → £820; DESNZ monitored set SPF 3.9 → £513 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Arithmetic reproduces. The quoted range leaves out the DESNZ monitored-set case (SPF 3.9, £513), which the research lists; the top of the range (£820) comes from the 2016 DECC RHPP trial, not a DESNZ or CCC figure. A full range would be £513–£820. Electricity is at 0% VAT this quarter (temporary) |
| K116 | "The CCC leaves fuel duty out of its figures. The OBR puts fuel duty lost at an average £15.5bn a year. official, OBR. These are separate quantities." (:314) |
PRIMARY | CCC7; OBR25 CCC7:4707-4708; OBR25:6346 |
"we do not include taxes or subsidies (including fuel duties and VAT)"; "This is an average £15.5 billion a year lost in fuel duty receipts" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K117 | "The CCC publishes no low-fossil-price case for the savings." (:315) |
Characterisation (absence) | CCC documents held research/CCC-SAVINGS-TEST.md Q5; CCC-METH :8386-8387 |
Research: "No lower-fossil-price case on the cost side was found in the CCC documents I read"; the CCC applies low and high fuel ranges on the emissions side only | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The research supports "none found in the CCC documents held", not "publishes no". Hardened wording |
| K118 | "What would be owed in 2050" table: 3.5% / 5% / 7% × all, half, no savings = £377bn, £563bn, £910bn; £780bn, £1,038bn, £1,509bn; £1,182bn, £1,513bn, £2,108bn; label "estimate · this site's arithmetic on the CCC's own investment figures" (:319-327) |
ESTIMATE | CCC costing data rows 165 and 166 CCC-XLS sheet Whole economy charts rows 165, 166, cols L–AK |
Recomputed with balance = balance × (1 + r) + capex + s × opex, 2025–2050: s = 1 → 377, 563, 910; s = 0.5 → 780, 1,038, 1,509; s = 0 → 1,182, 1,513, 2,108 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate (all nine cells). Note: the balances are in 2023 prices with the interest rate applied to them, and the page does not say whether the rates are real or nominal |
| K119 | Method note: not all borrowed; asset value not counted; UK-wide; year-by-year capex added and net opex saving (all, half, none) taken off; sheet "Whole economy charts", rows 165 and 166 (:328) |
Characterisation | — research/NETZERO-DEBT-2050.md:6-14 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with K118 |
| K120 | OBR quote, para 4.28: "The government also taxes carbon more directly through environmental levies and taxes." OBR25:6394 (:330-331) |
PRIMARY | OBR25 OBR25:6394 |
"4.28 The government also taxes carbon more directly through environmental levies and taxes." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K121 | "The OBR's next sentence puts receipts lost from these taxes at £2.8bn (0.06% of GDP) by 2050-51, on the CCC's balanced pathway." (:333) |
PRIMARY | OBR25 OBR25:6395-6396 |
"receipts lost from these taxes because of decarbonisation are worth £2.8 billion (0.06 per cent of GDP) by 2050-51, based on the CCC's balanced pathway" | Verified VERIFIED |
| K122 | Sources: CCC-SAVINGS-TEST; CCC7 lines 4626, 4631, 4903; OBR25 lines 6346–6347 (:334) |
— | — CCC7:4626,4631,4903; OBR25:6346-6347 |
— | Not found / open Source list. Line references correct |
| K123 | "The capital cost of Shetland HVDC Link 2. No cost has been published by SSEN, Ofgem or NESO." (:340) |
Characterisation (absence) | FACT-SHEET fact 7 FACT-SHEET.md:20-21 |
"No capital cost for this project has been published by SSEN, Ofgem or NESO." | Verified VERIFIED as a statement of absence. Ofgem's tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more › decision gives only a group pre-construction funding total for SSENT (£68.430m, 2018 prices, sources/tcsnp2_decision.txt:2791), not a Link 2 cost |
| K124 | "Vessel day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more › and contract values. Notices name vessels and jobs but give no rates or values." (:341) |
Characterisation (absence) | KingfisherA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more › notices; operators' notices research/wind-notices/; HANDOVER.md 1b |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with the notices register. Some supply-contract values are in press (Boskalis, Lamprell; HANDOVER.md 1b), but not in notices |
| K125 | "A Scotland split of balancing costsWhat the system operator spends keeping electricity supply and demand matched second by second, including constraint payments. more ›. Only Britain-wide figures exist." (:342) |
Characterisation (absence) | R3 R3:274 |
"GB-wide balancing costs have no Scottish split and are shown only as a sensitivity." | Verified VERIFIED as a statement about official publications. The page's own £181.32m (K17) is a Scotland-specific figure the site computed from Elexon data |
| K126 | "The closure date of Peterhead power station. No saved source gives one. SSE says it stays contracted in the Capacity Market to 30 September 2029." (:343) |
PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 sources/crawl/www.sse.com/media/h3bhjccu/sse_ar26_interactive-report.raw.txt:5073-5079 (layout copy AR26:2635) |
"Agreements were not taken for Peterhead, Medway, Burghfield and Chickerell power stations … These assets remain contracted to 30 September 2029, with options to secure agreements in future auctions." | Verified VERIFIED |
| K127 | "ECF and PCF figures for the Beyond 2030 lines. Ofgem says these 'are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published'." (:344) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem press release, 9 Dec 2025, "Ofgem agrees early investment and updated dates for proposed electricity superhighways" sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-agrees-early-investment-and-updated-dates-proposed-electricity-superhighways:3957,3965,3981; sources/tcsnp2_decision.txt:2783-2793 |
Release: "For commercial reasons, ECF and PCF figures are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published." The release concerns ASTI projects EGL3, EGL4 and GWNC. tCSNP2 decision: "Provisional view of PCF to be awarded (£m 2018 prices) … SSENT 68.430" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: The quote is verbatim but comes from Ofgem's release on the ASTI projects (EGL3, EGL4, GWNC), not the Beyond 2030 (tCSNP2) lines. For the Beyond 2030 lines Ofgem did publish provisional PCF by owner (SSENT £68.430m, 2018 prices), though not per project. See Problem 1 |
| K128 | "The full list is on the missing figures page." (:346) |
— | — — |
— | Not found / open Cross-reference, no claim |
| K129 | Sources paragraph: research files compiled 4 Oct 2026; primary sources with dates (DESNZ Regional Renewable Statistics 29 Sep 2026; DESNZ Electricity Generation Costs 2025, 18 Mar 2026; Ofgem RO Annual Report SY23, 30 Mar 2026; LCCC to 22 Sep 2026; Elexon indicative 2025; NAO HC 589, 11 Sep 2026; DECC IA URN 10/899 and Government Response URN 10D/723, 27 Jul 2010; Ofgem C&M reports 2011–2015 (sixth 14 Dec 2015); CCC Feb 2025 and costing data May 2025; OBR July 2025; Ofgem cap Oct–Dec 2026; Crown Estate Scotland AR to 31 Mar 2025; NSTA Reserves and Resources end 2024; filed accounts) (:351) |
PRIMARY (dates) | as listed DESNZ-REG/Regional_renewable_electricity_in_2025.txt:1; sources/crawl/gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-generation-costs-2025.api.json; NAO:15; IA:60; sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78f89540f0b62b22cbe3e6/251-govt-response-grid-access.txt:8; OM6:3 |
"Energy Trends collection 29 September 2026"; API "first_published_at 2026-01-14 … public_updated_at 2026-03-18"; "11 SEPTEMBER 2026"; "URN 10/899"; "URN 10D/723"; "Sixth report from Ofgem, 14 December 2015" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-8.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Most dates check out. DESNZ Generation Costs 2025 was first published 14 Jan 2026 and updated 18 Mar 2026; the page gives only the update date. The RO report's 30 Mar 2026 date is not stated in the local text (the file sits in a 2026-03 folder). The NSTA report is listed, but no figure on this page uses it |
Every row from the register for counter/nuclear.html. · 148 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | Label and H1: "Scottish offshore wind and large nuclear · the figures side by side"; "Wind or nuclear: the same money, side by side" (counter/nuclear.html:124-125) |
— | — — |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim |
| N2 | Callout: "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." (counter/nuclear.html:126) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with N61 (SZC: National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › debt up to £36.6bn, government stake 44.9%) and N60 (SSEN Transmission's £800m NWF guarantee). For the wind farms' own debt, the page itself names foreign state lenders (N57–N59). The taxpayer half therefore applies to SZC and the grid, not to the farms' loans |
| N3 | Lead and label key: each figure is labelled by source and price year; "not published" cells are blank, not filled with assumptions (counter/nuclear.html:127-128) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation of method. The page follows it, except for the label errors in the Problems list |
| N4 | "Billpayers across the UK have paid at least £97bn for renewables so far" (counter/nuclear.html:133) |
COMPUTEDLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more › RO SY1–SY23; LCCCThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more › CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › payments; NAO thermal constraint costsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › OFG-RO sheet "Figure 5.12" (23 rows); LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (60 files); NAO-TX:991-996 |
RO 74,669,876,778.02 + CfD 13,805,896,240.25 + constraints (0.56+0.52+0.65+1.21+1.04+1.54+1.65+1.90 = 9.07bn) = £97.55bn | Verified VERIFIED. "For renewables" includes the £9.07bn of constraint costs. The NAO says "The majority goes to generators to increase output … mainly gas power stations" ( NAO-TX:265-267). The note at :134 discloses the £9.1bn |
| N5 | "it includes about £9.1bn for managing the grid bottleneck" (counter/nuclear.html:134) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | NAO, HC 589, Figure 4 NAO-TX:991-996; text :263 |
sum of eight years = 9.07 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N6 | "computed from three official series, two in the money of the day and one in 2024 prices" (counter/nuclear.html:134) |
PRIMARY | as N4 NAO-TX:263; :1021-1022 |
:263 "(in 2024 prices)"; :1021-1022 "We have adjusted costs to 2023-24 prices" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. RO and CfD are nominal sums. The NAO series is in 2024 prices by its text but 2023-24 prices by its figure note. This sentence gives only the first; the page's own :269 and :485 give both |
| N7 | "about £16bn went to Scottish renewables (… the real cost)"; "the £16bn is an estimate" (counter/nuclear.html:133-134) |
ESTIMATE | this site's real-cost page counter/real-cost.html:109-123 |
"About £16bn"; "Scottish renewable subsidies … About £15.6–16.5bn … estimate" | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Traced to the site's own real-cost table; its RO/CfD Scottish components were not re-opened in this check |
| N8 | Hinkley Point C "whole cost is £35–36bn in 2015 prices", from an NAO table of EDF's latest scenarios, February 2026 (counter/nuclear.html:133-134, 151) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, Figure 3 NAO26:1022-1023; date :1050 |
"Actual cost or recent cost scenarios … £35bn – £36bn … (2015)"; "EDF published its most recent cost figures for Hinkley Point C in February 2026, as part of its 2025 annual results" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N9 | HPC "for 3.2GW"; "3.2 GW (2 × 1.6 GW)" (counter/nuclear.html:133, 164) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:3567 |
"Combined output of 3.2 GW (1.6 GW each)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N10 | "Sizewell C's baseline is £38.2bn in 2024-25 prices"; NAO report of 20 May 2026 (counter/nuclear.html:133-134, 153) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:181-185; cover :16-18 |
"(real terms 2024‑25 prices) £38.2 billion the Company's current cost estimate"; "20 MAY 2026 HC 33" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N11 | "The nuclear figures are costs to build. They measure different things, and this page does not subtract one from the other." (counter/nuclear.html:134) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the page (no subtraction made) |
| N12 | Wind cost to build: "£13.7–16.1bn for the ten Scottish-water farms built, including their offshore transmission assets. Nominal money spent 2007–2026, price years mixed"; low and high are "the lowest and highest whole-project figures found" (counter/nuclear.html:146, 148) |
ESTIMATE | research file sum of 20 filed/press figures research/SCOT-OFFSHORE-COST-1-CAPEX.md:139 (lead). Spot-checked at primary: CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.capex1.txt:1191; CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.capex1.txt:1961; CH/10515140/10515140-accounts-2024-12-31.capex1.txt:1720 |
Low 380+28+162+300+426+2,468+2,600+2,500+3,000+1,800 = 13,664; high 429+32+271+349+500+2,600+2,883+2,632+3,482+2,895 = 16,073 (£m). Spot-checks: "65.2 2,030.1 91.4 2,186.7"; "Balance at 31 December 2025 2,209,565"; "Balance at 31 December 2024 1,989,550 61,412 581,400 2,632,362" | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Both sums recomputed. Three of the 20 inputs were opened at primary; the rest rest on the research file's citations |
| N13 | "With Inch Cape, under construction: £17.2–19.7bn" (counter/nuclear.html:147) |
ESTIMATE | as N12 research/SCOT-OFFSHORE-COST-1-CAPEX.md:141 |
13,663.9 + 3,500.0 = 17,163.9; 16,072.6 + 3,652.8 = 19,725.3 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Arithmetic recomputed; the Inch Cape inputs were not opened |
| N14 | "HPC in 2024-25 prices: about £49.0bn. estimate … 22% lower than the lowest current HPC estimate; 38.2 ÷ (1 − 0.22) = 48.97. Inferred, not stated in one line." (counter/nuclear.html:152) |
ESTIMATE | NAO, Sizewell C, para 15 NAO26:413-414 |
"SZC's project baseline construction cost is 22% lower than the lowest current estimate for HPC"; 38.2 / 0.78 = 48.974 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Follows correction 54 (the NAO's words) |
| N15 | "DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more ›'s headline is 'around £38 billion (2024 prices)'" (counter/nuclear.html:153) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ press release, 22 July 2025 SZC-PR:81 |
"the target construction cost of around £38 billion (2024 prices)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N16 | "Whether the cost figures include interest during construction is not known; EDF's 2019 figure excluded it." (counter/nuclear.html:154) |
SECONDARY | EDF release, 25 Sept 2019 EDF19:22 |
"(2) In 2015 sterling, excluding interim interest" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N17 | "4,300.8 MWUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more › operating at the end of 2025. official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:160) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ regional installed capacity workbook REG-MW sheet "MW2025", Scotland, "Offshore Wind [note 4]" (row 19) |
4300.775 MW (end-2024 value also 4300.775) | Verified VERIFIED |
| N18 | "Inch Cape, 1,080 MW, under construction. press, filed" (counter/nuclear.html:161) |
SECONDARY / PRIMARY | Red Rock release; Inch Cape accounts www.redrockrenewables.com/2025/01/27/inch-cape-reaches-financial-close.capex1.txt:30; CH/SC373173/SC373173-accounts-2025-12-31.capex1.txt:67 |
"The 1,080 megawatt (MW) offshore wind farm"; "The project remains on schedule to deliver first power in November 2026" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N19 | "SZC: 3,278 MW planning capacity. official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:165) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ SZC VfM assessment, July 2025 VFM:230 |
"The planning assumption from SZC GenCo in the licence is 3,278 MW." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N20 | "Torness: 1,200 MW. official, DUKES 2026" (counter/nuclear.html:166) |
PRIMARY | DUKES 5.11 DUKES511:320 |
"EDF Energy | B191=Torness | … AGR … H191=1200 … P191=1988" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N21 | "23.5% in 2025, Scottish offshore wind. official, DESNZ regional table … 8,870.24 GWh ÷ (4,300.775 MW × 8,760 h). computed" (counter/nuclear.html:172) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | DESNZ Regional renewable electricity in 2025, Table 2; regional workbooks REG-PDF:125, 132; REG-GWh "GWh 2025" row 18; REG-MW "MW2025" row 19 |
"Scotland 24.1% 23.5% 11.1% 33.3% 55.8%"; 8,870.242 / (4,300.775 × 8,760 / 1000) = 23.54% | Verified VERIFIED |
| N22 | "UK offshore wind: 36.1% in 2025. official, DUKES 6.3" (counter/nuclear.html:173) |
PRIMARY | DUKES 6.3 DUKES63:59, 62 |
"Load factors - based on average of beginning and end of year capacity"; "Offshore … S8=36.12" | Verified VERIFIED. (REG-PDF:134 gives 36.2% on its own basis) |
| N23 | Caveat: the Scottish figure "divides by year-end capacity, so a farm that came online part-way through the year counts at full size for the whole year" (counter/nuclear.html:174) |
Characterisation | DESNZ workbooks REG-MW MW2024 and MW2025 |
both 4300.775 MW | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the data. Capacity did not change during 2025, so the effect comes from farms counted at full size before full commissioning (N24), not from capacity added in 2025 |
| N24 | "Neart na Gaoithe … reports all 54 turbines commissioned and fully generating in May 2025 (filed)" (counter/nuclear.html:174) |
PRIMARY | NnG Offshore Wind Ltd accounts, 31 Dec 2025 CH/SC356223/SC356223-accounts-2025-12-31.capex1.txt:150-151 |
"In May 2025, all 54 turbines had been commissioned and were fully generating." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N25 | "DESNZ's workbooks do not say why Scotland is below the UK figure; switch-off (curtailment) and commissioning are possibilities, not findings." (counter/nuclear.html:174) |
PRIMARY (absence) | DESNZ regional article REG-PDF:120-146 |
general text only: "Load factors can be affected by differences in regional average wind speeds as well as curtailments and planned maintenance" (:137-139, onshore paragraph) |
Verified VERIFIED. No Scotland-offshore reason is given |
| N26 | "DESNZ also allocates offshore wind to a country by where the cable comes ashore." (counter/nuclear.html:174) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ regional generation workbook, Notes REG-GWh sheet "Notes", row 7 |
"Note 4 | Offshore wind is allocated to regions/countries according to where the cabling comes ashore" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N27 | "Torness: 82% in 2025 (8.6 TWh). press, EDF's own figure" (counter/nuclear.html:177) |
SECONDARY | EDF fleet update, 21 Jan 2026 EDF25:26 |
"Torness generated 8.6TWh with a load factor of 82%"; check 8.6 / 10.512 = 81.8% | Verified VERIFIED |
| N28 | "75.6% in 2024 and 68.5% in 2022. estimate (EDF output ÷ DUKES capacity)" (counter/nuclear.html:177) |
ESTIMATE | Torness LLC minutes; DUKES 5.11 LLC25:314; LLC23:250; DUKES511:320 |
"We generated 7,967GWh of zero carbon generation for 2024"; "we generated 7.2TWh"; 7,967 / (1,200 × 8,784) = 75.58%; 7,200 / (1,200 × 8,760) = 68.49% | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| N29 | "UK nuclear fleet: from 56.82% (2021) to 72.85% (2018) across 2018–2025; 64.04% in 2025. official, DUKES 5.10.B" (counter/nuclear.html:178; repeated :415, :439) |
PRIMARY | DUKES 5.10.B, published 30 July 2026 DUKES510:79-82; :5 |
"Table 5.10.B Plant load factor, per cent"; "Nuclear stations … X9=72.85 | Y9=62.9 | Z9=57.19 | AA9=56.82 | AB9=72.15 | AC9=72.37 | AD9=72.26 | AE9=64.04" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N30 | "EDF attributes the lower 2025 output to an extended outage at Hartlepool. press" (counter/nuclear.html:178) |
SECONDARY | EDF fleet update EDF25:19 |
"12% lower than in 2024 due primarily to an extended outage at Hartlepool power station" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N31 | "Sizewell B: 99% in 2025. press, EDF" (counter/nuclear.html:179) |
SECONDARY | EDF fleet update EDF25:26 |
"Sizewell B generated 10.4TWh with a load factor of 99%" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N32 | "DESNZ models SZC at 90%: an assumption, not an outcome." (counter/nuclear.html:180; repeated :439) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ VfM VFM:274 |
"it has been assumed SZC provides c.3.3GW of firm power, with a 90% load factor" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N33 | "Moray East: £82.34, indexedA price or allowance that rises each year in line with inflation, so its real value stays roughly constant. more ›, 22 Sep 2026 (base strikeThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › £57.50, 2012 prices)" (counter/nuclear.html:186) |
PRIMARY | LCCC actual CfD data; Moray East accounts LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (AR2One of the periodic government auctions at which Contracts for Difference are awarded to competing projects. more ›-MRY-107, latest record 2026-09-22); CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:1215; LCCC/datastore_search_auction_q_Moray.json (_id 400) |
Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh = 82.3400; "Price (as at a Base Year of 2012) of £57.50/MWh"; "Strike_Price_GBP_Per_MWh":"57.500" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N34 | "Beatrice: £205.70, indexed, 22 Sep 2026 (strike £140, 2012 prices)" (counter/nuclear.html:187) |
PRIMARY | LCCC; Beatrice accounts LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (INV-BEA-001/002, 2026-09-22); CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1088 |
205.7000; "The Investment CfD, secured in 2014, is set at £140 per Megawatt hour in 2012 prices." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N35 | "Both contracts are two-way: billpayers pay, or receive, the difference from the market price." (counter/nuclear.html:188) |
PRIMARY | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1088-1091 |
"if market prices are below the level … the Company receives compensation … If market prices rise above … the Company pays the differential" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N36 | "Latest auction, Scottish fixed offshore wind (AR7): £89.49 (2024 prices) and £64.23 (2012 prices). official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:189) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ AR7 results AR7:24-27; :142-147 |
"Berwick Bank B … Scotland … Offshore Wind- Scotland 1380.00 64.23 89.49"; "Offshore Wind – Scotland … £/MWh (2024 prices) … 89.49" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N37 | "HPC: £129, fixed in real terms, 2025 prices. official, NAO" (counter/nuclear.html:192) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:418 |
"HPC's fixed in real terms £129 per MWh in 2025 prices" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N38 | "The contract price is £89.50 (2012 prices), cut from £92.50 after SZC's final investment decision." (counter/nuclear.html:192) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, para 1.14 NAO26:1079-1081 |
"if SZC reached its FID, the strike price for electricity generated at HPC would be reduced by £3 per MWh, from £92.50 per MWh to £89.50 per MWh (in 2012 prices)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N39 | SZC "equivalent strike price" £131–155 (summary) or £133–155 (para 1.22), 2024-25 prices; £152–178 without "the consumer subsidy" (counter/nuclear.html:193) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:415-416; :1345-1350 |
"£131 to £155 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (in 2024-25 prices)"; "£133 to £155 per MWh (2024-25 prices)"; "Without the consumer subsidy, the strike price would be £152 to £178 per MWh" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N40 | Wind contract length "Not published"; LCCC data gives start dates and no end-date field (counter/nuclear.html:198) |
PRIMARY (absence) | LCCC portfolio dataset LCCC/datastore_search_portfolio_q_Moray.json (fields); see Table 5 R77 |
fields include Expected_Start_Date; no contract-end field | Verified VERIFIED |
| N41 | "HPC: 35 years from generation starting. official, NAO 2017" (counter/nuclear.html:200) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:732-736 |
"the CfD will last 35 years from generation starting" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N42 | "SZC: regulated asset base, paid by consumers through bills from after November 2025" (counter/nuclear.html:201) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:1528-1530 |
"SZC receives payments from consumers based on the Company's approved capital expenditure and cost of capital, starting after November 2025" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N43 | "30 years for fixed offshore wind (22 years in the 2016 report). official, DESNZ generic assumption" (counter/nuclear.html:206; repeated :336) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ 2025 annex; BEIS 2016 G25A:105-108 (N1 "Fixed Offshore Wind"), :123; G16:3083, 3095 |
"Operating lifetime | C6=years … N6=30"; "Offshore R3 … Operating period Duration … 22 years" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N44 | "SZC: 60 years, as modelled by DESNZ … A generic nuclear plant: 60 years in the 2016 report" (counter/nuclear.html:208) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ VfM; BEIS 2016 VFM:274, 289; G16:2855, 2867 |
"operating for 60 … years in the core scenarios"; "Nuclear - PWR FOAK … Operating period … 60 years" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N45 | "Torness: commissioned 1988; planned end of generation March 2030, which EDF calls a forecast; the youngest advanced gas-cooled reactors were originally due to stop in 2023. press, EDF" (counter/nuclear.html:209) |
SECONDARY | EDF releases and station page EDF-TOR:16, 18; EDF25:9, 20, 27; www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-stations/torness.txt:26 |
"its current end of generation date is March 2030"; "generation started on 25 May 1988"; "The youngest of the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor stations (Torness and Heysham 2) were originally due to stop generating in 2023"; "currently due to generate until March 2030. These dates will be kept under review"; "Estimated end of generation: 2030" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. 1988, March 2030 and 2023 are verified. For Torness, EDF says "estimated" and "under review". EDF uses "forecast" only for the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool lifetimes (EDF25:9) |
| N46 | "Moray East: three owners, all outside the UK." (counter/nuclear.html:215) |
PRIMARY | Moray East accounts; Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more › PSC registerA person or entity recorded as having substantial ownership or control of a UK company, held on a public Companies House register. more › CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:71-74; CH/15065285/persons-with-significant-control.html |
"Moray Offshore Renewable Power Limited at 33.3%, Delphis Holdings Limited at 6.7%, Diamond Green Limited 33.4% and Equitix Aneomoi Bidco Limited 26.6%"; PSC: "Equitix Anemoi Topco Limited … Incorporated in Guernsey … 75% or more"; "Equitix Ma 21 Capital Eurobond … Incorporated in United Kingdom … More than 25% but not more than 50%" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The Equitix vehicle has a Guernsey parent (75% or more) and a second PSC, Equitix MA 21 Capital Eurobond, "Incorporated in United Kingdom", holding more than 25% but not more than 50% (same PSC page; also research/EVIDENCE-REGISTER.md:301). "All outside the UK" needs that caveat (as register row L33) |
| N47 | "2025 dividendA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › £104.2m, 231% of that year's profit after taxA company's profit once tax has been deducted: the amount available to pay dividends or keep in the business. more ›, funded substantially from reserves. computed, from filed figures" (counter/nuclear.html:215) |
COMPUTED | Moray East accounts, y/e 31 Dec 2025 CH/07101438/07101438-accounts-2025-12-31.txt:279, 999-1004 |
"paid interim dividends totalling £104,202k"; "Profit for the year - 45,044"; retained earnings 327,004 → 267,846; 104,202 / 45,044 = 231.3% | Verified VERIFIED. Retained earnings fell £59.2m |
| N48 | "Beatrice: 40% held by SSE plc." (counter/nuclear.html:216) |
PRIMARY | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:68-71 |
"SSE Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Holdings Limited (40%)" | Verified VERIFIED. The 40% is held through an SSE subsidiary |
| N49 | "Dividends £84.1m, 59.7% of profit after tax" (counter/nuclear.html:216) |
COMPUTED | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:184, 82-83 |
"Dividends paid during the year amount to £84. 1m"; "profit for the year after taxation amounted to £140.9m"; 84.1 / 140.9 = 59.69% | Verified VERIFIED |
| N50 | "£21.025m to Red Rock Power (China)" (counter/nuclear.html:216) |
COMPUTED / SECONDARY | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:69-70 |
"Beatrice Wind Limited (25%)"; 84.1 × 0.25 = 21.025 | Verified VERIFIED for the arithmetic and stake. That Beatrice Wind Ltd is Red Rock rests on press (register L6) |
| N51 | "£14.7175m to TRIG, a Guernsey vehicle" (counter/nuclear.html:216) |
COMPUTED / SECONDARY | Beatrice accounts CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:70 |
"Offshore Wind Investnients Group 4 Limited (17.5%)"; 84.1 × 0.175 = 14.7175 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Arithmetic and stake verified. TRIG's Guernsey incorporation is in no local primary file: the local TRIG pages hold only a country drop-down, and research/BENEFICIAL-OWNERSHIP.md:45 cites a web search |
| N52 | "Dividends to owners outside the UK in the latest filed years: £139.9m" (counter/nuclear.html:217) |
COMPUTED | N47, N50, N51 as above |
21.025 + 14.7175 + 104.2 = 139.9425 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Arithmetic verified; inherits the N46 and N51 caveats |
| N53 | "SZC shareholders: DESNZ 44.9%, La Caisse 20%, Centrica 15%, EDF 12.5%, Amber Infrastructure 7.6%" (counter/nuclear.html:220) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:174-175 |
"DESNZ 44.9%, EDF 12.5%, La Caisse 20%, Centrica 15% and Amber Infrastructure 7.6%" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N54 | "Equity up to £8.5bn, nominal. Expected post-tax equity return 10.8–13.0%, nominal." (counter/nuclear.html:220) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:175, 192-195 |
"(of up to £8.5 billion, in nominal terms)"; "10.8% to 13.0% range of expected post tax equity investor rates of return" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N55 | "HPC: built by NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited; its owners are not named in the research file." (counter/nuclear.html:221) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:255-256 |
"NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited (NNBG) will build and operate HPC. NNBG is owned 66.5% by EDF and 33.5% by China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN)." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. True of the research file, but the local NAO 2017 report names the owners |
| N56 | "Torness: EDF." (counter/nuclear.html:222) |
PRIMARY | DUKES 5.11 DUKES511:320 |
"A191=EDF Energy | B191=Torness" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N57 | "Moray East: Japan's JBICJapan's state development bank, which lent directly to Moray East's construction financing. more › lent about £743m directly; Denmark's export credit agencyA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › EKF guarantees part of the debt. filed, as reportedA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more ›" (counter/nuclear.html:228) |
SECONDARY (lender's release) | JBIC press release, 29 Nov 2018 www.jbic.go.jp/en/information/press/press-2018/1129-011637.html:374 |
"a loan agreement in project financing amounting up to approximately GBP743 million (JBIC portion)"; "EKF Denmark's Export Credit Agency will provide the guarantee for a part of the loan by the private financial institutions." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures match JBIC's own 2018 release. The "filed" label does not: the Moray East accounts have 0 hits for JBIC or EKF. The EKF guarantee covers part of the private banks' loan, and the present tense is not confirmed after 2018 |
| N58 | "Beatrice: bank debt with an EKF guarantee on part of it, plus the European Investment Bank (2016 financing; refinanced July 2019). filed, press" (counter/nuclear.html:229) |
SECONDARY / PRIMARY | IJGlobal and Pinsent Masons (2016); Beatrice accounts www.ijglobal.com/articles/100705/beatrice-offshore-wind-scotland.html:873; www.pinsentmasons.com/about-us/announcements/beatrice-financing.html; CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:1298 |
"the European Investment Bank approving a £525 million loan … Export credit agency EKF guaranteed £300 million of the EIB's loan"; "funded by 13 commercial lenders, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Danish export credit agency"; "Financial Close of the refinancing transaction was achieved on 9 July 2019" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. IJGlobal puts the EKF guarantee on the EIBThe European Investment Bank, a lender to some of the Moray Firth wind farm financing syndicates. more › loan, not on the bank debt. No local file shows the guarantee survived the 2019 refinancing (Table 5 Problem 5) |
| N59 | "These are foreign state bodies, not UK taxpayers." (counter/nuclear.html:230) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, broadly consistent for JBIC and EKF, which are Japanese and Danish state agencies. The EIB is an EU multilateral lender, not a national state body, and its shareholders at the 2016 date are not in local files |
| N60 | "SSEN Transmission has an £800m UK National Wealth Fund guarantee, undrawnA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more › at 31 March 2026. filed" (counter/nuclear.html:230) |
PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 SSEAR:6529-6531; :16569-16571 |
"a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund"; "As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N61 | SZC: "National Wealth Fund debt up to £36.6bn, nominal; commercial lenders £5bn, nominal; a proposed £5bn guarantee from France's export credit agency; government equity stake 44.9%, initial" (counter/nuclear.html:233) |
PRIMARY | NAO; DESNZ press release NAO26:176-177; SZC-PR:35-36 |
"up to £36.6 billion from the government's National Wealth Fund and £5 billion from commercial lenders in nominal terms"; "an initial 44.9% stake"; "a proposed £5 billion debt guarantee from France's export credit agency" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N62 | "Government and investors are committed to fund up to the higher regulatory threshold of £47.7bn, 2024-25 prices" (counter/nuclear.html:233) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:188-190 |
"£47.7 billion DESNZ's 'higher regulatory threshold' … Government and investors have committed to fund up to this amount" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N63 | "HPC: financing is not in the research file." (counter/nuclear.html:234) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:257; :789-790 |
"NNBG expects it will cost some £18 billion (in 2016 prices) to build HPC, financed in full by its two investors" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. True of the research file, but the local NAO report states the financing route |
| N64 | Wind bill impact during construction "Not published"; "LCCC lists Seagreen, Moray West and Inch Cape as not yet started, with no payment rows" (counter/nuclear.html:239) |
PRIMARY | LCCC portfolio and actuals LCCC/datastore_search_portfolio_all.json (_id 55-57, 106-108, 122, 323, 343); LCCC/datastore_search_actual_filter_AR3-SEW-101.json, ..._AR4-MRY-010.json, ..._AR4-ICP-011.json, ..._AR6-MOW-010.json, ..._AR6-ICA-010.json |
Status "Pre-Start Date" or "Pre-MDD"; each actuals filter returns total 0 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N65 | "SZC: about £1 a month for a typical household, on average over construction. official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:241) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ press release SZC-PR:46 |
"limited to an average of around £1 per month over the duration of Sizewell C's construction" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N66 | "SZC: £4 in 2025-26 … building to a peak of £19–21 a year in the first decade of operation, 2024-25 prices. official, NAO" (counter/nuclear.html:242) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:178-180 |
"an increase to typical household electricity bills of £4 in 2025-26, building up to a peak of around £19 to £21 a year in the first decade of its operation (2024-25 prices)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N67 | "HPC: the NAO's 2017 view was £10–15 a year of the average household bill up to 2030; the price year is not stated in the research file." (counter/nuclear.html:243) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:158-161; :1670-1672 |
"Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy's (the Department's) estimate"; "The Department estimates that between £10 and £15 of the average annual household electricity bill (in 2012 prices) will go towards supporting HPC up to 2030" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. This is the Department's estimate as reported by the NAO, not the NAO's own view. The NAO gives the price year: 2012 prices |
| N68 | "Scotland: £8.8–29bn of transmission built or approved. Nominal as stated, price years 2009 to 2023/24 mixed. estimate"; low/high composition (counter/nuclear.html:257-258) |
ESTIMATE | research file sum (lead); Ofgem allowances; SSE AR research/SCOT-OFFSHORE-COST-2-TRANSMISSION.md:89, 99. Spot-checked: SSEAR:240; www.ofgem.gov.uk/.../EGL1 Project Assessment Decision Final.txt:104-105; .../EGL2_PA_Decision_Final.txt:105 |
Low 3,108.2+2,001.1+3,449.2+260.0 = 8,818.5; high 4,115.8+2,001.1+22,000.0+893.5 = 29,010.4 (£m). "we plan to invest around £22bn"; "allowance of £2,001,104,429 (2018/19 prices)"; "allowance of £3,449,161,471 (2018/19 prices)" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The sums are verified. "Nominal" is wrong for most components, which are Ofgem allowances in stated real price bases (2009-10, 2013/14, 2018/19, 2020/21, 2023/24). Two carry no price year (SSEN's £22bn, Orkney's £260m) |
| N69 | "Hinkley Connection … Ofgem capital cost allowance £655.7m, 2017/18 prices. official. National Grid asked for about £716m." (counter/nuclear.html:261) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem decision, 22 May 2020; Ofgem release OFG-HSB:3, 107-108, 146; OFG-PR:13 |
"a total capital cost allowance of £655.7m"; "all costs … are in 2017/18 prices"; "NGET wanted to spend £716m on the new link, but Ofgem's decision today cuts that to £656m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N70 | "About £199/kW of HPC's contract capacity. estimate (655.7m ÷ 3,287.16 MW)" (counter/nuclear.html:262) |
ESTIMATE | Ofgem; LCCC portfolio OFG-HSB:107; LCCC/datastore_search_portfolio_all.json (_id 401) |
"Maximum_Contract_Capacity_MW":"3287.160"; 655,700,000 / 3,287,160 kW = £199.47/kW | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| N71 | "Recovered through transmission charges over 45 years, not through the strike price. No outturn cost found. The scope is one 400 kV connection, 49 km overhead and 8.5 km underground." (counter/nuclear.html:263) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem release; Ofgem project page OFG-PR:13, 19; OFG-NODE:18-21 |
"The cost will be spread over the next 45 years"; "fund the project through the RIIO price control"; "49 km of 400 kV overhead lines"; "8.5 km of underground cabling" | Verified VERIFIED. The scope also includes a new substation and two reconfigured ones, not mentioned |
| N72 | "£1.9bn in 2025-26, Britain-wide. official, NAO. 2024 prices in the NAO's text; its figure note says 2023-24 prices." (counter/nuclear.html:269) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589 NAO-TX:262-264; :1021-1022 |
"thermal constraint costs have risen from £0.6 billion in 2018-19 to £1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)"; "We have adjusted costs to 2023-24 prices" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N73 | "The series covers payments to wind farms to turn down and to gas stations to turn up, so it is not Scotland-only or wind-only." (counter/nuclear.html:270) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589 NAO-TX:265-268 |
"The majority goes to generators to increase output … mainly gas power stations in England … The remainder goes to generators to reduce output. These are often wind farms in Scotland." | Verified VERIFIED. Consistent with correction 53 |
| N74 | "In 2024/25 wind turn-down cost £370m and gas turn-up £910m. official" (counter/nuclear.html:270) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Reformed national pricing delivery plan, 2026 DESNZ-RNP:1866-1868 |
"In 2024/25 total wind generators were paid £370 million to turn down … the cost of actions to turn-up gas plants … was £910 million" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N75 | "Scottish offshore wind, calendar 2025: £181.32m of switch-off payments … indicative, Elexon" (counter/nuclear.html:271) |
PRIMARY (indicative) | Elexon EBOCF indicative bid cashflows ELX/2025-01-01.json … ELX/2025-12-31.json (365 files); BMU list research/SCOT-OFFSHORE-COST-4-RUNNING.md:200-212 |
Re-summed totalCashflow for the 24 BMUs: 86,864 rows, £181,317,948.91 | Verified VERIFIED. Indicative run, as the page says |
| N76 | Nuclear switch-off payments "Not published … No nuclear figure is in the research files." (counter/nuclear.html:273) |
— | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the research files (none held) |
| N77 | "Stability Pathfinder Phase 2: £323m for 10 contracts with four companies, 10 years from April 2024; five synchronous condensers and five grid-forming batteries. official, NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › 2021 prices, undiscounted." (counter/nuclear.html:278) |
PRIMARY | NESO release, 6 Apr 2022; NESO results sheet NESO-STAB:167, 173, 175, 178, 190-221; NESO-STABX:12 |
"awarded 10 contracts to four companies worth a total of £323 million"; "The winning 10-year contracts, starting in April 2024"; "Five of the successful solutions are synchronous condensers"; table lists five "Grid forming battery storage"; "Undiscounted spend in 2021 prices from contract start date to contract end date"; sheet sum of the ten = £322.93m | Verified VERIFIED |
| N78 | NESO quote: "The imminent closure of nuclear power stations in Scotland and northern England, and the rising number of onshore and offshore wind farms in Scotland" (counter/nuclear.html:279) |
PRIMARY | NESO release NESO-STAB:174 |
verbatim as on the page | Verified VERIFIED |
| N79 | NESO 2023 siting note: "Nuclear (SMR) generation is a form of synchronous plant, which would support system stability requirements"; "highly indicative"; about small reactors (counter/nuclear.html:283; repeated :421, :427) |
PRIMARY | National Grid ESO note for DESNZ, 2023 NESO-SITE:98-99, 30, 18 |
verbatim; "the results should be taken as highly indicative"; "Copyright National Grid ESO 2023" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N80 | NESO: "Stability has traditionally been supplied as an inherent by-product of synchronous generation." No large-reactor inertia figure found (counter/nuclear.html:284) |
PRIMARY | NESO siting note NESO-SITE:83-84 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED |
| N81 | Wind "Largest single loss … Not published" (counter/nuclear.html:289) |
— | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the research files |
| N82 | NESO: "The minimum inertia of 102 GVA.s is based on a future largest loss of 1800 MW". official, NESO FRCR, May 2025 (counter/nuclear.html:291) |
PRIMARY | NESO FRCR 2025 NESO-FRCR:13-14, 414 |
verbatim; "May 2025 Frequency Risk and Control Report 2025" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N83 | "Ofgem asked NESO for more information on the 102 GVA.s proposal on 12 December 2025; the outcome was not found." (counter/nuclear.html:291) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem FRCR 2025 Authority Decision OFG-FRCR:4, 8-12, 122 |
"Publication date: 12 December 2025"; "we require the NESO to submit additional information for approval by 31 March 2026"; "minimum inertia reduction to 102GVA.s" | Verified VERIFIED. Ofgem formally "directs" NESO to further develop the report |
| N84 | NESO: "As our largest loss size increases, with sites such as Hinkley-C power station connecting to the network in the future"; extra 200 MW DC-Low (counter/nuclear.html:292) |
PRIMARY | NESO FRCR 2025 NESO-FRCR:1076-1078; :183 |
verbatim; "holding an additional 200 MW of DC-Low" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N85 | Wind decommissioningThe legal duty to remove offshore energy infrastructure and restore the site once it stops being used, paid for by the operator. more ›: "Operators pay under the Energy Act 2004 'polluter pays' regime; Beatrice is already accruing a provision" (counter/nuclear.html:298) |
PRIMARY | BEIS OREI decommissioning guidance; Beatrice accounts OREI:63, 215-219; CH/SC350248/SC350248-accounts-2025-03-31.txt:606, 915-919 |
"Sections 105 to 114 of the Energy Act 2004"; "(the 'polluter pays' principle)"; "Provisions 24 (105.1)"; "Provision is made for the net present value of the estimated cost of decommissioning the offshore wind farm" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N86 | "DESNZ's generic assumption for fixed offshore wind: £265,200/MW, 2024 prices, medium case, inside its cost of generation" (counter/nuclear.html:299) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ 2025 annex G25A:16, 160; LCOE breakdown :29-43 |
"All costs are in real 2024 GBP"; "B43=Medium | C43=£/MW … N43=265200" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N87 | "Funded Decommissioning Programme. New nuclear operators must have secure financing for the full cost of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal. official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:302) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ HPC FDP page FDP:81 |
"operators of new nuclear power stations are required to have secure financing arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal costs" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N88 | "HPC: about £2/MWh inside the strike price (price year not stated). official, DESNZ" (counter/nuclear.html:303) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ HPC FDP page FDP:78 |
"accounted for in the Strike Price (some £2MWh)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N89 | "NNBG's estimate of decommissioning and waste costs is £7.3bn, 2016 prices. official, NAO" (counter/nuclear.html:303) |
PRIMARY | NAO 2017 NAO17:166-168 |
"£7.3 billion NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited's (NNBG's) estimate of the costs of decommissioning Hinkley Point C and managing its waste (in 2016 prices)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N90 | "SZC: £2.3–2.5bn real (2024-25 prices) paid into an investment fund over the operating life. official, NAO" (counter/nuclear.html:304) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, Figure NAO26:1587, 1641-1642, 1651 |
"(£2.3bn to £2.5bn real)"; "Values are presented in both nominal and 2024-25 real terms"; "payments to an investment fund over the operational life of the power station" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N91 | "NDA legacy provision: £114.5bn, discounted, at 31 March 2026 … older stations … Torness is one of seven advanced gas-cooled stations not yet in it; £22bn undiscounted is a contingent figure for the seven together, estimated by their current owner" (counter/nuclear.html:305) |
PRIMARY | NDA Annual Report and Accounts 2025/26 NDA:6053-6055; :10016-10025 |
"The discounted nuclear provision of the Authority at the end of 2025/26 was £114.5 billion"; "seven Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) stations … contingent liability … estimated by the current owner of the stations at £22 billion (undiscounted)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N92 | Wind "Is the cost published? No" for vessel day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more ›, contract values and the capital cost of Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 (counter/nuclear.html:311) |
PRIMARY (absence) | site fact sheet FACT-SHEET.md:20, 197 |
"No capital cost for this project has been published by SSEN, Ofgem or NESO"; "any capital cost … any contract value" absent | Verified VERIFIED. This is the absence the fact sheet records; it was not re-searched here |
| N93 | "DESNZ withholds project costs as 'commercial sensitivity'"; quote at G25:1200-1202; next paragraph quote at G25:1204 (counter/nuclear.html:314-316) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Electricity Generation Costs 2025 (Jan 2026) G25:1200-1204 |
"Project-specific and confidential costs and technical assumptions were used by DESNZ analysts for both projects but cannot be made available in this report because of their commercial sensitivity."; "High-level cost assumptions for both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are in the public domain." | Verified VERIFIED. The path and lines the page cites are correct |
| N94 | Sources note: "Scotland's 2019–2024 offshore wind load factors are not published; the research file's own estimates for those years (48.6, 44.8, 33.8, 42.5, 25.2 and 23.2%) are biased low where capacity was added during the year." (counter/nuclear.html:321) |
ESTIMATE / PRIMARY (absence) | DESNZ regional workbooks REG-GWh sheets "GWh 2018"–"GWh 2024"; REG-MW "MW2018"–"MW2024" |
Generation ÷ (average of opening and closing MW × hours): 2019 48.6, 2020 44.8, 2021 33.8, 2022 42.5, 2023 25.2, 2024 23.2 (2024: 7,393.66 / (3,635.775 × 8,784 / 1000)) | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The six values recompute exactly. "Not published" rests on the single 2025 article held; earlier editions are not held. The estimates use average capacity, so the direction of bias depends on when in the year capacity was added. "Biased low" is not established; on year-end capacity they would be 40.2, 44.8, 32.9, 30.5, 21.8 and 19.6 |
| N95 | "The 2025 DESNZ report gives offshore wind £103/MWh for projects commissioning in 2030 and £98 for 2035, in 2024 prices. It gives no nuclear figure." (counter/nuclear.html:326, 330-331) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ 2025 annex A; report G25A:29-32, 43 (E4 "Fixed Offshore Wind", E15=103); :44-47, 58 (E15=98); G25:1196-1206 |
"Additional LCOE estimates - for projects commissioning in 2030"; "All costs in 2024 real GBP prices"; "Total … E15=103"; "E15=98" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N96 | "The last DESNZ/BEIS report with both on one basis is from 2016, in 2014 prices" (counter/nuclear.html:326) |
PRIMARY (absence) | BEIS 2020 and DESNZ 2023 reports G20:641; G23:711-713 |
"For nuclear, we continue to use the assumptions from the 2016 Generation Costs Report." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The main texts of the 2020 and 2023 reports hold no nuclear LCOE. Their annexes are not held locally, so "last" is not established |
| N97 | 2016 report table: nuclear £95 (first-of-a-kind PWR) and offshore £100 (Round 3) for 2025 commissioning; £78 (nth-of-a-kind) and £96 for 2030; 2014 prices (counter/nuclear.html:326, 332-333) |
PRIMARY | BEIS, Electricity Generation Costs, November 2016 G16:7, 221; Table 4 :1138-1157; Table 6 :1204-1233 |
"All estimates are in 2014 real values."; Table 4 "Total 95 136 110 148 82 189 100 63 61" (columns Nuclear PWR FOAK … Offshore R3); Table 6 "Offshore Wind Round 3 Central 121 114 106 100 96" and "Nuclear PWR - FOAK 2025 / NOAK 2030 Central N/A N/A N/A 95 78" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N98 | Note: the 2016 nuclear cost was first-of-a-kind before HPC's cost rises; offshore life 22 vs 30; "The 2020 and 2023 reports say they carry the 2016 nuclear assumptions forward." (counter/nuclear.html:336) |
PRIMARY | BEIS 2020; DESNZ 2023 G20:641; G23:711-713 |
2023: "For nuclear, we continue to use assumptions from the 2016 Generation Costs Report and from publicly available data from the Hinkley Point C project" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The 2020 report is verified. The 2023 report also draws on public HPC data, which the page omits |
| N99 | 2016 report quote on levelised costs not covering wider costs (counter/nuclear.html:339-340) |
PRIMARY | BEIS 2016 G16:256-259 |
"As the definition of levelised costs relates only to those costs accruing to the owner/operator of the generation asset, it does not cover wider costs that may in part fall to others, such as the full cost of system balancing and network investment, or air quality impacts." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N100 | 2025 report "Out of scope" quote (counter/nuclear.html:342-345) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ 2025 report G25:261, 266-268 |
"Out of scope:"; "Wider system costs beyond those faced by the developer, and wider system benefits of deploying generation assets. These cannot be assessed without whole power system modelling." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N101 | NAO para 1.23: DESNZ's modelling "the greater cost of generation is outweighed by other benefits"; metrics "do not capture wider system costs associated with intermittent generation, such as transmission costs, reserve generation capacity and other balancing services"; break-even "not until 2064 in the most favourable of the core scenarios" (counter/nuclear.html:347) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:1353-1359; :1440-1443 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED. The page labels it a modelling claim |
| N102 | Calculator starting values: capital £25bn, 12 build years, start 2012, 2.4 GW, share 0.85, running cost £25/MWh, selling price £100/MWh, interest 4.5% (counter/nuclear.html:357-364, DEFAULTS at :503) |
ESTIMATE | this site's illustration counter/nuclear.html:352, 374, 503 |
"The starting values are placeholders chosen for the illustration. They are not published figures for any wind farm or power station."; HTML value attributes match DEFAULTS exactly | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate |
| N103 | Calculator constants: 8,760 hours a year; horizon 2080; reference year 2050; GW × 1,000 to MW (counter/nuclear.html:398, 400-401; code :518-526) |
ESTIMATE | page code counter/nuclear.html:518-526 |
outMWh=p.gw*1000*8760*p.share; last=2080; if(y===2050); prod:Math.max(0,2050-on+1) |
Verified VERIFIED. The code matches the stated constants |
| N104 | "Debt at switch-on £32.2bn" (counter/nuclear.html:368) |
COMPUTED | page formula, default inputs counter/nuclear.html:517-522 |
spend 25/12 = 2.0833 a year; balance after 12 years at 4.5% = 2.0833 × (1.045^12 − 1)/0.045 = 32.2167 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N105 | "Debt in 2050 £37.8bn" (counter/nuclear.html:369) |
COMPUTED | as N104 counter/nuclear.html:523-524 |
32.2167 × 1.045^27 − 1.34028 × (1.045^27 − 1)/0.045 = 37.768 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N106 | "Year paid off: not paid off by 2080" (counter/nuclear.html:370) |
COMPUTED | as N104 counter/nuclear.html:523, 541 |
balance rises every year after switch-on; end-2080 balance = £59.69bn | Verified VERIFIED |
| N107 | "Years producing by 2050: 27" (counter/nuclear.html:371) |
COMPUTED | as N104 counter/nuclear.html:526 |
2050 − 2024 + 1 = 27 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N108 | "Working: switch-on in 2024. Output 17.87 TWh a year. MarginA profit figure expressed as a percentage of revenue, showing how much of each pound of income is kept as profit. more › after running costs £1.34bn a year." (counter/nuclear.html:373) |
COMPUTED | as N104 counter/nuclear.html:518-520 |
2012 + 12 = 2024; 2.4 × 1,000 × 8,760 × 0.85 = 17,870,400 MWh; (100 − 25) × 17,870,400 = £1,340.28m | Verified VERIFIED |
| N109 | "The formula in plain words", steps 1–6 (counter/nuclear.html:396-401) against the code (:516-545) |
COMPUTED | page code counter/nuclear.html:516-545 |
Steps 1–6 match the loop: spend added after interest in each build year; margin subtracted after interest from the switch-on year; first year with balance ≤ 0 up to 2080; 2050 shown as "paid off (£0bn)" if paid off by then; 2050 − on + 1. Default outputs rerun in node match (N104–N108) | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The formula does what the page says for normal inputs, with one defect: if switch-on falls after 2080 (e.g. start 2060, 25 build years), the loop ends before atOn is set, and "Debt at switch-on" shows "£0.0bn". Build years are also rounded (Math.round), which the text does not say |
| N110 | "with the starting values the yearly margin is smaller than the yearly interest, so the debt grows after switch-on" (counter/nuclear.html:403) |
COMPUTED | as N104 — |
first operating year's interest 32.2167 × 0.045 = £1.450bn > margin £1.340bn | Verified VERIFIED |
| N111 | Net zero "owed in 2050 if financed": all savings £377bn / £563bn / £910bn; half £780bn / £1,038bn / £1,509bn; none £1,182bn / £1,513bn / £2,108bn at 3.5% / 5% / 7% (counter/nuclear.html:379-386) |
ESTIMATE / COMPUTED | CCC Seventh Carbon Budget costing data CCC-X sheet "Whole economy charts", rows 165 and 166, columns L–AK (year header row 146: L = 2025 … AK = 2050) |
balance = balance × (1 + r) + capex + s × opex, 2025–2050, recomputed: s=1 → 377, 563, 910; s=0.5 → 780, 1,038, 1,509; s=0 → 1,182, 1,513, 2,108 | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. All nine cells match |
| N112 | Inputs: "Additional capital spend sums to £670.1bn; net operating cost sums to −£562.2bn … Prices as in the CCC data, 2023"; method sentence (counter/nuclear.html:389) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | CCC costing data; CCC report CCC-X rows 165 ("Net capex") and 166 ("Net opex"); CCC7:4725 |
sum row 165 = 670.116; sum row 166 = −562.157; first values 16.93, 27.73, 32.84; "All our cost analysis is in 2023 prices, unless otherwise stated." | Verified VERIFIED. The sheet labels the rows "Net capex" and "Net opex". Consistent with correction 48 |
| N113 | Net-zero caveats: all financed, no asset value, UK-wide all sectors, excludes pre-2025, the CCC presents a net cost (counter/nuclear.html:390) |
Characterisation | — research/NETZERO-DEBT-2050.md:21 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the method recomputed at N111 |
| N114 | Section 5, wind: observed 23.5% and 36.1%; "DESNZ describes wind as 'intermittent generation' when explaining system costs" (counter/nuclear.html:414) |
PRIMARY | as N21, N22; NAO para 1.23 NAO26:1353-1359 |
"it expects SZC to reduce the overall cost to consumers compared with renewables … wider system costs associated with intermittent generation" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures are verified (N21, N22). The source is the NAO's report of DESNZ's view. It speaks of "renewables" and "intermittent generation" and does not name wind in that sentence |
| N115 | Section 5, nuclear: Torness 82%; fleet 64.04%, Hartlepool outage; "DESNZ says SZC has the technical capability for load-following but models it as baseload" (counter/nuclear.html:415) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as N27, N29, N30; DESNZ VfM VFM:288-292 |
"The plant will have the technical capability to operate flexibly, including potential for load-following … It is not clear if these modes of operation will be used and therefore, the plant has been modelled as a baseload operator" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N116 | NESO: "Renewables like wind and solar don't synchronise with the grid in a way that provides inertia"; Phase 2 is five synchronous condensers and five grid-forming batteries (counter/nuclear.html:420) |
PRIMARY | NESO explainer page; NESO release NESO-CG:180; NESO-STAB:178, 190-221 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED |
| N117 | ONR, BWRX-300: the requesting party "could not meet two Grid Code requirements with the current design, one of them frequency response" (counter/nuclear.html:421) |
PRIMARY | ONR GDA Step 2 electrical engineering assessment ONR:1795, 1818-1822 |
"BWRX-300 UK Grid Code"; "The RP has also identified two areas where it does not consider it can meet the requirements with the current design of the plant: Frequency response capability. Re-synchronisation time." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N118 | NESO: "large coal and gas generation create five times more fault current compared to wind and solar"; Phase 2 contracts "primarily solve insufficient Short Circuit Levels" in Scotland (counter/nuclear.html:426) |
PRIMARY | NESO explainer; NESO release NESO-CG:191; NESO-STAB:175 |
verbatim; "They will primarily solve insufficient Short Circuit Levels (SCL) … in various locations across Scotland" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N119 | NESO: fault level "helps us to maintain system voltage" (counter/nuclear.html:427) |
PRIMARY | NESO siting note NESO-SITE:79 |
"SCL is vital during such a fault as it helps us to maintain system voltage." | Verified VERIFIED |
| N120 | Black start, wind: "No source found … A northern-regions restoration tender of £53.8m (eight contracts) covers the North West, North East and Scotland; the providers and the Scottish share are not published." (counter/nuclear.html:432) |
PRIMARY | NESO release, 4 May 2021 NESO-ESRS:167-172 |
"contracts with eight providers for Electricity System Restoration Services in the Northern Regions (which covers Northwest, Northeast and Scotland)"; "The eight contracts, two of which are new, total £53.8 million" | Verified VERIFIED. The release names no providers or Scottish share and states no price year. Precision note: the same release says a "Distributed Re-start project" is exploring whether resources "such as solar, wind and hydro" can restore power. That is not a finding either way |
| N121 | Black start, nuclear: no NESO or ONR statement either way; "NESO says a provider must be able to start from an on-site auxiliary generator without external supplies" (counter/nuclear.html:433) |
PRIMARY | NESO black start guide NESO-BS:35-37 |
"procured from generators that have the capability to start main blocks of generation from an on-site auxiliary generator, without reliance on external site supplies" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N122 | "Needs backup in calm weather": NAO-reported DESNZ reasoning, "reserve generation capacity and other balancing services" (counter/nuclear.html:438) |
PRIMARY | NAO para 1.23 NAO26:1358-1359 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED. Labelled a modelling claim |
| N123 | Nuclear backup row: SZC modelled baseload at 90%; fleet 56.82–72.85%; no reserve cost for large nuclear found (counter/nuclear.html:439) |
PRIMARY | as N29, N32 as N29, N32 |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| N124 | DESNZ: "a plant built a long distance from centres of high demand will increase transmission network costs" (counter/nuclear.html:444) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ 2025 report G25:344-345 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED |
| N125 | "North Scotland carries the highest generation transmission tariff of the 27 zones: £36.182993/kW (conventional, 40% load factor). official, NESO" (counter/nuclear.html:444) |
PRIMARY | NESO, Final TNUoSTransmission Network Use of System charges: the part of a bill that pays for building and running the high-voltage grid. more › Tariffs 2025/26, Tables 2 and 3 NESO-TNUOS:408-409, 428-432, 459, 507, 513 |
Classes: "Conventional Low Carbon … Nuclear … Hydro"; "Intermittent … Offshore wind"; example ALFs "Conventional Carbon – 40% / Conventional Low Carbon – 75% / Intermittent – 45%"; Table 3 row "1 North Scotland 16.261975 17.192667 0.930692 34.864833 36.182993 1.318160 26.364249 26.699633" under "Conventional Carbon 40% / Conventional Low Carbon 75% / Intermittent 45%"; zone 7 Argyll intermittent 27.262031 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: £36.182993 is the Conventional Low Carbon example at 75% ALF, the class that includes nuclear. North Scotland's conventional 40% figure is £17.192667/kW. For offshore wind (Intermittent, 45%), North Scotland is £26.699633/kW and is not the highest zone: Argyll is £27.262031/kW. Inherited from FACT-SHEET.md:134 (fact 28) |
| N126 | Nuclear grid row: Hinkley Connection £655.7m, 2017/18, over 45 years; NESO: "The total amount of generation connected to any one point cannot exceed the amount of response available." (counter/nuclear.html:445) |
PRIMARY | as N69, N71; NESO siting note NESO-SITE:123-124 |
verbatim | Verified VERIFIED |
| N127 | HPC table: July 2016 FID, £18bn, 2016 prices; unit 1 "2025 (end of year); the NAO's 'original' date was 2023" (counter/nuclear.html:459) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | NAO 2017; WNN 2017 NAO17:224-225, 789, 3575-3577; WNN17:6 |
"£18 billion (in constant 2016 prices)"; "Original – 2023"; "Revised – 2025"; "first operation of unit 1 remains by the end of 2025" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N128 | 3 July 2017: £19.6bn, price year "not stated in the saved article"; unit 1 "not in the research file". press (counter/nuclear.html:460) |
SECONDARY | World Nuclear News, 3 July 2017 WNN17:5-6 |
"EDF estimates the cost … to now total £19.6 billion"; "The target date for first operation of unit 1 remains by the end of 2025." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Cost and price-year gap verified. The same saved article gives the unit 1 date, so the cell could read "end of 2025" |
| N129 | 25 September 2019: £21.5–22.5bn, 2015 sterling, excluding interim interest; unit 1 "not in the research file". press, EDF release (counter/nuclear.html:461) |
SECONDARY | EDF release, 25 Sept 2019 EDF19:9, 15, 20, 22 |
"between £21.5bn and £22.5bn"; "In 2015 sterling, excluding interim interest"; "begin generating power from Unit 1 at the end of 2025" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The release gives unit 1 at the end of 2025 |
| N130 | 27 January 2021: £22–23bn, 2015 prices; unit 1 "not in the research file". press (counter/nuclear.html:462) |
SECONDARY | WNN, 27 Jan 2021 WNN21:5-6, 9 |
"GBP22 to 23 billion (in 2015 prices)"; "The start of electricity generation from unit 1 is now expected in June 2026" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The article gives unit 1 as June 2026 |
| N131 | 20 May 2022: £25–26bn, 2015 prices; unit 1 June 2027. press (counter/nuclear.html:463) |
SECONDARY | WNN, 20 May 2022 WNN22:5-6 |
"now expected in June 2027 … GBP25 to 26 billion (in 2015 prices)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N132 | 23 January 2024: £31–34bn plus £1bn in a third scenario, 2015 prices; unit 1 2029, 2030 (base case) or 2031. press (counter/nuclear.html:464) |
SECONDARY | WNN, 23 Jan 2024 WNN24:5, 9-10 |
"first being unit 1 operational in 2029 … the 'base case' … 2030 operation. The third scenario is for a further 12 month delay to 2031"; "between GBP31 billion and GBP34 billion, at 2015 prices, with a further GBP1 billion cost for the third scenario" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N133 | February 2026, EDF 2025 results: £35–36bn, 2015 prices; unit 1 2030 to 2031, unit 2 2031 to 2032. official, NAO table citing EDF (counter/nuclear.html:465) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, Figure 3 NAO26:1014, 1023, 1050 |
"Actual date operations began or revised scenarios … 2030 to 2031 2031 to 2032"; "£35bn – £36bn (2015)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N134 | Note: "The NAO's earliest entry is £17.9bn in 2015 prices"; EDF group statements not retrievable; no NAO value-for-money report on HPC after June 2017 found (counter/nuclear.html:468) |
PRIMARY / research | NAO, Sizewell C NAO26:1019-1020; research/NUCLEAR-COMPARISON.md:64, 355 |
"Early cost estimate … £17.9bn (2015)" | Verified VERIFIED for £17.9bn. The other two statements are research-file absences, not re-checked |
| N135 | SZC: baseline £38.2bn, fully operational July 2039; lower threshold £40.5bn, October 2039; higher £47.7bn, August 2043, 2024-25 prices; FID 22 July 2025 (counter/nuclear.html:471) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C; DESNZ press release NAO26:184-190, 314-326; SZC-PR:20, 28 |
"£38.2 billion (associated timing: fully operational by July 2039)"; "£40.5 billion … October 2039"; "£47.7 billion … August 2043"; "The Energy Secretary has today (22 July) signed the final investment decision" | Verified VERIFIED. Labelled forecasts |
| N136 | Connect and manage forecast: "Central £195m present value over 2010–20, 2009 prices, about £18m a year. Range £160m to £992m. official, forecast" (counter/nuclear.html:479) |
PRIMARY | DECC impact assessment, 27 July 2010 IA:57, 60, 64-65, 73, 797 |
"Price Base Year 2009 PV Base Year 2010 Time Period Years 11 Low: - £160m High: - £992m Best Estimate: - £195m"; "They are the equivalent of £18m per year" | Verified VERIFIED. The IA summary also gives a best-estimate average annual cost of £24m ( IA:71) |
| N137 | Outturn attributed to the rule by National Grid, reported by Ofgem: £4.4m (Apr 2011–Aug 2012); £22.2m (Sep 2012–Sep 2013); £69.4m (Oct 2013–Sep 2014); £121.7m (Oct 2014–Sep 2015) (counter/nuclear.html:480) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem monitoring reports 3, 5, 6 OM3:237; OM5:24, 236, 286; OM6:26 |
"£4.4m between 1 April 2011 and 31 August 2012"; "£22.2m in 2012/13" with footnote "From 1 September 2012 to 30 September 2013"; "from £69.4m in the year to 30 September 14 to £121.7m in the year to 30 September 2015" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N138 | Total constraint cost forecast: "Central £999m present value over 2010–20. Range £571m to £2,019m." (counter/nuclear.html:484) |
PRIMARY | DECC IA IA:787, 1047-1048 |
"Constraint costs - 2010-20 NPV £804m £999m"; "£1,027m £1,021m £804m £411m £2,019m £1,849m £999m £571m" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N139 | NAO thermal constraint costs by year, £bn: 0.56 … 1.90; 2024 / 2023-24 prices (counter/nuclear.html:485) |
PRIMARY | NAO HC 589, Figure 4 NAO-TX:991-996, 1021-1022 |
printed values "0.56 0.52 0.65 1.21 1.04 1.54 1.65 1.90" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N140 | "Not like for like" paragraph; Ofgem sixth report (Dec 2015) "drop to nearly zero in 2017/18"; "the NAO says Ofgem forecast they would fall to zero by 2023-24" (counter/nuclear.html:489) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem sixth report; NAO HC 589 OM6:3, 30; NAO-TX:1181 |
"Sixth report from Ofgem, 14 December 2015"; "National Grid expects these constraint costs to drop to nearly zero in 2017/18"; "it forecast these costs would fall to zero by 2023‑24" | Verified VERIFIED |
| N141 | "Ofgem's stated need case was three prospective wind farms." (counter/nuclear.html:492) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more › consultation, 1 Aug 2024, §5.19 OfgCons:2616-2617 |
"The link from Shetland to mainland Scotland will be required to dispatch the power generated from three prospective offshore wind farms." | Verified VERIFIED. From the consultation, as correction 17 requires; the page does not call it the decision |
| N142 | "Press reporting of NESO's 2024 recommendation put them at 2.8GW. press" (counter/nuclear.html:492) |
SECONDARY | Shetland News, 19 Mar 2024 SN24:494 |
"At the moment there is 2.8GW of proposed offshore wind development to the east of Shetland." | Verified VERIFIED (press) |
| N143 | "In March 2026 the 500MW Arven South option was handed back to Crown Estate Scotland, its board citing 'specifically the lack of a viable grid connection'; Ocean Winds keeps its lease for the larger 1.8GW Arven site. press" (counter/nuclear.html:492) |
SECONDARY | Shetland News, 20 Mar 2026 SN26:67, 76-77, 89 |
"Ocean Winds is to hand the lease option for the 500MW Arven South site … back to Crown Estate Scotland"; "it will keep its lease for the larger 1.8GW Arven wind farm site"; "specifically the lack of a viable grid connection" | Verified VERIFIED (press). The article says "set to" hand back |
| N144 | "That leaves 2.3GW: Arven 1.8GW and Stoura 500MW. press" (counter/nuclear.html:492) |
COMPUTED / SECONDARY | Shetland News SN26:77, 178 |
"the nearby Stoura offshore wind farm – which could generate up to 500MW"; 1.8 + 0.5 = 2.3 | Verified VERIFIED |
| N145 | "The capital cost of Link 2 is not published." (counter/nuclear.html:492) |
PRIMARY (absence) | as N92 FACT-SHEET.md:20 |
as N92 | Verified VERIFIED (absence, per the fact sheet) |
| N146 | Sources paragraph listing research files and primary sources (counter/nuclear.html:497) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as listed counter/nuclear.html:497 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-9.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Every listed primary source is held locally. Not listed, though the page relies on them: NAO HC 589 (constraint series and £1.9bn); DESNZ reformed national pricing delivery plan 2026 (£370m/£910m); World Nuclear News (four HPC rows); Shetland News (Link 2 paragraph); Ofgem tCSNP2 consultation; Ofgem FRCR decision of 12 Dec 2025; NESO TNUoS tariffs 2025/26; JBIC release; SSE Annual Report 2026; NESO restoration release; NnG accounts |
| N147 | "Torness, an older station, appears only where the question is about operating record." (counter/nuclear.html:139) |
Characterisation | — — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, not fully consistent with the table. Torness also appears under capacity (:166), working life (:209), owner (:222) and decommissioning (:305) |
| N148 | Section and sub-table headings (counter/nuclear.html:132, 138, 249, 325, 351, 394, 407, 453, 455, 470, 473, 491) and table intros (:250, 352, 408) |
— | — — |
— | Not found / open Heading, no claim. The intros at :250, :352 and :408 are explanations consistent with the tables that follow |
Every row from the register for counter/options.html. · 185 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O1 | Kicker label "Scotland's renewables · the options" and H1 "The options: what else the money could have done" (counter/options.html:68-69) |
— | — counter/options.html:68-69 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim |
| O2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." (:70) |
Characterisation | — counter/options.html:70 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation: the site-wide callout (as R1 in Table 5). Nothing on this page concerns loans; the callout is not evidenced here |
| O3 | Lead: alternative paths "at their documented costs, results and risks, from official figures … It does not recommend one." (:71) |
Characterisation | — counter/options.html:71 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the page. The boxes give cost, delivery and risk for each option and make no recommendation. Several figures are developer or press figures, and the page labels them so (see O5) |
| O4 | Class legend (official / filed / press / intergovernmental / academic / estimateLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more ›); "Each figure keeps its own price year; none has been forced equal." (:72) |
Explanation | — counter/options.html:72 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, applied with exceptions: the capex price basis (O53), the "OPRED assessment" label on Rosebank (O73), Acorn's £200m tagged press (O108), the "DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more ›" tag on network-charge relief (O169), and the "official (DBT)" tag on the £350m Speciality Steel figure (O181) |
| O5 | H2 "Norway: the same size at its peak, a different policy". Intro: UK peaked at 4.49 mboe/d in 1999, Norway at 4.54 in 2004; "Since then the two have moved apart" (:76-77); peak row of the table (:83) |
PRIMARY | NSTA, Feb 2026 production projections workbook; Sodir via norskpetroleum.no, historical and expected production U-PROJ:11; NP-PROD:59; NP-PRODPG:88 |
U-PROJ:11 "1999 … 2.84506 … 4.49197" (oil mb/d … oil + net gas mboe/d); NP-PROD:59 "2004 2004 162.78 8.67 13.64 79.1 264.19 185.09 4.54031"; NP-PRODPG:88 "production in the peak year of 2004 totaled 264.2 million Sm³ o.e." |
Verified VERIFIED. The heading says "same size", not "same basin", so correction 51 is respected |
| O6 | 2015 output: UK 1.538, Norway 3.925 mboe/d (:84) |
PRIMARY | as O5 U-PROJ:27; NP-PROD:70 |
U-PROJ:27 "2015 … 0.93608 … 0.602064 … 1.53814"; NP-PROD:70 "2015 2015 … 227.76 112.92 3.92496" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O7 | 2025 output: UK 1.094, Norway 4.122 mboe/d (:85) |
PRIMARY | as O5 U-PROJ:37; NP-PROD:80 |
U-PROJ:37 "2025 … 0.649848 … 0.443828 … 1.09368"; NP-PROD:80 "2025 2025 … 239.2 118.69 4.1221" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O8 | Change since 2015: UK −28.9%, Norway +5.0% (estimate) (:86) |
COMPUTED | O6, O7 as O6, O7 |
1.09368 / 1.53814 − 1 = −28.90%; 4.1221 / 3.92496 − 1 = +5.02% | Verified VERIFIED |
| O9 | 2030 projection: UK 0.650, Norway 3.497 (:87) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | as O5 U-PROJ:42; NP-PROD:85 |
U-PROJ:42 "2030 … 0.411743 … 0.23822 … 0.649963"; NP-PROD:85 "2030 2030 … 202.92 95.78 3.4969" |
Verified VERIFIED. The page labels it a projection |
| O10 | 2040 projection: UK 0.218; Norway "not published (no official figure found)" (:88) |
PRIMARY / absence | as O5 U-PROJ:52; NP-PROD (series ends 2030) |
U-PROJ:52 "2040 … 0.161998 … 0.0560479 … 0.218046"; NP-PROD runs "1970-2030" |
Verified VERIFIED. Norway's 2040 entry is an absence finding: the Sodir file stops at 2030 |
| O11 | Definitions: "UK is crude oil plus natural gas liquids plus net gas; Norway is marketable oil, condensate, liquids and gas" (:91) |
PRIMARY | as O5 U-PROJ:6; NP-PROD:23-24; NP-PRODPG:88 |
U-PROJ:6 "Crude oil NGLs Oil (crude oil & NGLs)"; NP-PROD:24 "Oil Condensate NGL Gas (40 MJ) Total"; NP-PRODPG:88 "239.2 million marketable standard cubic metres" |
Verified VERIFIED. Wording: Sodir's third component is NGL, not "liquids" |
| O12 | "The two peaks differ by +1.1% (estimate)" (:91) |
COMPUTED | O5 as O5 |
4.54031 / 4.49197 − 1 = +1.08% | Verified VERIFIED |
| O13 | UK 2040 figure "rests on NSTA's stated decline-rate assumption, not a field-by-field forecast" (:91) |
PRIMARY | NSTA workbook note U-PROJ:67 |
"From 2028 onwards, the rates of decline of daily oil and gross gas production are respectively assumed to be 9% and 13% p.a." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O14 | "Norway's regulator says its longer-term production level 'is uncertain'" (:91) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no (Ministry of Energy and Sodir) NP-PRODPG:103 |
"Production level in the longer term is uncertain." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O15 | UK headline marginal rate 2015 = 50% (sum of stated rates) (:97) |
COMPUTED | HMRC OT00020; HMT Budget 2015 note OT20:68; G-BUD15:70 |
30% ring-fence CT ("fixed at 30%") + 20% SC ("from 30% to 20%, with effect from 1 January 2015") = 50% | Verified VERIFIED. SC fell to 10% from 1 Jan 2016 ( OT20:69), so 50% is right for 2015 |
| O16 | UK 2022: "40%, then 65% from 26 May, 75% from 1 Jan 2023" (:97) |
COMPUTED / PRIMARY | HMRC/HMT EPL note Nov 2022; OT21705 G-EPL22:83,89; OT21705:69 |
:83 "Ring Fence Corporation Tax which is charged at 30% and the Supplementary Charge which is charged at 10%"; 30 + 10 + 25 = 65; :89 "bringing the headline tax rate for the sector to 75%" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O17 | UK 2026: 78%; "estimate (sum of stated rates); NSTA states 78% for 2026" (:97) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | NSTA taxation page U-TAX:379,381,383,409 |
30 + 10 + 38 = 78; :409 "The current marginal tax rate on income from UK and UKCS oil and gas extraction is 78%." |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O18 | EPL rate: none (2015); 25% from 26 May 2022, 35% from 1 Jan 2023; 38% from 1 Nov 2024 (:98, repeated :200) |
PRIMARY | NSTA taxation page; HMRC OT21705 U-TAX:383; OT21705:68 |
U-TAX:383 "The rate is currently 38%; it was 25% until 31 December 2022 and 35% from then until 31 October 2024."; OT21705:68 "With effect from 26 May 2022" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O19 | Norway ordinary + special tax 78% in 2015, 2022 and 2026; "Norway states 78% for each year" (:99) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no tax page, current and archived (2016, 2022 captures) AR-TAX2016:74; AR-TAX2022:85; NP-TAX:84,105 |
2016 capture: "ordinary company tax rate is 25 %, and the special tax rate is 53 %. The marginal tax rate is 78 %."; 2022: "22 %, and the special tax rate is 56 %. This gives a marginal tax rate of 78 %."; current: "combined marginal tax rate of 78 per cent" | Verified VERIFIED. The 2015 and 2022 rows come from Internet Archive captures of the official page |
| O20 | Norway's special tax: cash-flow base, capex deducted at once, tax value of a loss reimbursed the next year (:102) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no tax page NP-TAX:99,105,109 |
:105 "As of the income year 2022, a cash-flow based tax was introduced in the special tax."; :109 "investments are written off immediately"; :99 "Special tax value of losses is reimbursed at the tax settlement, the year after it accrued." |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O21 | UK levyA charge added to suppliers' costs, which they pass on in bills, to fund things like the Contracts for Difference subsidy. more › "temporary by statute, with a stated end date of 31 March 2030 or earlier, and a successor levy is in draft" (:102) |
PRIMARY | HMRC OT21705; EPL reforms 2024 note; NSTA OT21705:68; G-EPL24:99; U-TAX:384,405 |
OT21705:68 "the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 (EPLA22) introduced a new, temporary, levy"; G-EPL24:99 "amend section 1 of the Act … to extend the end date of the levy to 31 March 2030"; U-TAX:405 "draft legislation being published by HMRC on 13 July 2026" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O22 | Norway SDFI: 187 production licences, 48 producing fields (:108) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no revenues page NP-REV:147 |
"At the end of 2025 the SDFI portfolio consisted of financial interests in 187 production licences, 48 producing fields" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O23 | SDFI share of licensee cash flows, 2025: 39% (:109) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no EITI page NP-EITI:90 |
"Total cash flows reported from licensees and operators in 2025 were about 629 billion NOK. Income and special tax amounts to about 59 %, while 39 % is from the SDFI (Petoro)." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O24 | State share of Equinor 67% (:110) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no state organisation page NP-ORG:117 |
"The Norwegian state owns 67 % of the shares in the company" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O25 | Oil fund end 2025 NOK 21,268bn, "about £1,567bn at 13.572 NOK per £" (:111) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | Statistics Norway/NBIM via norskpetroleum.no; ECB daily rates 31 Dec 2025 NP-SPU:54; ECB-D25:7,13 |
"2025 2025 21268 3.951 5382.94"; ECB 2025-12-31: NOK 11.843, GBP 0.8726 per euro. 11.843 / 0.8726 = 13.572; 21,268 / 13.572 = £1,567.0bn | Verified VERIFIED |
| O26 | UK: state stake in upstream oil and gas "none found"; NWF does not invest in extraction "with very limited exemptions"; Great British Energy's statutory objects "cover clean energy" (:112, :115) |
PRIMARY (absence) | NWF investment principles; Great British Energy Act 2025 s.3 NWF:106; GBE3:52,56,93 |
NWF: "We do not invest in projects involving extraction, production, transportation and refining of crude oil, natural gas or thermal coal with very limited exemptions."; GBE3: "objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in— … the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy"; "'clean energy' means energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels" | Verified VERIFIED as an absence finding. The page itself says it is "not proof". Nuance: the s.3 objects also include "the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels" ( GBE3:62) |
| O27 | Norway state net cash flow 2024 £58.3bn: "Constant 2026 prices; NOK 742.8bn converted at 12.738 NOK per £" (:121) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | Ministry of Finance / Statistics Norway via norskpetroleum.no; ECB 2 Oct 2026 NP-CF:12,78; ECB-D26:25,49 |
NP-CF:12 "Billion NOK (2026)"; :78 "2024 … 742.803"; ECB 2026-10-02: 10.8315 / 0.85033 = 12.738; 742.803 / 12.738 = £58.31bn |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O28 | "of which taxes and fees about £35bn" (:122) |
COMPUTED | NP-CF 2024 row NP-CF:78 |
taxes 435.285 + environmental taxes 8.13733 + area fees 1.24819 = 444.67 / 12.738 = £34.9bn | Verified VERIFIED |
| O29 | UK total net revenue 2024-25 £4.5bn (£4,469m), money of the day, HMRC (:123) |
PRIMARY | HMRC, Government revenues from oil and gas production, Sept 2025 tables HMRC-REV:102 (header :45) |
"2024 to 2025 4,469 1,580 382 -350 2,857" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O30 | Ratio Norway to UK "13 times", mixed bases (:124) |
COMPUTED | O27, O29 as O27, O29 |
58.31 / 4.469 = 13.05 | Verified VERIFIED. The mixed price bases are disclosed |
| O31 | Price-basis caveat: Norway's 2015 constant-price figure overstates money of the day by about 40%, 2025 by about 3%; "good to the nearest 10 to 20 per cent" (:127) |
COMPUTED / ESTIMATE | NP-CF; AR-TAX2016; NP-REV NP-CF:69,79; AR-TAX2016:115; NP-REV:112-113 |
AR-TAX2016:115 "total net cash flow in 2015 … was NOK 219 billion"; 305.579 / 219 = 1.395 (+40%); NP-REV:112-113 "Net government cashflow … 664,0"; 683.925 / 664.0 = 1.030 (+3%) |
Verified VERIFIED. The "10 to 20 per cent" accuracy band is labelled estimate |
| O32 | "No regulator quantifies how much of the output gap is due to geology and how much to policy. The sources hold no counterfactual" (:130) |
Absence statement | — research/UK-NORWAY-OIL-GAS.md:493,552 |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file. It cannot be proven from local files, and the page words it as a finding about the sources read |
| O33 | UK government: production "is in natural decline, with a 75% reduction in production occurring between 1999 and 2024" (:132) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, North Sea Future Plan release, 26 Nov 2025 G-NSFP:109 |
"North Sea oil and gas production is in natural decline, with a 75% reduction in production occurring between 1999 and 2024." | Verified VERIFIED. This is an official claim; the page quotes it as the government's words |
| O34 | HM Treasury: "The UK/UKCS is a mature basin." (:133) |
PRIMARY | HMT, oil and gas price mechanism consultation G-OGPM:244 |
"The UK/UKCS is a mature basin." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O35 | Norway's regulator: largest discoveries normally come early in a province; names "one large field found in 2010 as the exception" (:134) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no exploration policy; field list NP-EXPLPOL:108; NP-FIELDS:1078-1091 |
"the largest discoveries normally takes place at the beginning of exploration of a petroleum province … However, there are exceptions, such as the major Johan Sverdrup oil field"; field list: "JOHAN SVERDRUP … 2010 … 04.10.2019" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O36 | Norway's 2020 temporary tax changes: without them investment "could have been lower" (stated intent) (:135) |
PRIMARY | norskpetroleum.no tax page NP-TAX:134-135 |
"Without temporary tax changes, the investment activity on the Norwegian continental shelf could have been lower than expected" | Verified VERIFIED. The page correctly calls it stated intent, not a measured effect |
| O37 | Reserves: Norway 13.6 bn boe, UK 2.9 (categories differ; Norway converted, estimate) (:137) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | Sodir resource accounts 31 Dec 2025; NSTA Reserves and Resources end 2024 NP-RESACC-X:26; U-RES:115 |
NP-RESACC-X:26 "Reserves 815 1219 60 16.09 2165" (million Sm³ o.e.); 2,165 × 6.2898 / 1,000 = 13.62 bn boe; U-RES:115 "Reserves 2.9 (3.3)" |
Verified VERIFIED. The difference in categories is disclosed |
| O38 | Norway box: "What it would cost: Not published. No source holds a costing of the UK adopting Norway's tax or state-stake model." (:140) |
Absence statement | — research/UK-NORWAY-OIL-GAS.md:552 |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O39 | Norway box, deliver: 4.122 against 1.094; +5.0% against −28.9%; "No source measures how much of that is due to policy" (:141) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | as O7, O8, O32 as O7, O8 |
as O7, O8 | Verified VERIFIED |
| O40 | Norway box, risks: state net cash flow ranged £10.8bn (2020) to £114.4bn (2022) in constant 2026 prices; 2030 projection 3.497 below 2025; longer-term level uncertain; "The UK has no state upstream stake to compare" (:142) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | NP-CF; NP-PROD; NP-PRODPG NP-CF:74,76; NP-PROD:85; NP-PRODPG:103 |
:74 "2020 … 136.97"; :76 "2022 … 1457.34"; 136.97 / 12.738 = £10.75bn; 1,457.34 / 12.738 = £114.4bn. These are the minimum and maximum of 2015-2025 |
Verified VERIFIED. "No state upstream stake" carries the same caveat as O26 (none found) |
| O41 | Section 2 intro: "keeps investing in UK offshore oil and gas, including areas west of Shetland …" (:148) |
Characterisation | — counter/options.html:148 |
— | Not found / open Heading and intro, no claim |
| O42 | West of Shetland "Prospective, no cut-off: P90, mean, P10 — 3.1, 4.7, 6.3" bn boe (:154) |
PRIMARY | NSTA Reserves and Resources end 2024, Table 10 U-RES:699,703,718 (definition :123, :688-689) |
:703 "West of Shetland 2.0 3.1 4.6 4.7 6.3 7.8" (P99, P90, P50, mean, P10, P1); :699 "Table 10 – Play-level prospective resources"; :718 "Play-level prospective resources by basin, no volume or Chance of Success (CoS) cut-offs applied"; :689 "resources at a play level that lie outside of mapped leads and prospects" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures are right. But Table 10 is play-level resource lying outside mapped leads and prospects. It is not the same inventory as the next row with the cut-off removed. Read together, the two rows suggest the cut-off shrinks 4.7 to 0.7, which the source does not say. See Problem 3 |
| O43 | West of Shetland "With NSTA's 30 million-barrel cut-off: P90, mean, P10 — 0.2, 0.7, 1.3" (:155) |
PRIMARY | NSTA Reserves and Resources end 2024, Table 8 U-RES:612,616,676 |
:612 "Table 8 – Prospective resources associated with basins, with cut-offs"; :616 "West of Shetland 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.3 30% 42"; :676 "10 million boe unrisked volume cut-off (30 million boe West of Shetland; unrisked) and 15% Geological Chance of Success (CoS) cut-off applied" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures are right. This is mapped leads and prospects (42 features), and the cut-off is 30 million boe unrisked plus a 15% chance-of-success test, not "30 million-barrel". It is a different pool from O42, so the two are additive rather than alternatives. See Problem 3 |
| O44 | Rockall Trough, prospective, play-level, mean 2.5 (:156) |
PRIMARY | NSTA, Table 10 U-RES:705 |
"Rockall Trough 0.0 0.3 2.1 2.5 5.1 8.6" | Verified VERIFIED (correctly labelled play-level) |
| O45 | "Prospective means undiscovered. These volumes are not reserves." (:159) |
PRIMARY | NSTA U-RES:507 (section "5. Prospective resources (yet-to-find)", :20) |
"(yet-to-find)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O46 | Oil, mb/d: 2025 actual 0.65; 2026 0.594; 2040 projected 0.162 (:165) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | NSTA Feb 2026 workbook U-PROJ:37,38,52 |
2025 "0.649848"; 2026 "0.593901"; 2040 "0.161998" (column "million bbl/day") | Verified VERIFIED |
| O47 | Net gas, bcf/d: 2.574; 2.396; 0.325 (:166) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | NSTA Feb 2026 workbook U-PROJ:37,38,52 |
net gas "million scf/day": 2025 "2574.2"; 2026 "2396.04"; 2040 "325.078" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O48 | "UK gas production in 2025 was 332.1 TWh, 'lowest level since 1973'" (official, DESNZ) (:169) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ UK Energy in Brief 2026; DUKES 2026 ch.4 UKEIB26:884 (header :883); DUKES4:37 |
UKEIB26: "Natural gas production 528.8 1,260.2 642.5 439.4 383.0 343.7 332.1" (1990 … 2025); DUKES4:37 "Production of natural gas continued to fall, remaining at the lowest level since 1973" | Verified VERIFIED. Citation upgrade: the research file cites this only via research/SOVEREIGN-BRIEFING-REVIEW.md:74; the primary lines are given here |
| O49 | "The UK peak for oil was 2.845 million barrels a day in 1999" (:169) |
PRIMARY | NSTA workbook U-PROJ:11 |
"1999 128.262 8.83702 137.099 2.84506" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O50 | Capital spending £m: 2022 4,071; 2023 4,697; 2024 5,703; 2025 4,972 (:175-178) |
PRIMARY | NSTA UKCS income and expenditure 1970-2025 NSTA-INC:62-65 (header :8) |
"2022 … 534.6 4070.59 4605.19"; "2023 … 353 4697.18"; "2024 … 209 5703.22"; "2025 … 135.7 4971.55" (E&A, investment other than E&A, total) | Verified VERIFIED |
| O51 | Exploration and appraisal £m: 535; 353; 209; 136 (:175-178) |
PRIMARY | as O50 NSTA-INC:62-65 |
534.6; 353; 209; 135.7 | Verified VERIFIED |
| O52 | Capex table class: "official (NSTA), money of the day" (:175) |
PRIMARY (label) | NSTA workbooks NSTA-MTP:24,27; NSTA-INC:8 |
NSTA-MTP:24 "2025 prices" above :27 "Capital Expenditure 4.07059 4.69718 5.70322 4.97155 …"; NSTA-INC:8 states no price basis and carries "GDP Deflator (2025=100)" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. NSTA's own projections table labels the same 2022-2025 figures "2025 prices". The income workbook states no basis. "Money of the day" is unsupported; research/UK-NORWAY-OIL-GAS.md section 3.1 itself calls the basis unresolved. See Problem 4 |
| O53 | Capex projection 2026-2031, £bn: 3.8, 3.2, 2.7, 2.23, 1.85, 1.68 (official, NSTA Feb 2026) (:179) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | NSTA medium-term projections Feb 2026 NSTA-MTP:27 |
"Capital Expenditure 4.07059 4.69718 5.70322 4.97155 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.23027 1.85045 1.67971" | Verified VERIFIED. The page labels it a projection |
| O54 | Exploration and appraisal 2026-2031: "not published" (:179) |
PRIMARY | NSTA medium-term projections Feb 2026 NSTA-MTP:26 |
"Exploration & Appraisal (E&A) 0.5346 0.353 0.209 0.1357 0.235 0.35 0.136 0.107 0.107 0.107" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: NSTA publishes an E&A projection in the same table, one row above the capex projection: £0.235bn (2026), 0.35, 0.136, 0.107, 0.107, 0.107 (2031), in 2025 prices. See Problem 1 |
| O55 | "Capital spending is projected to fall to £1.68bn by 2031. No official source establishes cause and effect between the levy and the investment trend." (:182) |
PRIMARY / absence | as O53 NSTA-MTP:27; research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:204 |
as O53 | Verified VERIFIED (projection). The cause-and-effect sentence is an absence statement consistent with the research file |
| O56 | UK domestic gas 28 kgCO2e/boe (18 upstream, 10 transport and processing), official NSTA Sept 2025 (:188) |
PRIMARY | NSTA emissions intensity factsheet (2024 data) NSTA-EI24:11,32-33 |
"In 2024, the average emissions intensity of producing and processing UK domestic gas was 28 kgCO2e/boe, comprised of an emissions intensity of 18 kgCO2e/boe for upstream operations and 10 kgCO2e/boe for transport and processing." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O57 | Imported LNG 85 kgCO2e/boe (:189) |
PRIMARY | as O56 NSTA-EI24:17-19 |
"LNG had a significantly higher average emissions footprint of 85 kgCO2e/boe, including production, processing, liquefaction, shipping and regasification." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O58 | Norwegian pipeline gas 8 kgCO2e/boe (:190) |
PRIMARY | as O56 NSTA-EI24:16-17 |
"pipeline gas imports, of which over 99% were from Norway, was 8 kgCO2e/boe" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O59 | Ratio LNG to UK gas "about 3.0 (85 / 28 = 3.04)" (estimate) (:191) |
COMPUTED | O56, O57 as O56, O57 |
85 / 28 = 3.036 | Verified VERIFIED |
| O60 | "Combustion emissions are excluded. LNG made up 15% of UK gas supply and 46% of associated emissions in 2024." (:194) |
PRIMARY | as O56 NSTA-EI24:5,25-26 |
:5 "the emissions do not include downstream combustion emissions"; :25-26 "LNG imports made up only 15% of total UK gas supply but contributed the largest share of associated GHG emissions at 46%." |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O61 | "The 2024 edition adds methane and uses a different data provider from the 2023 edition, so the two are not strictly comparable." (:194) |
PRIMARY | as O56; NSTA release 31 Jul 2023 NSTA-EI24:5-6,14,38; SC/www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/north-sea-gas-is-almost-four-times-cleaner-than-lng-imports/index.html.txt |
:5-6 "The previous comparison published by the North Sea Transition Authority in 2023, related only to carbon dioxide emissions intensities."; :38 "sourced from Rystad Energy's Gas and LNG trade emission analysis dashboard (August 2025)" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The methane change is verified. Neither local file says the data provider changed: the 2024 factsheet names Rystad, and the 2023 release names no provider. "Different data provider" is unsourced locally |
| O62 | EPL receipts 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25: £2,632m; £3,587m; £2,857m (HMRC, Sept 2025) (:201) |
PRIMARY | HMRC Sept 2025 tables HMRC-REV:100-102 (header :45) |
"2022 to 2023 9,011 5,332 1,281 -234 2,632"; "2023 to 2024 6,110 2,379 572 -428 3,587"; "2024 to 2025 4,469 1,580 382 -350 2,857" (EPL is the last column) | Verified VERIFIED |
| O63 | Statutory end date "31 March 2030, or earlier if prices stay at or below the thresholds" (:202) |
PRIMARY | NSTA; EPL reforms 2024 U-TAX:384; G-EPL24:82 |
"the EPL will end before 31 March 2030 if the 6-month average prices for oil and gas are both at or below the ESIM threshold prices" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O64 | OBR assumption: EPL "stops raising tax from the end of September 2027" (OBR, March 2026) (:203) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | OBR EFO March 2026 (gov.uk copy) OBR-EFO26:3034-3038 |
"In the forecast, both oil and gas prices fall below these thresholds in the second and third quarter of 2027, so we therefore assume that EPL will cease raising tax from the end of September 2027." | Verified VERIFIED. The page labels it an assumption |
| O65 | "OBR forecast of receipts, £bn, 2024-25 to 2030-31: 2.5, 2.5, 1.7, 0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0" (:204) |
PRIMARY (official forecast) | OBR EFO March 2026, Table A.5 OBR-EFO26:6380-6383,6416 |
:6382-6383 "Outturn … Forecast / 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 …"; :6416 "Energy profits levy 2.5 2.5 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures are right, but 2024-25 is OBR outturn, not forecast. The 2024-25 OBR outturn (£2.5bn) also differs from HMRC's £2,857m (O62), so the bases differ |
| O66 | Successor: Oil and Gas Revenue Levy, 35% on revenue above thresholds; draft legislation 13 July 2026; thresholds not in the files read (:205) |
PRIMARY | HMRC OGRL note, 13 Jul 2026; NSTA G-OGRL:84-85,87; U-TAX:405 |
:84 "charged at 35% on the portion of revenues from sales of oil or gas that exceed specified thresholds"; :85 "will replace the existing Energy Profits Levy (EPL) once it ends" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O67 | HMRC's manual page shows 35% and end 31 March 2028; overview page and NSTA show 38% and 31 March 2030 (:208) |
PRIMARY | HMRC OT21705 and OT00020; NSTA OT21705:69,73; OT20:70; U-TAX:383-384 |
OT21705: "From 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2028 the rate of the levy is 35%."; OT20: "a temporary levy due to expire on 31 March 2030 and currently charged at 38%" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O68 | Rosebank and Jackdaw "Under Review" (pages last updated 16 July 2026 / 14 September 2026) (:214) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk OPRED publication pages GOV-ROSE:220,242; GOV-JACK:234,255 |
"Rosebank Field Development - Adura Operations Limited - 2022 - ES/2022/001 - Under Review"; "Last updated 16 July 2026"; "Jackdaw Field Development - … - Under Review"; "Last updated 14 September 2026" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O69 | Court of Session, 29 January 2025: "All parties are agreed that the decisions were unlawful"; consents reduced, effect suspended until a new decision (:215) |
PRIMARY | [2025] CSOH 10 CSOH10:84,116,2711-2723 |
:116 "All parties are agreed that the decisions were unlawful"; :2714-2722 "Reduction of the grant of consent by the OGA … the effect of the reductions is suspended until the date on which the OGA makes a new decision" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O70 | Decision: "Not decided. The government says it will decide 'as soon as we can'." (press, Energy Voice, 24 Sep 2026) (:216) |
SECONDARY | Energy Voice, 24 Sep 2026 EV-DEC:55,59 |
"the government will make a decision on controversial UK oil and gas fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank, 'as soon as we can'"; "September 24th 2026" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY, labelled press) |
| O71 | Rosebank "Lifetime emissions assessed 254 MtCO2e"; class "official (OPRED assessment, Oct 2025)" (:217) |
SECONDARY (developer submission) | Developer's response to OPRED's Regulation 12(1) notice of 21 Jul 2025 (file dated 13 Oct 2025) ROSE-S3:1-5,589-597 |
:2-5 "Response to Requirement #1 … of the Regulation 12(1) Notice dated 21 July 2025"; :589 "based on a P10 production profile (high oil case)"; :593 "the P50 (mid case) scenario, which represents the most likely production outcome, is about 30% lower than the P10 estimate"; :596-597 "total gross GHG emissions over its lifetime are estimated to be 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: The 254 Mt is the developer's response to OPRED, not an OPRED assessment. It is also the P10 high case; the developer puts the most likely (P50) case about 30% lower. See Problem 2 |
| O72 | Jackdaw lifetime emissions 35.8 MtCO2e (2026 to 2037), "the developer's further information to OPRED, Nov 2025" (:217) |
SECONDARY (developer submission) | Jackdaw Further Information Part 1, Nov 2025 JACK-S3:5-9,1752-1754 |
"The highest anticipated Jackdaw Scope 3 emissions based on the highest anticipated production levels using the Life Cycle Scope 3 emissions method are estimated to be 35.8 M tCO2e over the full lifetime of the project (2026-2037)." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The attribution is correct. The figure is the developer's highest case (highest production, life-cycle method), and the page does not say so |
| O73 | Rosebank size: "estimated 300mn recoverable bbls" (a passing remark, not a reserves statement); FPSO oil capacity 70,000 barrels a day (:218) |
SECONDARY (developer submissions) | Rosebank ES Aug 2022; Further Information 2026 ROSE-ES:16561; ROSE-FI:5654 |
"with an estimated 300mn recoverable bbls"; "Oil capacity – 70,000 bbl/d" | Verified VERIFIED. The page labels it a developer submission and a passing remark |
| O74 | Jackdaw "About 6.5% of UK gas at peak" (:218) |
SECONDARY (developer submission) | Jackdaw Further Information Part 3 JACK-P3:219,556,916 |
"At peak production, Jackdaw is expected to contribute around 6.5% of UK Continental Shelf …"; "deliver 6.5% of UKCS gas production" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The source says 6.5% of UKCS gas production, not of UK gas supply. Imports were 61% of UK gas supply in 2024 (NSTA-EI24:25), so the share of supply would be much lower. Suggested: "about 6.5% of UK gas production at peak" |
| O75 | Capital cost: Rosebank "not published (redacted)"; Jackdaw "over £1bn invested to date" (:219) |
SECONDARY (developer submissions) | Rosebank FI; Jackdaw FI Part 3 ROSE-FI:5615,5622,5871; JACK-P3:202 |
"Figure 14: Rosebank Development CAPEX and OPEX profile. (REDACTED)"; "Shell has invested over £1 billion in executing the Jackdaw project to date." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O76 | Rosebank economic claim: total GVA £24.3bn over life, £0.8bn a year average (developer's submission, not a government finding) (:220) |
SECONDARY (developer submission) | Rosebank FI ROSE-FI:5044,5498-5499 |
"a total GVA of £24.3bn, with an average £0.8bn per annum"; "reaching a total GVA of £24.3 billion" | Verified VERIFIED. Labelled as the developer's claim |
| O77 | "Western Australia reserves part of its gas for its own market. The rule fixes a volume. It does not fix a price." (:225) |
PRIMARY | WA Government domestic gas policy WA-POL:290,293 |
"Reserving gas equivalent to 15% of LNG exports for the WA market."; "Prices and contracts for domestic gas are set by market participants through confidential negotiations." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O78 | Reservation 15% of LNG exports; policy formalised 2006; WA Government updated 10 Jun 2026 (:229) |
PRIMARY | WA Government WA-POL:285,290; WA-DEV:285,287 |
"Last updated: 10 June 2026"; "The Policy was formalised in 2006" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O79 | Measured "over the life of the project or agreement, not each year"; prices "set by market participants through confidential negotiation" (:230) |
PRIMARY | as O77 WA-POL:293,295 |
"15% of LNG exports for the domestic market is reserved over the life of the project or agreement not per annum" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O80 | 2024 change for new onshore projects: 80% reserved to 31 December 2030 (:231) |
PRIMARY | WA Government WA-DEV:291 |
"allowing expansion and/or new onshore gas projects to reserve 80% of gas production for the domestic market until 31 December 2030" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O81 | Compliance with the 15%: "not published in any source read" (:232) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:242 |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file. That file records an unverified search snippet of about 8%, which the page correctly does not use |
| O82 | WA average contract priceThe fixed price per unit of electricity that a wind farm is guaranteed under its subsidy contract. more › Q2 2025 A$7.37/GJ (A$7.29 in Q2 2024); data "may only include a subset" (AEMO, Dec 2025) (:233, :237) |
PRIMARY | AEMO 2025 WA GSOO appendices AEMO-WA:6,474-475,480 |
:480 "The average gas contract price increased to $7.37/GJ in Q2 2025 from $7.29/GJ in Q2 2024."; :475 "may only include a subset of all domestic gas sales" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O83 | East coast: Australian Government review, Dec 2025: "could establish a domestic gas reservation scheme"; aim to commence in 2027 (:234) |
PRIMARY (Internet Archive copy) | Australian Government, Gas Market Review, Dec 2025 GMR:3,497,510 |
"could establish a domestic gas reservation scheme as part of fundamental reforms"; "c. Aim to commence in 2027." | Verified VERIFIED. The Internet Archive route is flagged on the page ( :451) |
| O84 | Note: east-coast comparison not shown, as the regulator's report "could not be obtained in a way that respects its access rules"; "No source attributes any price gap to the reservation alone" (:237) |
Explanation / absence | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:240; HANDOVER correction 52 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with correction 52; no ACCC figure remains on the page. The attribution sentence is an absence statement consistent with the research note ( ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md, notes to 3e) |
| O85 | "For the UK: no UK body has assessed a gas reservation. None was found in searches of gov.uk, DESNZ, NSTA, OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more ›, the NAO, the CMA, the CCC, select committees and petitions. Hansard and the Commons Library were blocked and not read." (:238) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:157 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The first sentence states as fact what the evidence shows only as "not found", and the same paragraph says Hansard and the Commons Library were not read. Suggested: "No UK assessment of a gas reservation was found." |
| O86 | Government reply to a petition on licences (17 July 2025): "domestically produced oil and gas does not mean cheaper prices" (:238) |
PRIMARY | UK Parliament petition 707101, government response PET-707101:51-52,60 |
"17 July 2025 / Government responded to this petition"; "Oil and gas are traded on international markets, therefore domestically produced oil and gas does not mean cheaper prices." | Verified VERIFIED. Nuance: the response is about licensing, not reservation; the page says "a petition on licences" |
| O87 | North Sea box, cost: "Public cost: the Energy Profits Levy raised £2,632m, £3,587m and £2,857m … and the OBR forecasts £2.5bn in 2025-26 falling to nil from 2028-29." Also Rosebank capex not published; Jackdaw over £1bn (:241) |
PRIMARY | as O62, O65, O75 as O62, O65, O75 |
as O62, O65 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figures are right. EPL receipts are tax revenue to the Exchequer, not a public cost, so the "Public cost" label is wrong. Suggested: "Public revenue at stake: …" |
| O88 | North Sea box, deliver: WoS "mean 4.7 … prospective with no cut-off, 0.7 with the NSTA cut-off"; Rockall 2.5; 2040 oil 0.162 and gas 0.325; LNG about one-third of the intensity; Rosebank 70,000 b/d; "Jackdaw: about 6.5% of UK gas at peak" (:242) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as O42-O47, O59, O73, O74 as cited there |
28 / 85 = 0.33 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. It carries the O42/O43 pairing error and the O74 "UK gas" wording. Other components VERIFIED |
| O89 | North Sea box, risks: "Lifetime emissions: Rosebank 254 MtCO2e, Jackdaw 35.8 MtCO2e. Legal: consents reduced in January 2025 … Capital spending fell from £5,703m (2024) to £4,972m (2025), and NSTA projects £1.68bn by 2031." (:243) |
SECONDARY / PRIMARY | as O50, O53, O69, O71, O72 as cited there |
as cited there | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Both emissions figures are the developers' high cases (O71, O72), and that is not stated. Legal and capex components VERIFIED |
| O90 | Section 3 intro: £21.7bn over 25 years to the first two clusters; generation cost "close to offshore wind in the government's own table"; NAO set out delivery risks (:249) |
PRIMARY | as O91-O93, O107 as cited there |
£105 against £103/MWh | Verified VERIFIED |
| O91 | Track-1 funding commitment, 4 October 2024: £21.7bn over 25 years for clusters in NW and NE England (official DESNZ) (:254) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk CCUS collection page GOV-CCUS:104 |
"on 4 October 2024 the government has committed £21.7 billion over 25 years to support the CCUS clusters in the North West and North East of England" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O92 | Gas CCUS levelised cost 2030 £105/MWhUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more › (2024 prices, 900 MW, 88% load factor) (:255) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Electricity Generation Costs 2025, Annex A G25-ANNEX:31-32,43 |
:31 "All costs in 2024 real GBP prices"; :32 "AD4=Gas CCUS 900MW 88% Load Factor9"; :43 "A15=Total13 … AD15=105" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O93 | Fixed offshore wind 2030, same table, £103/MWh (:256) |
PRIMARY | as O92 G25-ANNEX:32,43 |
"E4=Fixed Offshore Wind5"; "E15=103" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O94 | Gas CCUS 2035 £104/MWh (:257) |
PRIMARY | as O92 G25-ANNEX:45,47,58 |
"Additional LCOE estimates - for projects commissioning in 2035"; "AD15=104" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O95 | Gas without capture, 93% load factor, 2030: £111/MWh, of which carbon cost £41 (:258) |
PRIMARY | as O92 G25-ANNEX:32,38,43 |
"I4=Gas CCGT 93% Load Factor"; "A10=Carbon costs … I10=41"; "I15=111" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O96 | Track-1 storage ambition 8.5 Mt CO2 a year (press, trade press, 4 Oct 2024) (:259) |
SECONDARY | New Civil Engineer, 4 Oct 2024 NCE:59 |
"expected to deliver a combined 8.5Mt of CO₂ holding capacity per year" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY, labelled press) |
| O97 | DESNZ expected Track-1 emitters to capture "at most 4.9 Mt a year" (NAO, July 2024) (:260) |
PRIMARY | NAO, CCUS programme, July 2024 NAO-CCUS:1893-1895 (date :52) |
"DESNZ estimates that the eight projects currently under negotiation will capture and store a maximum of 4.9 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of carbon" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O98 | Spent to mid-2024 £630m, mainly development grants (NAO) (:261) |
PRIMARY | as O97 NAO-CCUS:453-454 |
"The government has so far spent £630 million on its CCUS programme, primarily through grants to support the early development of projects." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O99 | Cost per tonne of CO2 stored under the Track-1 contracts: not published (:262) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:68 (row 31) |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file. DESNZ's generic £9/tCO2 input ( G25-ANNEX, row 41) is not a contract price, and the page rightly does not use it |
| O100 | Notes: wind figure excludes connection costs; DESNZ calls gas CCUS "a nascent generation technology in the UK"; 2030/2035 figures use the 2020 report except the new gas-CCUS capital cost (:265) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Generation Costs 2025 report and annex G25-ANNEX:19,23; G25:418 |
:19 "Capex costs include connection costs for all technologies other than offshore wind."; :23 "Gas CCUS capex costs were updated in this research, but all other cost components are from the 2020 Generation Costs Report data."; G25:418 "is a nascent generation technology in the UK" |
Verified VERIFIED. Note 9 applies to gas CCUS only. The page's sentence could be read as covering every technology |
| O101 | Peterhead: up to 910 MW gas with post-combustion capture (ECU) (:271) |
PRIMARY | Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit ECU:40 |
"a capacity of up to 910 megawatts electrical output including post-combustion carbon capture plant" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O102 | Consent status checked 5 Oct 2026: "Consideration"; received 18 Feb 2022, about 4 years 7 months undecided (estimate) (:272) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | as O101 ECU:21,42 |
"Consideration"; "18 Feb 2022"; 18 Feb 2022 to 5 Oct 2026 = 1,690 days = 4.63 years = 4 years 7.5 months | Verified VERIFIED |
| O103 | Funding: no decision; a "programme of funded development work" still to be agreed (filed, SSE AR FY2026) (:273) |
PRIMARY (filed) | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 SSE-AR26:5115-5121 |
"For Peterhead CCS, SSE is continuing to work with Scottish Cluster partners and UK Government to agree a programme of funded development work." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O104 | Peterhead capture rate "at least 90%" (press, project page) (:274) |
SECONDARY | SSE Thermal Peterhead CCS page SSET:1 |
"What is carbon capture and storage? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that can capture at least 90% of the carbon dioxide emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The page uses a generic description of CCS technology as if it were Peterhead's design capture rate. No Peterhead-specific capture rate is in the local copy |
| O105 | Peterhead capital cost and consumer subsidy: not published (:275) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:49 (row 22) |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O106 | Acorn, June 2025: around £200m development funding "subject to business case"; FID "later this Parliament"; "The Spending Review text gives no figure; the £200m is the project's own statement"; class "the £200m is press (project's own page)" (:276) |
PRIMARY | HMT Spending Review 2025; DESNZ news release 19 Jun 2025; Acorn project page SR25:3167,4123; GOV-EIA25:61,63,80; ACORN:13,17 |
SR25: "A final investment decision will be taken later this Parliament, subject to project readiness and affordability."; GOV-EIA25:80 (DESNZ, 19 June 2025) "the government will provide around £200 million to progress the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire, subject to business case, as part of the £9.4 billion commitment in the Spending Review"; ACORN:17 "will receive around £200 million in development funding" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The Spending Review itself gives no figure (true). But a DESNZ release of 19 June 2025 states the £200m, and it is the source of the quoted words "subject to business case". The £200m is therefore official, not only the project's own statement. See Problem 5 |
| O107 | NAO blockquote: "DESNZ will struggle to achieve its 2030 ambitions for carbon capture" (NAO, July 2024) (:282-283) |
PRIMARY | NAO, CCUS programme NAO-CCUS:566-567 |
"Slower progress with getting Track-1 up and running means that DESNZ will struggle to achieve its 2030 ambitions for carbon capture." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O108 | Funding "is unlikely to be enough to meet government's ambitions for CCUS deployment to 2030" (:286) |
PRIMARY | as O107 NAO-CCUS:1945-1947 |
"While HM Treasury has announced up to £20 billion of funding for the current CCUS programme, this is unlikely to be enough to meet government's ambitions for CCUS deployment to 2030." | Verified VERIFIED. The NAO's sentence refers to the earlier "up to £20 billion", not to the £21.7bn |
| O109 | "The government does not have and is currently not developing a credible alternative pathway without the use of CCUS." (:287) |
PRIMARY | as O107 NAO-CCUS:587-588 |
"The government does not have and is currently not developing a credible alternative pathway without the use of CCUS." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O110 | HM Treasury told the NAO the value-for-money parameters "were still under review" (:288) |
PRIMARY | as O107 NAO-CCUS:526-527 |
"told us that the parameters of its value for money assessment were still under review." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O111 | UK Infrastructure Bank: first two clusters need £8bn to £10bn of private finance in 2024-25 alone (:289) |
PRIMARY | as O107 NAO-CCUS:1740-1742 |
"The UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB) estimates that the HyNet and East Coast Clusters will require £8 billion to £10 billion of private finance in 2024-25 alone." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O112 | "This is the latest NAO report on the programme that was found." (:290) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:83 |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O113 | Theoretical capacity, UK seabed, P50: 78 Gt CO2, mostly saline aquifers (BGS 2014 paper; repeated by NSTA, Dec 2024) (:297) |
PRIMARY | BGS, Energy Procedia 63 (2014); NSTA release 10 Dec 2024 BGS-C2S:4,81-83; NSTA-END:162,183 |
BGS: "total theoretical storage capacity of 78 Gigatonnes (billion tonnes, Gt) with 50% confidence (P50). The majority of this capacity resides in … saline aquifers"; NSTA: "the UK has a potential storage capacity of 78 GT" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O114 | BGS web page: "over 70 billion tonnes" (:298) |
PRIMARY | BGS CO2 storage capacity page BGS-CAP:212 |
"identifying a geological storage potential of over 70 billion tonnes of storage deep under the UK seabed" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O115 | First permit, Endurance: up to 100 Mt over 25 years; 4 Mt a year; first injection by 2027 (NSTA) (:299) |
PRIMARY | NSTA release, 10 Dec 2024 NSTA-END:164,170 |
"The permit allows for first injection by 2027 with a permitted injection rate of 4 million tonnes per annum. Averaged over a duration of 25 years, this could reach a total of 100 million tonnes" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O116 | Other licences, Dec 2024: 26 appraisal and storage licences (:300) |
PRIMARY | as O115 NSTA-END:182 |
"there are a further 26 carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licences on the UK Continental Shelf" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O117 | Theoretical against practical capacity: not published; "The 78 Gt is a static theoretical figure, not an injectable rate or a permitted volume." (:301, :304) |
PRIMARY / absence | as O113 BGS-C2S:81-82 |
"theoretical storage capacity" | Verified VERIFIED. The gap statement is consistent with research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:94 |
| O118 | CCS box, cost: £21.7bn; "about £200m development funding for Acorn (the project's own statement)"; Peterhead not published; £105 against £103; cost per tonne not published (:307) |
PRIMARY | as O91-O93, O106 as cited there |
as cited there | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The Acorn attribution is wrong as in O106: the £200m is stated by DESNZ. Other components VERIFIED |
| O119 | CCS box, deliver: up to 8.5 Mt a year, but at most 4.9 Mt per NAO; "Peterhead: up to 910 MW at 90% or more capture, not yet consented"; 78 Gt theoretical (:308) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as O96, O97, O101, O104, O113 as cited there |
as cited there | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The "90% or more" is the generic CCS description (O104). Other components VERIFIED |
| O120 | CCS box, risks: NAO struggle; funding unlikely enough; no credible alternative; technology nascent; VfM not complete; £8-10bn in one year; Peterhead undecided since Feb 2022, no funding decision (:309) |
PRIMARY | as O100, O102, O103, O107-O111 as cited there; NAO-CCUS:593-594 |
NAO: "given the nascency of aspects of the technology" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O121 | Section 4 intro: gas in place large; recoverable share cannot be estimated; no official capital or production cost found (:315) |
Characterisation | as O122-O129 — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with O122-O129 |
| O122 | Bowland-Hodder gas in place, 2013: 822 / 1,329 / 2,281 tcf (23.3 / 37.6 / 64.6 tcm) (BGS/DECC) (:320) |
PRIMARY | BGS/DECC Bowland shale gas report 2013, summary BGS13-SUM:36 |
"TOTAL 822 23.3 1329 37.6 2281 64.6" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O123 | Recoverable: "a reliable estimate of recoverable shale gas cannot be made at this time" (:321) |
PRIMARY | BGS/DECC 2013 main report BGS13:1884-1885 |
"a reliable estimate of recoverable shale gas cannot be made at this time" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O124 | "Only official figure for what could be produced (2010, Upper Bowland only): up to 4.7 tcf (133 bcm), on an analogy with a Texas shale" (:322) |
PRIMARY | BGS/DECC 2013, citing DECC/BGS 2010 BGS13:469-470,1822-1826 |
:469-470 "if equivalent to the Barnett Shale of Texas, could potentially yield up to 4.7 tcf (133 bcm)"; :1824-1826 "if analogous to the Barnett Shale of Texas, could potentially yield up to 4.7 tcf of gas or if analogous to the Antrim Shale, 2.1 tcf (DECC 2010a, BGS 2012)" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The same 2010 study gave two figures: 4.7 tcf on the Barnett analogy and 2.1 tcf on the Antrim analogy. 4.7 is the higher of two official figures, not the only one. See Problem 6 |
| O125 | Scale: "about 4 years of 2025 UK gas production (332.1 TWh)" (estimate) (:323) |
COMPUTED | O124, O48 as O124, O48 |
133 bcm × about 11.0 TWh per bcm (gross calorific value about 39.6 MJ/m³; conversion factor assumed, not taken from a local DESNZ table) = about 1,463 TWh; 1,463 / 332.1 = 4.4 years. On the 2.1 tcf (59 bcm) analogy: about 650 TWh = about 2 years | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. "About 4 years" holds for the 4.7 tcf figure only |
| O126 | BGS 2019: resources "could be much lower than first thought"; study used "a very small number of rock samples from only two locations" (:324) |
PRIMARY | BGS statement, 20 Aug 2019 BGS19:201,208 |
"resources within the Bowland Shale Formation could be much lower than first thought"; "the study considered only a very small number of rock samples from only two locations" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O127 | BGS review for government, September 2022: gas present "may be significantly lower and spatially more restricted than initially estimated" (:325) |
PRIMARY | BGS report OR/22/050 for BEIS (2022) BGS22:83,2217-2218 |
"the amount of gas likely present in the Carboniferous Bowland Shale Formation may be significantly lower and spatially more restricted than initially estimated" | Verified VERIFIED. The local text gives the year (2022); the month comes from the gov.uk publication, not this file |
| O128 | A later gas-in-place number: about 4.0 tcm (2019 analysis) (academic, LSE explainer citing BGS; BGS's own statement gives no number) (:326) |
SECONDARY (academic) | LSE Grantham Institute explainer LSE-SHALE:73 |
"a more recent analysis in 2019 suggested the figure is closer to 4.0 tcm" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY, labelled academic) |
| O129 | Capital or production cost: not published (:327) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:153 |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O130 | Note: units; "The 4.7 tcf figure is a one-unit analogy, not a forecast. No BGS review of the gas-in-place figure after 2022 was found." (:330) |
PRIMARY / absence | as O124 BGS13:470-471 |
"In the absence of subsurface volumes of potential gas-bearing shale, this early estimate was based on the relative areal extent of the basins." | Verified VERIFIED. The post-2022 review point is an absence statement ( research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:125) |
| O131 | 2 November 2019: immediate moratorium; first reason "not currently possible to accurately predict the probability or magnitude of earthquakes linked to fracking operations"; second, an M2.9 event on 26 August 2019 at Preston New Road (BEIS and OGA) (:336) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk release, 2 Nov 2019 GOV-FRK19:63,69,72,77,88 |
:69 "it is not currently possible to accurately predict the probability or magnitude of earthquakes linked to fracking operations"; :77 "a moratorium on fracking in England with immediate effect"; :88 "since a magnitude 2.9 event was recorded on 26th August 2019" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O132 | 22 September 2022: moratorium lifted; applications considered "with the domestic and global need for gas in mind and where there is local support" (BEIS) (:337) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk release, 22 Sep 2022 GOV-FRK22:64,67,75 |
:67 "the UK government has today lifted the moratorium on shale gas production in England"; :75 "will consider future applications for Hydraulic Fracturing Consent with the domestic and global need for gas in mind and where there is local support" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O133 | 26 October 2022: re-imposed, citing the 2019 manifesto; "rests on trade press" (Ground Engineering) (:338) |
SECONDARY | Ground Engineering, 3 Nov 2022 GE-FRK22:40 |
"During his first prime minister's questions in the House of Commons on 26 October, [the Prime Minister] announced that he would stick to the Conservative party's 2019 election manifesto, which placed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY, flagged on the page as press). The quote is abridged here to omit a personal name |
| O134 | April 2026: "the Labour Government has maintained this moratorium" (legislature research service) (:339) |
PRIMARY (legislature research) | NI Assembly Research and Information Service paper 31-26, 17 Apr 2026 NIA-FRK:5,734-735 |
"Following a change of government in July 2024, the Labour Government has maintained this moratorium." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O135 | Shale box, cost: not published; "DESNZ's 2022 line is that drilling is needed 'to gather further data'" (:344) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk release, 22 Sep 2022 (BEIS) GOV-FRK22:77-78 |
"Lifting the pause on shale gas extraction will enable drilling to gather this further data"; :77 "we need more sites drilled in order to gather better data" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The release was issued by BEIS (DESNZ did not exist until 2023), and the quote is not verbatim ("to gather this further data"). Suggested: "BEIS's 2022 line is that drilling would 'gather this further data'" |
| O136 | Shale box, deliver: 822 to 2,281 tcf (central 1,329); recoverable cannot be estimated; "The one official yield figure is 4.7 tcf (133 bcm) … about 4 years of 2025 UK gas production (estimate)"; BGS 2019 and 2022 say it may be much lower (:345) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | as O122-O127 as cited there |
as cited there | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. "The one official yield figure" omits the 2.1 tcf Antrim analogy from the same 2010 study (O124). Other components VERIFIED |
| O137 | Shale box, risks: "Induced earthquakes cannot be predicted (OGA 2019; BGS 2022)"; M2.9 at Preston New Road 26 Aug 2019; knowledge gaps in other basins; policy changed three times (:346) |
PRIMARY | GOV-FRK19; BGS22 GOV-FRK19:69; BGS22:273-275,322 |
OGA (via GOV-FRK19): "not currently possible to accurately predict"; BGS22:273-275 "Forecasting the occurrence of large earthquakes and their expected magnitude remains a scientific challenge for the geoscience community. This is the case for both tectonic and induced earthquakes."; :322 "significant gaps in our knowledge of sub-surface structure" |
Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. OGA 2019 supports "cannot be accurately predicted". BGS 2022 says forecasting "remains a scientific challenge", which is softer than "cannot be predicted". Suggested: "Induced earthquakes cannot yet be accurately predicted (OGA 2019); forecasting them 'remains a scientific challenge' (BGS 2022)." The other components are VERIFIED |
| O138 | Section 5 intro: same design built repeatedly; project costs on the nuclear page; "The evidence points both ways." (:352) |
Characterisation | as O139-O154 — |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the table, which lists evidence on both sides |
| O139 | NAO: "SZC's project baseline construction cost is 22% lower than the lowest current estimate for HPC" (HC 33, 20 May 2026) (:355-356) |
PRIMARY | NAO, Sizewell C, HC 33, 20 May 2026 NAO-SZC:17-18,413-414 |
"SZC's project baseline construction cost is 22% lower than the lowest current estimate for HPC." | Verified VERIFIED. This is the NAO wording required by correction 54 |
| O140 | The 22% excludes some costs in the regulatory thresholds, mainly a £1.6bn payment to HPC; SZC project baseline £38.2bn (:358) |
PRIMARY | as O139 NAO-SZC:1095-1102 |
"'Project baseline' of £38.2 billion … It represents a saving of around 22% on the lowest current estimate for HPC. However, it excludes some costs included in the regulatory thresholds below, the main one of which is the £1.6 billion payment to HPC" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O141 | Design replicated at SZC: around 85% of the above-ground design (NAO) (:364) |
PRIMARY | as O139 NAO-SZC:411-416,984-986 |
"Around 85% of the above-ground design of SZC replicates Hinkley Point C"; "about 85% of the above-ground design from HPC could be directly replicated for SZC" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O142 | SZC against HPC per kW: about £11,650 against about £15,000 (22.5% lower) (estimate: £38.2bn over 3,278 MW; £49.0bn, itself an estimate, over 3,260 MW) (:365) |
ESTIMATE / COMPUTED | NAO-SZC; VFM-SZC; WNN22; research/NUCLEAR-COMPARISON.md:30NAO-SZC:184; VFM-SZC:230; WNN22:9 |
38.2bn / 3,278 MW = £11,653/kW; HPC £49.0bn = 38.2 / (1 − 0.22) = 48.97; 48.97bn / 3,260 MW (2 × 1,630 MWe, WNN22:9 "two 1630 MWe EPR reactors") = £15,031/kW; 1 − 11,653/15,031 = 22.5% | Verified VERIFIED as labelled estimate. Note: the HPC figure is back-calculated from the NAO's 22%, so the 22.5% is the same comparison restated per kW. It is not independent evidence |
| O143 | Pairs of reactors: second reactor about 15% cheaper (OECD NEA, July 2020) (:366) |
PRIMARY (intergovernmental) | OECD NEA, Unlocking reductions in the construction costs of nuclear, 2020 NEA:3387-3388 |
"it is estimated that constructing reactors in pairs reduces the cost of the second reactor by about 15% (NEA, 2000)" | Verified VERIFIED. The NEA is citing its own 2000 study |
| O144 | Series construction: total costs "25-40% lower" (NEA) (:367) |
PRIMARY (intergovernmental) | as O143 NEA:3463-3467 |
"The impact of series construction of standardised reactors on OCC is quite substantial, with cost savings of 15-20% … When time-related cost savings are combined with OCC reductions, total costs can be 25-40% lower." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O145 | Barakah units 1 to 4: costs fell more than 50% (NEA citing a 2019 database study; not a primary cost series) (:368) |
PRIMARY (intergovernmental, secondary citation) | as O143 NEA:3390-3394 |
"According to [author] (2019), costs fell more than 50% between the first and the fourth units." (author's name omitted) | Verified VERIFIED (the secondary nature is labelled) |
| O146 | France, second pair on a site against the first, cost per MW: 31% lower (Tricastin), 24% (Paluel), 20% (Cattenom) (estimate on Cour des comptes / EDF data) (:369) |
COMPUTED | Cour des comptes, Les coûts de la filière électronucléaire, Jan 2012 (source EDF) CC-2012:805-847 |
Tricastin 1.2 "1 190 760" → 3.4 "821 739": 1 − 0.690 = 31.0%; Paluel "1 531 008" → "1 156 977": 24.4%; Cattenom "1 358 285" → "1 091 154": 19.7% (€2010/MW) | Verified VERIFIED. Selection note: these are three of the larger falls. In the same table Bugey 2.3 → 4.5 rose 1.5% (885,869 → 899,444), Chinon fell 2.5% and Blayais 6.5% |
| O147 | France national series per MW (2010 euros): €1.07m (1978, Fessenheim) to €2.06m (2000, Chooz) or €1.37m (2002, Civaux); average €1.25m for 58 reactors (:371) |
PRIMARY | as O146 CC-2012:13327-13331 |
"de 1,07 M€2010/MW en 1978 (Fessenheim) à 2,06 M€2010 en 2000 (Chooz 1 et 2) ou 1,37 M€2010 en 2002 (à Civaux), avec une moyenne de 1,25 M€2010 pour les 58 réacteurs" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O148 | Cause: "notamment du fait de l'application de règlementations plus contraignantes" (:372) |
PRIMARY | as O146 CC-2012:860-862 |
"Les coûts rapportés au MW installé augmentent progressivement dans le temps, même si ce n'est pas de manière régulière, notamment du fait de l'application de règlementations plus contraignantes." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O149 | Shin Kori 3 and 4: announced US$1,828/kWe against ex-post US$2,410/kWe; about 32% over (NEA; overrun estimate) (:373) |
PRIMARY (intergovernmental) / COMPUTED | as O143, Table 1 NEA:895-913 |
"APR 1400 Korea Shin Kori 3, 4 2012 5 8/10 2 x 1 340 1 828 2 410"; 2,410 / 1,828 = 1.318 | Verified VERIFIED |
| O150 | Korean data: only country where overnight costs "appear to decline over time in the modern era is South Korea", but data "do not come from an independent source" (academic, reply, 2016 draft) (:374) |
SECONDARY (academic) | IIASA repository, reply to a 2016 paper, manuscript draft IIASA-REPLY:3,84,328-331 |
"the only country where overnight costs appear to decline over time in the modern era is South Korea. In that case the data do not come from an independent source"; "Manuscript Draft"; "Version 12, March 25, 2016" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O151 | US study, 2020: later plants on an existing design "costs more, not less" (press, university release; paper not obtained) (:375) |
SECONDARY | MIT release via ScienceDaily, 19 Nov 2020 SD-MIT:30,74 |
"building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant" | Verified VERIFIED (SECONDARY, labelled press) |
| O152 | Delay between UK units could reduce "the benefit from replicating HPC" (NAO) (:376) |
PRIMARY | as O139 NAO-SZC:1747-1748 |
"This delay would potentially mean reducing the benefit from replicating HPC due to the length of gap between the projects." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O153 | Note: NEA table lists Vogtle 3 and 4 at US$4,300 to 8,600 and Flamanville 3 at US$1,886 to 8,620; French reading: costs fell between paired units on one site and rose across the national series (:379) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | as O143, O146-O148 NEA:907-913; CC-2012:862-865 |
"Vogtle 3, 4 … 4 300 8 600"; "Flamanville 3 … 1 886 8 620"; Cour: "les premières tranches de chaque site" cost more "en général" | Verified VERIFIED. The Cour says "en général" (generally), and Bugey is an exception (O146) |
| O154 | DESNZ states the benefit as reduced risk, not a quantified fall; a UK percentage fall is not published; NRR summary (24 Nov 2025): the UK "has become the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear projects" (:380) |
PRIMARY | NAO-SZC; Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 summary NAO-SZC:216-217; NRR-SUM:62-65,78 |
"DESNZ believes that replicating the design of and applying the learning from HPC will reduce the risks of construction time and cost overruns at SZC."; NRR: "Today, it has become the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear projects."; "Updated 24 November 2025" | Verified VERIFIED. The NRR is an "Independent report" published on gov.uk; the page tags it "official" |
| O155 | Nuclear box, cost: HPC £35bn to £36bn in 2015 prices (EDF's latest scenarios, per NAO); SZC £38.2bn (2024-25 prices); UK fleet cost not published (:383) |
PRIMARY | as O139 NAO-SZC:182-184,1018-1024,1151-1152 |
"Actual cost or recent cost scenarios … £35bn – £36bn (2015)"; "SZC construction cost … (real terms 2024-25 prices) £38.2 billion" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O156 | Nuclear box, deliver: 22% below HPC's lowest estimate, 85% replicated; £11,650 against £15,000 (estimate); NEA 15% and 25-40%; Barakah >50% (secondary source) (:384) |
PRIMARY / ESTIMATE | as O139-O145 as cited there |
as cited there | Verified VERIFIED. The O142 circularity note applies |
| O157 | Nuclear box, risks: costs fell in pairs and rose across the French series; Shin Kori about 32% over; Korean data not independently audited; US study; delay erodes benefit; benefit stated as reduced risk (:385) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as O146-O154 as cited there |
as cited there | Verified VERIFIED |
| O158 | Section 6 intro: "UK large users pay the most in the comparison group" (:391) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ table 5.4.1 (annual, incl. tax) QEP-T541:206 |
"Large 2025 … 24.34643085481845 11.04413639881744 120.44666939667069 15" (UK, median, % above, rank) | Verified VERIFIED |
| O159 | "Users of 20,000 to 69,999 MWh a year, annual average, pence per kWh. Comparison group: the EU14 plus the UK." (DESNZ QEP, 28 May 2026) (:394) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ international non-domestic electricity prices tables QEP-T541:4,139,142 |
"Publication date: 28/05/2026"; "Large consumers: consuming 20,000 - 69,999 MWh per annum"; "Annual average is presented as the unweighted average of semesters one and two" | Verified VERIFIED. "Including taxes" means excluding VAT and recoverable taxes ( :134) |
| O160 | 2025 large-user prices incl. taxes, p/kWh: UK 24.35 (rank 15 of 15); Ireland 17.74; Italy 14.14; Germany 13.62; Netherlands 11.04; Spain 9.41; France 7.91; Sweden 5.95; median 11.04 (:398-406) |
PRIMARY | as O158 QEP-T541:150,206 |
:206 France 7.9072, Germany 13.6205, Ireland 17.7352, Italy 14.1413, Netherlands 11.0441, Spain 9.4064, Sweden 5.9548, UK 24.3464, median 11.0441, rank 15 |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O161 | "The UK is 120% above the median" (:409) |
PRIMARY | as O158 QEP-T541:206 |
"120.44666939667069" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O162 | Excluding taxes, large users: UK 17.98 against median 9.93, 81% above (:409) |
PRIMARY | as O158, annual excl. tax sheet QEP-T541:58,114 |
"Large 2025 … 17.9817448302953 9.927376368090524 81.13290121742395 15" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O163 | Medium users including taxes: UK 25.85 against 13.83, 87% above (:409) |
PRIMARY | as O158 QEP-T541:188 |
"Medium 2025 … 25.845068755974125 13.831919980347251 86.8509129079366 15" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O164 | DESNZ June 2026 headline: prices "were highest in the UK compared with the EU14 plus UK" (:409) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Quarterly Energy Prices, June 2026 QEP-JUN26:902-903 |
"Average non-domestic electricity prices (including taxes and levies) in the last six months of 2025 were highest in the UK compared with the EU14 plus UK." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O165 | Industrial gas: UK eleventh lowest of 24 in the IEA group, 2024 (:409) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ Quarterly Energy Prices, Sept 2025 QEP-SEP25:791-793 |
"Of the 28 IEA countries in table 5.7.1, 24 reported industrial gas prices in 2024. The UK had the eleventh lowest price including taxes and levies." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O166 | "A comparison with the G7 and other non-EU countries for 2025 is not published in the current DESNZ tables." (:409) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ international industrial energy prices page DESNZ-IIP:194 |
"To comply with the International Energy Agency (IEA) terms of use, data tables 5.3.1 and 5.7.1 are no longer available." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O167 | Network charging compensation 60% to 90% from 1 April 2026: £310m to £420m a year (2025 prices); class "official (DESNZ)" (:415) |
PRIMARY | DBT press release, 18 Jul 2025; government consultation response GOV-NCC25:59-62,93; NCC-RESP:101,115 |
GOV-NCC25: "From: Department for Business and Trade"; "The total estimated value of the network charging compensation component of the Supercharger (at 90%) is £310-420m this year (in 2025 prices)."; NCC-RESP:101 "will be dated from 1 April 2026" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figure and date are right, but the publisher is the Department for Business and Trade, not DESNZ. The source says "this year", though the same release also says "up to £420m per year". Citation upgrade: the research file cites this only via research/UK-ENERGY-MESS-REVIEW.md:95-100 |
| O168 | Supercharger, April 2026: "a £420 million boost for around 500 of the UK's most energy-intensive businesses"; latest wording (1 Oct 2026) "over £400 million per year" (official, gov.uk) (:416) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk releases, 15/16 Apr 2026 and 1 Oct 2026 GOV-BICS:104; GOV-BICS2:61,80 |
"a £420 million boost for around 500 of the UK's most energy-intensive businesses through the Supercharger, which took effect on 1 April and increased the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90%"; "by over £400 million per year" | Verified VERIFIED. Note: this £420m is the same network-charge uplift as O167, not a separate sum |
| O169 | BICS: eligibility widened from 7,000 to over 10,000 businesses; up to £600m a year from April 2027 (gov.uk, 15 Apr 2026) (:417) |
PRIMARY | gov.uk release, 15 Apr 2026 GOV-BICS:63,86,89 |
"Eligibility has also been expanded by 40%, from 7,000 to over 10,000 businesses."; "It is expected to be worth up to £600 million per year from April 2027." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O170 | Existing exemption scheme around £400m a year; cost met by other consumers, £4 to £6 a year on a household bill (DBT impact assessment, Jan 2024) (:418) |
PRIMARY | DBT impact assessment, EII Exemption Scheme uplift, 22 Jan 2024 IA-EII:4-5,304-305 |
"since then over 300 companies have benefitted from relief valued around £400 million per annum. The costs are met by non-eligible consumers with an estimated average cost on household bills of £4-6 per annum." | Verified VERIFIED |
| O171 | Steel electricity price £168/MWh to £86/MWh on average; about £40 a tonne for EAFs (DBT Steel Strategy, 20 Mar 2026) (:419) |
PRIMARY | DBT, UK Steel Strategy STEEL:61,713 |
"The support reduces electricity prices for steel producers on average from £168/MWh to £86/MWh, reducing the costs of production for EAFs by approximately £40/t crude steel-based" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O172 | Supercharger package net present social value £9.4bn (2020 prices, 10-year appraisal), a social value, not a subsidy cost (:420) |
PRIMARY | as O170 IA-EII:15-18,128,676 |
"Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option (in 2020 prices) … Total Net Present Social Value … £9.4 billion – Total Supercharger package"; "10-year appraisal period" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O173 | Total package value: not published (:421) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:54 (row 125) |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O174 | "The only '£2bn' figure found is a historical total: 'More than £2 billion since 2013' (gov.uk, 2023). The cost of bringing UK prices to the EU median is not published." (:424) |
PRIMARY / absence | gov.uk release, 23 Feb 2023 GOV-SUPER23:62,93 |
"More than £2 billion since 2013 to EIIs to make electricity costs more competitive." | Verified VERIFIED. The EU-median cost is an absence statement |
| O175 | UK crude steel output 10.9 Mt (2015); 5.6 Mt (2023); 4.0 Mt (2024); 2.6 Mt (2025); official (2015, 2024, DBT); press (worldsteel, 2023, 2025) (:430) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | DBT Steel Strategy; worldsteel, World Steel in Figures 2025 and 2026 STEEL:989; WS26:315; WS25:301 |
STEEL: "Based on data from World Steel in Figures - worldsteel.org. … UK total production of crude steel in 2015 of 10.9Mt, falling to 4Mt in 2024"; WS26: "United Kingdom 41 2.6 35 4.0"; WS25: "United Kingdom 35 4.0 26 5.6" | Verified VERIFIED. Note: DBT's own 2015 and 2024 figures are themselves worldsteel data (STEEL:989) |
| O176 | 2025 against 2015: 76% lower (2.6 / 10.9 = 0.24) (estimate) (:431) |
COMPUTED | O175 as O175 |
2.6 / 10.9 = 0.2385; 1 − 0.2385 = 76.1% | Verified VERIFIED |
| O177 | Causes named in the Steel Strategy: "global overcapacity compounded by high operating costs", including "high electricity and labour costs" (:432) |
PRIMARY | DBT Steel Strategy STEEL:78,291 |
:78 "The challenges of global overcapacity compounded by high operating costs"; :291 "compounded historically by high operating costs, including high electricity and labour costs" |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O178 | Share of the decline due to energy cost: not published (:433) |
Absence statement | — research/ALTERNATIVE-OPTIONS.md:75 (row 136) |
— | Not found / open Absence statement, consistent with the research file |
| O179 | Public money on steel: about £350m anticipated to acquire Speciality Steel UK (four sites); class "official (DBT)" (:434) |
PRIMARY (four sites) / SECONDARY (£350m) | gov.uk release (four sites); PA report of the Business Secretary's Commons statement (via Yahoo Finance) GOV-SSUK:68,72; PA-SSUK:107,114 |
GOV-SSUK: "The company's four sites support over 1,300 jobs"; "funded from existing Government budgets"; PA-SSUK: "I would anticipate the cost of that to be around £350 million." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The four sites are official. The £350m is not in the government release; it is the Business Secretary's anticipated cost, held locally only in a press (PA) report. Suggested class: "official (four sites); press report of a ministerial statement (£350m)" |
| O180 | No document separates energy cost from other causes; official aluminium series not found; only source a 2012 think-tank paper (press); Scottish Government 25-year guarantee on the hydro supply to the Lochaber smelter from Dec 2016 (Scottish Parliament paper, Feb 2026) (:437) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | Civitas 2012; Scottish Parliament Public Audit Committee paper, 25 Feb 2026 CIVITAS:52; LOCH:5,27-31 |
CIVITAS: "Lynemouth (178,000tpa, to be closed May 2012)"; LOCH: "the Scottish Government's 25-year financial guarantee (starting December 2016) relating to the hydro plant (which supplies energy to the smelter) and aluminium smelter at Lochaber, which ensures that if the smelter cannot pay for power from the hydro plants, the Scottish government covers the liability" | Verified VERIFIED |
| O181 | Carbon leakage: government "is committed to tackling" it; UK CBAM from 1 January 2027; export leakage options still assessed; indirect emissions "delayed until 2029 at the earliest" (DBT and HM Treasury) (:440) |
PRIMARY | DBT Steel Strategy; HMT CBAM response, 30 Oct 2024 STEEL:727,733,736; CBAM:91 |
STEEL:727 "The UK government is committed to tackling the risk of carbon leakage. The UK government will introduce a UK Carbon Border Adjustment Measure on 1 January 2027."; :733 "will continue to assess the options to mitigate export leakage"; :736 "The inclusion of indirect emissions within scope of the UK CBAM will be delayed until 2029 at the earliest." |
Verified VERIFIED |
| O182 | Industry box, cost: about £400m a year (exemption) plus £310m to £420m a year (network-charge relief) plus up to £600m a year from April 2027; total not published; EU-median cost not published (:443) |
PRIMARY | as O167, O169, O170 as cited there |
as cited there | Verified VERIFIED (components). Caveat: no local source says whether BICS's "up to £600 million" is additional to, or partly replaces, the existing ~£400m exemption. Both exempt firms from levy costs ( GOV-BICS:88), so the items may not be additive |
| O183 | Industry box, deliver: 24.35 against median 11.04; support cuts steel electricity from £168 to £86/MWh; no output change forecast in any source read (:444) |
PRIMARY | as O160, O171 as cited there |
as cited there | Verified VERIFIED |
| O184 | Industry box, risks: carbon leakage named; export leakage and indirect emissions unresolved until 2029 at the earliest; steel 10.9 Mt to 2.6 Mt; cost of support falls on other consumers (:445) |
PRIMARY | as O170, O175, O181 as cited there |
as cited there | Verified VERIFIED |
| O185 | Sources paragraph: research files and the primary sources behind them; Norwegian figures via the joint Ministry/Sodir site; Gas Market Review and WA Parliament report via Internet Archive; list of items not published or not found; "Australian Government Gas Market Review, 22 December 2025" (:451) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as listed counter/options.html:451; GMR:3 |
GMR:3 "December 2025" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-10.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Every listed source exists locally. The list is not complete: it omits the Court of Session judgment, the developer submissions to OPRED, Energy Voice, the ECU record, SSE's annual report, BGS 2019 and 2022, the LSE explainer, Ground Engineering, the NI Assembly paper, worldsteel, the NRR summary, DUKES and Energy in Brief, the DBT network-charge release and the ECB rates. The day "22 December 2025" is not in the local copy, which gives only "December 2025" |
Every row from the register for counter/shetland2.html. · 87 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Eyebrow "Moray Firth offshore wind · the cable on this coast"; H1 "Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2: what is proposed for Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay"; nav links (counter/shetland2.html:88-92) |
— | — counter/shetland2.html:88-92 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim. The two-site framing matches AUT:27-31 |
| S2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." (:90) |
Characterisation | SSE plc Annual Report 2026, facilities table and liquidity note AR26:6529-6534, :16568-16571 |
"a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund"; "As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities" | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with the SSEN Transmission financing record (the same callout as Table 5 R1). The taxpayer element is a contingentA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more › guarantee on facilities that were undrawn at 31 Mar 2026, and only the NWF £800m is a UK-taxpayer guarantee (EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more › and SACE are Swedish and Italian) |
| S3 | Lead: "Everything below is a fact from SSEN's, OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more ›'s or DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more ›'s own published documents, numbered to the fact sheet it is read from." (:91) |
Characterisation | — counter/shetland2.html:91, compare :103, :117-118, :126, :165-168, :176, :187, :198 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The page also relies on SSE plc annual reports (S18, S19), SEPA (S36), the Kingfisher BulletinA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more › and EMODnet (S51–S59), the Electricity Act 1989The UK statute that underpins transmission licensing, the bill discount scheme and compulsory acquisition powers for projects like this one. more › (S63, S86), and Aberdeenshire Council records (S77, S84). Several items carry no fact-sheet number: :117, :118, all captions, :165 and :198 (which is tagged to HANDOVER) |
| S4 | "No preference is given between the two landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › sites, and nothing here is an argument." (:91) |
Characterisation | — counter/shetland2.html whole page |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent: no preference is stated anywhere on the page (HANDOVER §5 corr. 38) |
| S5 | SSEN calls it "Shetland HVDC Link 2" (:98) |
PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › | SSEN, Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:1, :27 |
"Shetland HVDC Link 2" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S6 | Ofgem project code "SHL256Ofgem's project code for this link: 'New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland - Coachford'. more ›", "New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland – Coachford", from the 1 August 2024 consultation (:98) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more › consultation, 1 Aug 2024 OfgCons:2384 (date :7) |
"SHL256 New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland - Coachford N/A SHET"; "Publication date: 01 August 2024" | Verified VERIFIED (HANDOVER §5 corr. 17 respected) |
| S7 | Ofgem's December 2024 decision describes the same row as "HNDFUE AC project: Shetland to Blackhillock" (:98) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision OFG1164, 11 Dec 2024 DEC:2775-2779 (date :6) |
"Shetland to Coachford | HNDFUE AC project: Shetland to Blackhillock | SHET | n/a | Submission of all material planning consents | 31st December 2027" (table cells across five lines) | Verified VERIFIED. The code "SHL256" does not appear in the decision; the row is headed "Shetland to Coachford" |
| S8 | "The link is 1.8GW" (:99) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | Ofgem consultation; SSEN news release, Sept 2024 OfgCons:2384; sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/news/news--views/2024/9/early-engagement-gets-underway-ahead-of-potential-second-Shetland-subseaThe underwater section of the cable route, running from Shetland to the Aberdeenshire landfall. more ›-link/index.html:498 |
"New 1.8GW HVDC link"; "The proposed second HVDC link is planned to be built to a capacity of 1.8GW" | Verified VERIFIED as at Aug–Sept 2024 |
| S9 | "the converter stationA large facility that converts electricity between the direct current used by a subsea cable and the alternating current used by the onshore grid. more › is 2GW. It is a 525kVThe voltage class of the bipole cable proposed for Shetland HVDC Link 2. more › bi-poleAn HVDC link built using two conductors of opposite polarity, which can keep working at half capacity if one fails. more ›." (:99) |
PRIMARY | SSEN, Autumn 2026 booklet, p.22–23 AUT:650-660 (drawing label), :717-725; image IMG/shetland2-05-corridorA broad, mapped band within which a cable route could run; not a chosen route, width or list of affected land. more ›-route-options.jpg |
"Indicative conceptual design for 2GW 525kV bipole converter station"; "HVDC Converter Station - A 2GW bi-pole, 525kV HVDC link is proposed between Aberdeenshire and northern Shetland" | Verified VERIFIED (2GW, 525kV, bi-pole) |
| S10 | "The link capacity has never been 'increased' — the two figures describe two different pieces of equipment." (:99) |
Characterisation | SSEN Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:717-725 |
"A 2GW bi-pole, 525kV HVDC link is proposed between Aberdeenshire and northern Shetland" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL (main session, 12 Oct: downgraded from the agent's rating). The booklet sentence sits under the bullet heading "HVDC Converter Station" (AUT:717), so it can be read as describing the converter or the link; it is ambiguous, not a contradiction. But no local source states that 1.8GW and 2GW describe different equipment or that the link rating is unchanged, so the page's "never been increased" is an inference stated as fact. Suggested: say the 2024 Ofgem/NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › documents give 1.8GW for the link and SSEN's 2026 booklet gives 2GW under its converter-station heading. See Problem 1 |
| S11 | Route subsea from Shetland; landfall proposed at Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay (:100) |
PRIMARY | Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:27-31, :243-245, :376 |
"requires a new subsea cable connection between northern Shetland and mainland Scotland"; "leaving the two options, Boyne and Boyndie Bay" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S12 | "about 30km of underground cable" (:100) |
PRIMARY | Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:628, :53-54 |
"The onshore cable will run for approximately 30km from the landfall to the substation site." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S13 | "crossing parts of Aberdeenshire and Moray" (:100) |
PRIMARY | SSEN project page, August 2026 update sources/crawl/ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-map/shetland-hvdc-link-2/index.html:952 |
"a route which is likely to be in the region of about 30km. It will include parts of Aberdeenshire and Moray." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S14 | To "the Strathbogie HubThe proposed converter and substation site north-east of Huntly where the onshore cable from the landfall would terminate. more › at CruchieThe two sites shortlisted for the Strathbogie Hub, north-east of Huntly. more › or Rivestone, north-east of Huntly" (:100) |
PRIMARY | Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:640-647 |
"a new converter station and substation hub to the north-east of Huntly … The project team have selected two sites, at Cruchie and Rivestone, for detailed assessment" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S15 | "SSEN's published timeline puts energisationThe point at which a new transmission link is switched on and carries power; SSEN's own timeline puts this project's energisation in 2035. more › in 2035." (:101) |
PRIMARY (developer forecast) | Autumn 2026 booklet, p.27 AUT:930-931 (caveat :876) |
"2035 • Project complete and energised"; "Note the dates are indicative and are subject to change." | Verified VERIFIED. It is attributed as SSEN's timeline, but the page omits the booklet's own "indicative and … subject to change" caveat |
| S16 | Feedback window for this landfall consultation closes 6 November 2026 (:101) |
PRIMARY | Autumn 2026 booklet AUT:31, :946-947 |
"The feedback window is open until Friday 6 November 2026."; "a consultation period will open until 6 November 2026." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S17 | "No capital cost has been published for this project by SSEN, Ofgem or NESO." (:102) |
PRIMARY (absence) | Autumn booklet; Ofgem decision; FS 7 (dossier §13) AUT:133, :904 (the only "£" lines); DEC:2785-2794; SHETLAND-HVDC-LINK-2-DOSSIER.md:1099-1108 |
Booklet "£" figures: "around £29 billion" (programme) and "up to £1bn of local spend and up to £820m … GVA"; Ofgem: "Provisional view of PCF to be awarded** (£m 2018 prices) … SSENT 68.430" (pre-construction funding, one total across four SSENT projects) | Verified VERIFIED as a negative finding. Grep of the booklet re-run. NESO coverage rests on the dossier search (FS 7), which this check did not repeat |
| S18 | Company proposing to build it is SSEN Transmission, owned 75% by SSE plc and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan of Canada (:103) |
PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2026 AR26:2738-2743 |
"is owned 75% by SSE plc and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S19 | OTPP "paid £1,465.0m for its stake in November 2022" (:103) |
PRIMARY | SSE plc Annual Report 2023, financial statements note AR23:1996-1999, :2010 |
"On 25 November 2022, the Group announced it had agreed to sell a 25% non-controlling equity stake in Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc ('SHET') to Ontario Teachers Pension Plan ('OTPP') for cash consideration of £1,465.0m, less transactions costs of £16.9m. The transaction completed on 30 November 2022" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S20 | Ofgem classifies community benefitMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › as fully pass-throughA cost Ofgem lets a network company recover in full from billpayers, rather than paying for out of its own profit. more ›, "recoverable from billpayers through network charges" (:104) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | Ofgem, Community Funds … Pass-Through: Guidance, 01 April 2026, §2.3 sources/passthrough.txt:176-181 (date :4) |
"This Mechanism is classified as a fully Pass-Through Cost, meaning that TOs may recover 100% of eligible Community Fund Costs" | Verified VERIFIED. "From billpayers through network charges" is the page's gloss on the recovery route. It is consistent with TNUoSTransmission Network Use of System charges: the part of a bill that pays for building and running the high-voltage grid. more › recovery (FS 15) but is not in the quoted guidance |
| S21 | Regulated return: "cost of equityThe profit margin Ofgem lets a regulated grid company earn on shareholders' money, built into billpayers' charges. more › 5.70% … CPIH-real, for the five years to March 2031" (:104) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem RIIO-3Ofgem's current five-year price control, which sets how much transmission companies can charge billpayers and what return they earn. more › FD Finance Annex, Table 16 FD-FA:3610-3615 |
"Table 16: Final Determinations on the RIIO-3 baseline allowed return on capital (average for five years end 31 March 2031, CPIH real) … Cost of equity allowance (real) 6.12% 5.70% 5.70% 5.70%" (SHET is the last column) | Verified VERIFIED |
| S22 | "WACC 5.74%, CPIH-real" (:104) |
PRIMARY | as S21 FD-FA:3614-3616 |
"WACC allowance (semi-nominal) 5.18% 5.53% 5.65% 5.74%"; "WACC allowance (real) 4.28% 4.46% 4.58% 4.67%" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. 5.74% is SHET's semi-nominal WACC. The CPIH-real WACC is 4.67%. FS 12 labels it correctly ("WACC 5.74% (semi-nominal)"); the page drops the label. See Problem 4 |
| S23 | Section intro: tables "read from its Autumn 2026 Aberdeenshire booklet. The same booklet contradicts itself on one point at each site" (:110) |
Characterisation | Autumn booklet p.18–19 AUT:516-524 (Boyne); :482-483, :487-488 (Boyndie) |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The Boyne Bay point is a genuine contradiction (S27/S28). The Boyndie Bay point is a truncated abbreviation ("SSS" for SSSIA nature conservation designation for a site of special scientific interest, notified by NatureScot. more ›, S32), not a contradiction |
| S24 | Site numbering "Site 9: Boyne Bay", "Site 10: Boyndie Bay" (:113, :122) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.16–19 AUT:451-453, :472, :480 |
"9 Boyne Bay Yes"; "10 Boyndie Bay Yes"; "Site 10 - Boyndie Bay"; "Site 9 - Boyne Bay" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S25 | Boyne Bay: site "overlaps with the 'Cullen to Stake Ness Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest'" (:115) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:487-488 |
"The site overlaps with the 'Cullen to Stake Ness Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest' (SSSI), designated for geological and biological features." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S26 | "the Cullen to Whitehills Local Nature ReserveA nature conservation designation made by a local authority, lower than national designations like SSSI. more › is located within the site boundary" (:115) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:490-491 |
"And the Cullen to Whitehills Local Nature Reserve is located within the site boundary" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S27 | Technical constraint: "Caledonia Offshore wind farm export cables are making landfall in this area" (:116) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:516-518 |
"Caledonia Offshore wind farm export cables are making landfall in this area." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S28 | Same table, technical opportunity: "No offshore cables or pipelines in the vicinity of the landfall"; the same cables appear as both constraint and absence (:116) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:523-524; image IMG/shetland2-03-site-tables-aerial.jpg |
"No offshore cables or pipelines in the vicinity of the landfall" | Verified VERIFIED. Both entries sit in the same Technical table for Site 9 |
| S29 | "There are two scheduled monumentsA nationally important archaeological or historic site given legal protection, listed with an SM number. more › within 2km of the Boyne Bay site and 'Craig of Boyne Castle' is located within the site." (:117) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:493-495 |
"There are two scheduled monuments within 2km of the Boyne Bay site and 'Craig of Boyne Castle' is located within the site." | Verified VERIFIED (verbatim). Note: HES records held locally ( sources/crawl/portal.historicenvironment.scot/SM5317.html, SM354.html, SM11112.html) put SM354 684m and SM11112 1,006m from Craig of Boyne (SM5317) [COMPUTED: √(459²+507²)=684; √(744²+677²)=1,006]. The booklet's wording therefore reads as two plus the castle (three in all). HANDOVER §5 corr. 10 ("two … SM5317 and SM354") counts the castle as one of the two. No change to this page is needed |
| S30 | Site "is located within 1km of the Southern Trench Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NCMPA)" (:117) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:497-498 |
"Site is located within 1km of the Southern Trench Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NCMPA)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S31 | Boyne constraints "Prime agricultural land", "Area of high fishing activity (demersal gear, dredges, pots, traps, rod and line)"; "A new core path runs along the coast, in front of the HDD drilling compound"; "Temporary haul roadThe road a construction site would use for heavy vehicle access; named for both landfall sites but not yet confirmed. more › will need to be constructed from the nearby B9139 road, during the construction phase" (:118) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18 AUT:500-502, :505-507, :520-521 |
as quoted on the page, each line verbatim | Verified VERIFIED (all four) |
| S32 | Boyndie Bay: booklet prints "Whitehills to Melrose Coast SSS" as a constraint, on the same page where it writes "Site of Special Scientific Interest" in full (:124) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18–19 AUT:482-483, :487-488 |
"Overlap with Whitehills to Melrose Coast SSS designated for geological features."; "'Cullen to Stake Ness Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest' (SSSI)" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S33 | Nearest scheduled monument "Boyndie Old Kirk (SM5668) located approximately 140m to the south" (:125) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.19 AUT:494-497 |
"There are 4 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the Boyndie Bay Site. The closest is Boyndie Old Kirk (SM5668) located approximately 140m to the south" | Verified VERIFIED (verbatim) |
| S34 | "measured to the site boundary" (:125) |
Characterisation (inference) | research file research/SM5668-distance.md:18, :22, :29-30; FACT-SHEET.md:224 |
research: "consistent with, but not independently reproducible as, SSEN's 140m"; FACT-SHEET: "SSEN's 140m site-boundary distance (no site polygon is published, so it cannot be independently re-derived)" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The booklet does not state the reference point. It says only "within 2km of the Boyndie Bay Site. The closest is …". "To the site boundary" is the research file's reading, which the fact sheet itself lists as not verified |
| S35 | "not the 512m sometimes quoted elsewhere, which was measured to a different reference point" (:125) |
COMPUTED (this site's own) | site dossier; research SHETLAND-HVDC-LINK-2-DOSSIER.md:1241; research/SM5668-distance.md:21-23 |
dossier: "SM5668 Boyndie Old Kirk — 512m."; research: "512m is larger because it is landfall-point-to-monument" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The 512m figure was computed in this project's own dossier, to a reference point the research back-solved from the Boyne Bay figures. It is not a figure "quoted elsewhere" by a third party. Research file only |
| S36 | Boyndie Bay is a designated bathing water: SEPA, designated 1999, classified Good in 2025 (:126) |
PRIMARY | SEPA bathing water profile and results, Inverboyndie sources/crawl/bathingwaters.sepa.org.uk/inverboyndie_profile.html:182; .../inverboyndie_results.html:184; Boyndie = Inverboyndie at AUT:389-391 |
"Year of designation: 1999"; "Good (Awarded in 2025)"; "The site referred to in this document as Boyndie Bay is also known as Inverboyndie." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S37 | "the word 'bathing' does not appear anywhere in SSEN's booklet" (:126) |
PRIMARY (absence) | Autumn booklet, text and PDF AUT (whole file); sources/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.pdf |
grep -ci bathing: 0 in the .txt; 0 in fresh pdftotext output |
Verified VERIFIED (re-run) |
| S38 | Booklet discloses "Offshore wind farm cables and a telecommunication cable make landfall in Boyndie Bay", names no operatorThe company that owns or charters out a ship, as distinct from the client paying to use it for a particular job. more › (:127) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.19 AUT:503-507 |
"Offshore wind farm cables and a telecommunication cable make landfall in Boyndie Bay, therefore consultation with asset owners will be required and stand-off distance maintained." | Verified VERIFIED. No operator is named |
| S39 | Caution: the outlines on the survey-block map (file 06) "are survey blocksAn area being surveyed ahead of construction, not the footprint of the landfall or any chosen route. more ›, areas being surveyed — not the footprint of any landfall" (:136) |
PRIMARY (map legend) | Autumn booklet p.24–25 IMG/shetland2-06-survey-blocks.jpg; AUT:861-862 |
map legend: "LEGEND: SURVEY BLOCKS"; spread heading: "Indicative landfall areas on Aberdeenshire coast" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The legend says "SURVEY BLOCKS" (HANDOVER corr. 28), but SSEN's heading on the same spread calls them "Indicative landfall areas". "Not the footprint of any landfall" is firmer than the source, which presents them as the areas within which landfall is indicated. Same standard both ways: the page should give both labels |
| S40 | Caution: corridor maps (files 05 and 09) show "a broad area of search with route options, at 1:125,000; they do not show a chosen route, a width, or which land is affected" (:136) |
PRIMARY (maps) | Autumn booklet p.23; May 2026 booklet p.9 IMG/shetland2-05-corridor-route-options.jpg; IMG/shetland2-09-corridor-area-of-search.jpg; AUT:634 |
map 05 legend: "Central Corridor Route Options", scale "1:125,000"; map 09 legend: "Central Corridor - Area of Search", "Central Corridor Route Options", "Scale: 1:125,000"; booklet: "We will provide an update on the onshore cable route in due course" | Verified VERIFIED. Minor: the "Area of Search" label appears only on map 09. Map 05 (Autumn) shows route-option bands without that label |
| S41 | Reproduction notice: five maps from SSEN booklets; "where a map carries an Ordnance Survey base, that base is Crown copyright as marked on the original" (:138) |
Explanation | maps as published IMG/shetland2-05-…jpg, IMG/shetland2-09-…jpg |
"Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2025. All rights reserved." | Not found / open Explanation, consistent: five figures follow, and the OS credit is printed on maps 05 and 09 |
| S42 | Caption 01: "All twelve candidate landfall sites" … "Source: SSEN … Autumn 2026, printed pages 14–15" (:142) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.14–15 AUT:372-373, :414 (page numbers); IMG/shetland2-01-landfall-sites.jpg |
"we initially identified 12 sites on the Scottish mainland"; map legend Sites 1–12, "Landfall Search Area" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S43 | Caption 01: "Site 9 Boyne Bay and Site 10 Inverboyndie are the two that proceeded to Stage 2 design; the rest were dropped at earlier stages." (:142) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.14–17 AUT:378-387, :441-443; map legend in IMG/shetland2-01-…jpg |
map: Sites 9 and 10 green, "Proceed to Stage 2"; facing text: "Three sites were shortlisted and taken forward to stage 2 design, which were: Sandend, Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay, as presented in the public consultation event in November 2025. Following this event, the Sandend landfall was discounted" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The map legend supports the caption, but the text on the same spread says Sandend was also taken forward to stage 2 design and was dropped only after November 2025. "The rest were dropped at earlier stages" is wrong for Sandend. See Problem 6 |
| S44 | Caption 03: page records two scheduled monuments within 2km of Boyne Bay, "Craig of Boyne Castle within the site boundary itself", four within 2km of Boyndie Bay; haul roads B9139 (Boyne) and B9038 (Boyndie), the latter "more technically challenging due to the steep embankment"; printed pages 18–19 (:146) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.18–19 AUT:493-495, :494-497, :509-513, :520-521, :538 (page numbers); IMG/shetland2-03-…jpg |
"There are 4 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the Boyndie Bay Site"; "Temporary haul road will need to be constructed from the nearby B9038 road during the construction phase, this would be more technically challenging due to the steep embankment" | Verified VERIFIED. Wording: the booklet says "within the site", not "within the site boundary itself" |
| S45 | Caption 05: onshore corridor route options map, 1:125,000, legend lists SSSI, SACA nature conservation designation protecting habitats and species of European importance. Not to be confused with SACE, Italy's export credit agency. more ›, SPAA nature conservation designation protecting sites important for wild birds. more ›, Local Nature Conservation Sites, scheduled monuments, conservation areas, ancient woodland, core pathsLocal authority-designated paths kept open for public access, shown on SSEN's corridor map legend. more ›, listed buildings; "not a chosen route"; printed pages 22–23 (:150) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.22–23 IMG/shetland2-05-corridor-route-options.jpg; AUT:832, :838 (page numbers), :839 |
map title "Onshore cable route options"; legend entries as listed; "Scale: 1:125,000" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S46 | Caption 06: survey blocks "one at Stake Ness west of Whitehills, one wrapping Knock Head into Boyndie Bay", naming Whitehills, Stake Ness, Knock Head, Inverboyndie, Whyntie Head and Loch of Auds; printed pages 24–25 (:154) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.24–25 IMG/shetland2-06-survey-blocks.jpg; AUT:861-867 |
map labels "BOYNE BAY" block ashore at Stake Ness; "BOYNDIE BAY" block around Knock Head; all six place names printed | Verified VERIFIED |
| S47 | Caption 06: the map names "both haul roads, the B9139 and B9038" (:154); alt text "with both proposed haul roads marked" (:153) |
PRIMARY | as S46 IMG/shetland2-06-survey-blocks.jpg; AUT:511, :521 |
map: road labels "B 9139" and "B903[8]"; the legend has a single entry, "SURVEY BLOCKS" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The map labels the two existing B-roads from which the booklet says haul roads would be built. It shows no haul-road symbol or legend entry, so "haul roads … marked" overstates it |
| S48 | Caption 06: "the landfall itself will sit somewhere inside one of them, and its size has not been published" (:154) |
Characterisation | — AUT:861-862; FS 50/51 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with the spread title "Indicative landfall areas". No landfall dimension appears in any of the seven booklets (S70) |
| S49 | Caption 09: May 2026 corridor map from the Strathbogie Hub consultation, still showing Sandend as a landfall option, "Central Corridor – Area of Search", route options and the hub site shortlist; printed pages 8–9 (:158); alt text names hub sites 2, 6, 10, 11 and 14 (:157) |
PRIMARY | SSEN, Strathbogie Hub booklet, May 2026, p.8–9 MAY:10 (date), :424-427, :498 (page numbers); IMG/shetland2-09-corridor-area-of-search.jpg |
"May 2026"; map labels "Sandend", "Boyne Bay", "Boyndie Bay"; legend "Central Corridor - Area of Search", "Site Selected For Stage 2" (sites 2, 6, 10, 11, 14) | Verified VERIFIED |
| S50 | Alt texts for maps 01, 03, 05 and 09 (:141, :145, :149, :157) |
PRIMARY | as S42–S49 images as cited |
map 01 legend "Site 10: Inverboyndie Bay", "Proceed to Stage 2"; map 05 "Indicative conceptual design for 2GW 525kV bipole converter station", "The Kergord HVDC converter station and AC switching station" | Verified VERIFIED (alt 06 is covered at S47) |
| S51 | Survey "began outside the 12 nautical mile line on 23 February 2026" (:165) |
PRIMARY | Kingfisher Bulletin notice 5686, "LT374 Survey Campaign - Shetlands Link 2"; Autumn booklet KF/notice5686.html:24; AUT:338 |
"SSEN Transmission plan to commence the marine survey outside 12NM on 23rd February 2026"; "startDate":"2026-02-23"; booklet: "The marine survey campaign started in February 2026" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. 23 February is the planned start in the notice. The booklet confirms only "started in February 2026" |
| S52 | Survey "was due to finish in August 2026" (:165) |
PRIMARY | notice 5686 KF/notice5686.html:24; AUT:338 |
"They are expected to be complete all survey works approximately August 2026."; "endDate":"2026-08-31"; booklet (Autumn 2026): "will conclude in the coming weeks" | Verified VERIFIED as "due". The Autumn 2026 booklet shows the survey still running after August |
| S53 | "Reach Subsea's vessel VIKING REACH carries it out." (:165) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | notice 5686; Reach Subsea news page KF/notice5686.html:24; sources/crawl/reachsubsea.no/reach-subsea-has-now-signed-survey-contract-with-major-scottish-energy-firm-ssen-transmission.html:1243; AUT:339-340 |
"Viking Reach are conducting geophysical, geotechnical, and benthic surveys on behalf of … SSEN Transmission"; "carried out by Reach Subsea UK Ltd"; "The ROV survey vessel Viking Reach"; booklet: "will use a number of specialist vessels" | Verified VERIFIED. SSEN's booklet says several vessels are used; the notice names Viking Reach |
| S54 | Notice gives the corridor as three survey areas A, B and C, "from Shetland to the 12 nautical mile line off Macduff" (:165); chart alt text "ending off Macduff" (:167) |
PRIMARY / COMPUTED | notice 5686 coordinates KF/notice5686.html:24; tools/make_maps.py:98 (Macduff 57.670N 2.496W) |
Areas "Survey Area A", "Survey Area B", "Survey Area C"; southernmost vertex 57.883583N, −2.5464 (57°53.015'N 002°32.784'W). Great-circle distance to Macduff = 12.92 nm [COMPUTED, haversine, R = 3,440.065 nm] | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Three areas: VERIFIED. The notice names neither Macduff nor an end at the 12nm line; it says only that surveying starts "outside 12NM". The end point is about 12.9 nm north of Macduff (computed). Area A lies about 60.33–60.38N, 2.23–2.29W, offshore west of Shetland, not at its coast |
| S55 | Chart series 1: Shetland HVDC Link 2 survey corridor, notice 5686 Areas A/B/C, "draws those coordinates exactly as published" (:165, :168) |
PRIMARY (series source) | notice 5686; build script KF/notice5686.html:24; tools/make_maps.py:113-144 |
script: coords = sorted(loc["coordinates"], key=lambda c: c["order"]) … return [(c["longitude"], c["latitude"]) …] |
Verified VERIFIED. The script reads the notice's own vertex list in published order |
| S56 | Chart series 2: Caledonia export cable corridor "from notice 4601" (:168) |
PRIMARY | Kingfisher notice 4601 KF/notice4601.html |
"title":"Geotechnical Site Investigation - Caledonia Offshore Wind Farm"; location "title":"Caledonia OWF OECC Boundary" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S57 | Chart series 3: wind farm areas from EMODnet (:168) |
PRIMARY (dataset) | EMODnet Human Activities WFS, windfarmspoly maps/_build-report.json ("emodnet_windfarmspoly_filtered": 6; "chartB_windfarm_groups": Beatrice, Caledonia, Moray East, Moray West); sources/crawl/ows.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/ |
— | Verified VERIFIED |
| S58 | Chart series 4 (drawn but not named in the page caption): "Moray East export cable corridor, operational (Crown Estate Scotland lease area)" | PRIMARY (dataset) | Crown Estate Scotland Offshore Wind dataset IMG/chart-shetland2-corridor.png (legend and footer); maps/_build-report.json ("moray_east_cable_properties": "Moray East OFTOAn Offshore Transmission Owner: a separate, often investor-owned company that owns the cable linking an offshore wind farm to the grid. more ›") |
chart footer: "The Moray East corridor is the operational lease area for its installed export cables, not the cable centreline." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The layer is sourced and labelled on the chart itself, but the page caption omits it and its source |
| S59 | Chart credits: coastline © OpenStreetMap contributors; "Chart drawn for this site, 4 October 2026" (:168) |
PRIMARY (metadata) | chart footer IMG/chart-shetland2-corridor.png (file dated 4 Oct 2026 23:09) |
"Coastline © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), osmdata.openstreetmap.de"; "EMODnet WFS fetched: 2026-10-04" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S60 | "A survey corridor is the area being surveyed, not the route of a laid cable." (:168) |
Explanation | notice 5686 KF/notice5686.html:24 |
"a marine cable route survey is planned for the proposed Shetland HVDC Link 2 cable" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent |
| S61 | DESNZ guidance: buried cable out of scope; in-scope HVDC is "applicable only for overhead HVDC transmission" (:175) |
PRIMARY | DESNZ, Community Funds for Transmission Infrastructure: Guidance sources/commfunds.txt:181-182, :199-201 |
"High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines; applicable only for overhead HVDC transmission"; footnote 3: "Distribution lines, sealing end compounds, headhouses and underground cables are not within scope of the community funds for electricity transmission infrastructure guidance" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S62 | "On the published rules, this coast's community fund entitlement for the buried cable is £0." (:175) |
COMPUTED / Characterisation | as S61 sources/commfunds.txt:199-201, :323-329 |
rate table: overhead line £200,000/km; no underground-cable rate | Verified VERIFIED as inference from S61. Note: the guidance sets expectations, not entitlements, so "entitlement" is loose. The hub converter station (inland, not on this coast) does attract the £530,000 rate |
| S63 | Electricity Act 1989 s.38A(3) requires qualifying works to be "wholly or partly above the ground" (:176) |
PRIMARY | legislation.gov.uk, Electricity Act 1989 s.38A (version from 18/12/2025) EA89/section/38A:88 |
"(3) Qualifying works must involve the construction, erection, expansion or improvement of electrical plant or an electric line that (in either case)— (a) is wholly or partly above the ground, and (b) forms or is intended to form part of a transmission system." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S64 | "No bill discount applies." (:176) |
Characterisation | s.38A; Autumn booklet EA89/section/38A:88 (s.38A(4)(a)); AUT:291-296, :640-645 |
s.38A(4)(a): the regulations may "make further provision determining … whether premises or works are qualifying"; booklet: "Once the shoreline is reinstated … there will be a permanent cabinet (called a link pillar), contained within a fenced area." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Buried cable alone cannot qualify. But the project includes above-ground plant: a permanent fenced link pillar at the landfall and a converter station at the hub. Which works qualify is left to regulations. A flat "No bill discount applies" goes beyond the statute. FS 24 (Shetland 2 absent from DESNZ's expected-eligible list) is the better support, but the page does not use it |
| S65 | Ofgem: TOs including SSEN may recover 100% of eligible community fund costs, so that they are "not financially disadvantaged" (:177) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem Pass-Through Guidance, 01 Apr 2026, §2.3 sources/passthrough.txt:176-180 |
"TOs may recover 100% of eligible Community Fund Costs … The Mechanism is designed to ensure that TOs are not financially disadvantaged by delivering Community Funds" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S66 | EGL2 Peterhead Local Fund £2,159,444, "in the same council area, for one converter station site" (:178) |
PRIMARY | SSEN EGL2 Peterhead Local Fund page; SSEN EGL2 project page FUNDS/eastern-green-link-2-peterhead-local-fund/index.html:441, :485; sources/crawl/www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-map/eastern-green-link-2/index.txt:186-187 |
"Value: £2,159,444"; "Funding is available between 2025 and 2029."; "We are constructing a new High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) converter station near Boddam in Peterhead" | Verified VERIFIED. The fund page itself gives no breakdown of what infrastructure the value is built on. The EGL2 Scottish works are one converter station plus a landfall and underground cable to it ( index.txt:187) |
| S67 | "4.07 times the £530,000 guidance rate for a converter station" (:178) |
COMPUTED | S66 ÷ DESNZ rate sources/commfunds.txt:326-329 |
"Converter station Per converter station £530,000"; 2,159,444 ÷ 530,000 = 4.0744 → 4.07 | Verified VERIFIED |
| S68 | "The guidance's £5,000/MWUnits of electrical power (MW) and energy (MWh, GWh): power is a rate, energy is power delivered over time. more › figure is a generation-only rate and does not apply to this comparison." (:178) |
— | (Scottish Government Good Practice Principles, as implied) searched: sources/commfunds.txt; sources/crawl/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692826dace50d215cae960f2/community-funds-for-transmission-infrastructure-2025.txt; sources/crawl/www.gov.scot/publications/refreshing-good-practice-principles-community-benefits-onshore-renewable-energy-working-paper/index.html |
0 hits for "5,000", "5000" or "per MW" in all three | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. The £5,000/MW rate is not in the DESNZ guidance that "the guidance" refers to in this sentence. It is the Scottish Government's onshore-renewables benchmark (HANDOVER §5 corr. 11), and no local copy states it. See Problem 7 |
| S69 | North Aberdeenshire Local Fund £8,845,000, built from other transmission projects; no community council covering Banff, Whitehills or Boyndie on its list; Shetland HVDC Link 2 contributes nothing (:179) |
PRIMARY | SSEN North Aberdeenshire Local Fund page FUNDS/north-aberdeenshire-local-fund/index.html:441, :493-502, :506-512 |
"The current total lifetime value of this local fund is expected to be £8,845,000 subject to planning consents."; listed community councils: Fyvie, Rothienorman, Monquhitter; Longside and District; Deer; Boddam; Peterhead; Strathbogie; Auchterless, Inverkeithny and Fisherford; Turriff and District; projects: Beauly to Peterhead (N. Aberdeenshire section), Greens (New Deer 2), Netherton Hub, Peterhead SGT Replacement | Verified VERIFIED (all three limbs). Not on the page, but worth noting: "Strathbogie" community council, where the hub would sit, is on the list |
| S70 | Seven Shetland HVDC Link 2 booklets searched for "joint bayAn underground chamber where lengths of cable are jointed together; its size and number are not published for this project. more ›", "trench width", "working widthThe width of land needed during construction for the cable trench, access and storage; not published for this project. more ›", "easementA right to use a strip of someone else's land for the cable, without owning it outright. more ›", "corridor width", "HGV", "burial depth": zero hits for every term (:185) |
PRIMARY (absence) | the seven booklets B7/*.txt (7 files) |
grep -li per term across the 7 files: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 | Verified VERIFIED (re-run; the file count is 7) |
| S71 | Absent: any capital cost, the subsea cable length, the cable count, any contract value (:186) |
PRIMARY (absence) | booklets; FS 51 (dossier) B7/*.txt (grep for "km": only onshore and local distances, e.g. AUT:628); AUT:133, :904; SHETLAND-HVDC-LINK-2-DOSSIER.md:1095-1137 |
— | Verified VERIFIED as a negative finding for the booklets (no subsea length; the only "£" figures are programme-wide). Cable count and contract value rest on the dossier search |
| S72 | Absent: "grid references, hectares, building heights and distance to nearest homes for the Cruchie and Rivestone hub sites" (:186) |
PRIMARY (absence) | Autumn booklet p.22–23; May booklet AUT:650-711; MAY (grep for hectare/ha/NJ grid ref/"nearest": no site-level hits) |
"INTERNAL CLEAR DIMENSIONS Reactor Hall - 60m x 30m x 14.3m … Transformer Hall - 60m x 25m x 14.3m … AC Hall - 80m x 60m x 10m" (indicative conceptual design, "Do not scale from this drawing") | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. No site-specific grid references, areas or distances are published. But the Autumn booklet does publish building dimensions, including heights up to 14.3m internal clear, for the indicative 2GW converter design. "Building heights … absent" needs the qualifier "site-specific" |
| S73 | Absent: "any community benefit figure for Aberdeenshire" (:186) |
PRIMARY (absence) | Autumn booklet AUT:133, :904, :873-881, :1003 (FS 33) |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. As worded, this conflicts with the page's own :178-179, which give two Aberdeenshire community benefit figures (EGL2 £2,159,444; North Aberdeenshire £8,845,000). It is true only as "no community benefit figure for Shetland HVDC Link 2 in Aberdeenshire" |
| S74 | Absent: "the determining authority and statute, which the booklet never names" (:186) |
PRIMARY | SSEN Strathbogie Hub booklet, May 2026 MAY:511-512, :792-793; AUT (no authority or statute named) |
"Strathbogie Hub will require an application for planning permission to be submitted to the relevant Local Planning Authority (Aberdeenshire Council) under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997."; "ahead of submitting a planning application to Aberdeenshire Council" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: The sentence opens "Also absent from every source held for this page", and the May 2026 booklet is such a source (listed in the page's Sources). It names both the authority and the statute for the hub. Only the Autumn booklet is silent, and neither booklet names the consenting route for the onshore cable or the landfall. See Problem 2 |
| S75 | Absent: "whether any overhead line is needed at the hub" (:186) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet; May booklet AUT:643-645; MAY:780-781, :791-792 |
"terminal tower platforms"; "Site 10 - this site is a significant distance from the connecting overhead line infrastructure"; "Site 11 … resulting in complex overhead line routeing challenges" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. No booklet states in terms that a new overhead line is needed. But the hub's listed elements include "terminal tower platforms", and the May booklet scored hub sites on distance to "the connecting overhead line infrastructure" and on "overhead line routeing challenges". That is evidence the question is at least partly answered |
| S76 | Absent: "whether any above-ground structure sits at the landfall" (:186) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.10 AUT:291-296 |
"Is there any above ground infrastructure? Once the shoreline is reinstated, after the cable is laid, there will be a permanent cabinet (called a link pillar), contained within a fenced area." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: SSEN's own booklet answers this: a permanent link-pillar cabinet inside a fenced area. Its size and position are not published. See Problem 3 |
| S77 | Walker Court, Aberchirder commercial lease (Banff and Buchan Area Committee, 16 June 2026): report, site plan and impact assessment flagged restricted; only the minute is published (:187) |
PRIMARY | Aberdeenshire Council ModernGov meeting XML sources/crawl/aberdeenshire.moderngov.co.uk/meeting_BanffBuchan_2026-06-16.xml:2918, :2938-2940, :2956, :2973, :2990 |
"Proposal for Commercial Lease with SSEN Transmission/Tier 1 Contractor at Walker Court, Aberchirder"; "<isminutepublished>True"; "<isrestricted>True" (item and each of the three documents: report, "APPENDIX 1 - SITE PLAN", "APPENDIX 2 IIA") | Verified VERIFIED. Caveat: the record does not mention Shetland HVDC Link 2, so its inclusion on this page is the site author's inference |
| S78 | "6 Nov 2026 — SSEN's stated feedback window … closes. It is a developer consultationSSEN's feedback window is a developer consultation it runs itself, not a statutory objection period with a right of appeal. more ›, not a statutory objection period." (:193) |
PRIMARY / Characterisation | Autumn booklet AUT:31, :56-62, :947 |
"This is not the last opportunity for members of the public to comment on our proposals, and we expect that planning applications seeking the necessary consents will be submitted later next year." | Verified VERIFIED (date). The non-statutory characterisation is consistent: the booklet places planning applications later |
| S79 | "31 Dec 2027Ofgem's Price Control Deliverable date by which SSEN must submit all material planning consents for this project. more › — Ofgem's Price Control Deliverable date for submission of all material planning consents." (:194) |
PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision, table "Delivery track projects and PCDs" DEC:2669-2671, :2775-2779 |
"Delivery track projects and PCDs"; "Submission of all material planning consents | 31st December 2027" | Verified VERIFIED |
| S80 | "SSEN's own published timeline puts the planning application in 2027 and the marine licenceThe consent needed under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 for works affecting the sea bed or marine environment. more › submission in 2028." (:194) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet p.27 AUT:896-912 |
2027: "• Marine licence pre-application consultation … • Planning application submitted"; 2028: "• Marine Licence submission • Planning Application outcome" | Verified VERIFIED (column layout read against the page image order; consistent with "submitted later next year" at :60-62) |
| S81 | "Determining regime: Not stated in any source held for this page: SSEN's own booklets never name the determining authority or the statute under which the project will be consented." (:195) |
PRIMARY | as S74 MAY:511-512 |
as S74 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: unsupported, for the same reason as S74. The May 2026 booklet names Aberdeenshire Council and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for the Strathbogie Hub. See Problem 2 |
| S82 | "SSEN Transmission handles requests for environmental information under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. If its internal review does not settle a request, the appeal goes to the Scottish Information CommissionerThe regulators for information rights complaints: the UK Information Commissioner (ICO) for Ofgem and NESO; the Scottish Information Commissioner for SSEN Transmission, which handles requests under the Scottish regulations. more ›." (:196) |
PRIMARY (correspondence) | SSEN Transmission's own reply to an environmental information request, 14 Oct 2026 Correspondence held privately, not published |
The reply is headed with the Scottish regulations, treats the company as a Scottish public authority under reg 5(1), and names the Scottish Information Commissioner for appeals | Fixed FIXED on the page 14 Oct 2026. The page previously said the UK regulations applied, with complaints to the ICO; SSEN Transmission's own handling contradicts that. Which regime is right in law is not settled by any decision naming SSEN Transmission |
| S83 | "SSEN's own timeline says it will publish its preferred landfall, cable route and hub site 'within coming months'" (:198) |
PRIMARY | Autumn booklet AUT:61-65 (executive summary); :888-892 (timeline) |
"We hope to share a plan for a least constrained landfall, a proposed underground cable route, and a least constrained site for Strathbogie Hub, within the coming months."; timeline 2026: "Least constrained landfall and substation hub site selected followed by public consultation" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The quoted words come from the executive summary, not the timeline, and are not verbatim ("within the coming months"). SSEN says "least constrained", not "preferred", and "hope to share" |
| S84 | "Aberdeenshire's next Local Development PlanThe statutory land use plan a council updates periodically; an allocation in it can trigger statutory blight rights. more ›, due 2029" (:198) |
PRIMARY | Aberdeenshire Council, LDP 2029 page sources/crawl/www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/ldp-2028.html:204 |
"We have started work on the next Local Development Plan (LDP) which is expected to be published in early 2029 and cover the period between 2029 and 2039." | Verified VERIFIED |
| S85 | LDP "would switch on statutory blightThe statutory right for an owner whose land is blighted by a planned public project to require an early purchase. more › rights if it allocates a hub site" (:198) |
— | Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Part V and Sch 14 (as cited in the dossier) searched sources/crawl/legislation.gov.uk/, sources/crawl/www.legislation.gov.uk/ (no TCP(S)A 1997 copy); SHETLAND-HVDC-LINK-2-DOSSIER.md:464-473 |
dossier: "Sch 14 para 2 catches land 'allocated for the purposes …'" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. Rests on the site's own dossier and HANDOVER §3 only |
| S86 | "Compulsory acquisitionThe power to acquire land or rights over it without the owner's agreement, available under Schedule 3 to the Electricity Act 1989. more › powers, if ever used, sit under Electricity Act 1989 Schedule 3." (:198) |
PRIMARY | legislation.gov.uk, Electricity Act 1989 Sch 3 EA89/schedule/3:84 |
"Compulsory Acquisition of Land etc. by Licence Holders" | Verified VERIFIED (HANDOVER §5 corr. 7) |
| S87 | Sources paragraph (:203) |
PRIMARY / SECONDARY | as listed counter/shetland2.html:203 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-11.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Every listed document except SI 2004/3391 is held locally (booklets: AUT, MAY, B7/; Ofgem: OfgCons, DEC, sources/passthrough.txt, sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-02/Decision-on-RIIO-3-licence-modifications-reasons-and-effects.txt, FD-FA; DESNZ: sources/commfunds.txt; SEPA; EA89). The paragraph omits sources the page relies on: SSE plc Annual Reports 2023 and 2026 (S18, S19, S2), Kingfisher Bulletin notices 5686 and 4601 (credited only in the caption), SSEN fund and project pages (S13, S66, S69), Aberdeenshire Council ModernGov and LDP pages (S77, S84), and EMODnet/OSM (credited in the caption). The Summer 2026 booklet is titled in its own file "Shetland HVDC Link 2 Public Information Event Summer 2026" |
Every row from the register for counter/about.html. · 29 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Label "Moray Firth Energy · about" and H1 "About this site" | — | — counter/about.html:71-72 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim |
| A2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | — counter/about.html:73 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, the same callout as R1 (Table 5). The billpayer part is consistent with OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more ›: costs "can be recovered from energy consumers" ( OFG-TC:2219-2222). The taxpayer part rests on the National Wealth FundA UK government-owned investment body that can guarantee loans to infrastructure projects, backed by taxpayers. more › guarantee registered at R37 (Table 5) |
| A3 | Lead: the site "follows the money … through the public record", starting with the national bill and ending "on the Banffshire coast, where wind farm cables and a planned Shetland link come ashore" | Characterisation / PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › (landfalls) | SSEN Transmission, *Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 – Aberdeenshire coast* consultation booklet, Autumn 2026 counter/about.html:74; SSEN-BK:503-505, :376-379 |
"Offshore wind farm cables and a telecommunication cable make landfall in Boyndie Bay"; "Three sites were shortlisted and taken forward to stage 2 design, which were: Sandend, Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with source. Both landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › facts check out. "Banffshire" is the historic county name; the booklet says "Aberdeenshire coast" |
| A4 | "An offshore vessel fleet manager who lives on the Banffshire coast." | Characterisation | The site author's own description counter/about.html:79 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation: the site author's self-description, kept by the site author's decision. Registered, not queried |
| A5 | "The site has no political affiliation. It is not connected to any energy company, regulator or campaign group." | Characterisation | The site author's own declaration counter/about.html:79 |
— | Not found / open Self-declaration, confirmed by the site author on 11 Oct 2026; no document can verify it |
| A6 | Label definitions: official = government body, regulator or auditor; filed = company's own accounts; computed = this site's arithmetic, shown; estimate; press | Explanation | — counter/about.html:85 |
— | Not found / open Explanation of method. How far the labels are applied is tested at A7 |
| A7 | "Every figure carries a label." | Assertion about the site | Page sources in counter/; built copies in site/counter/shetland2.html (e.g. :103 "£1,465.0m", :178 "£2,159,444"); counter/who-pays.html (15 lines with £ figures, e.g. :96 "£2.7bn"); counter/index.html:90-92 ("£97bn", "£12.2bn", "£803bn"); same result in site/shetland2.html, site/who-pays.html, site/index.html |
grep for a tag whose whole text is official, filed, computed, estimate or press: shetland2 0, who-pays 0, index 0, moray-subsidy-meter 0, missing-figures 0. Pages that do use labels: the-bill (official 19, computed 8, press 3), nuclear, options, real-cost, risk, leaving-uk | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (main session; page wording changed to match the source). Finding was: Five pages carry £ figures with none of the five labels, including the home page and the Shetland link page. See Problem 1 |
| A8 | "Each page ends with its sources." | Assertion about the site | Page sources in counter/Last Sources line: shetland2 :202/205, risk :286/289, the-bill :262/268, who-pays :157/160, missing-figures :156/161, moray-subsidy-meter :152 (data script follows); counter/index.html none (0 hits for "source" in body text, figures at :90-92); site/index.html none |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-12.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The content pages end with a Sources section. The home page shows three headline figures and no sources. About, disclaimer and downloads have no figures and no sources section. See Problem 2 |
| A9 | "The evidence registerA table listing every figure used on these pages, with its source document, its class and whether it has been checked. more › lists the Moray Firth figures one by one, with the document and the place in it." | Assertion about the site | Evidence page counter/evidence.html:106, :128-129 |
"366 rows checked across 6 pages: counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html, counter/who-pays.html, counter/missing-figures.html, counter/leaving-uk.html, counter/risk.html, …"; "Table 1 — counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html … 55 rows" | Verified VERIFIED. Rows give file and line |
| A10 | "Where a figure could not be found, the site says so. The missing figures lists what the public pays for but cannot see." | Explanation | — counter/about.html:87; counter/missing-figures.html (exists, 161 lines) |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the site: the page exists. Its own figures are not re-registered here |
| A11 | "The site takes no position on climate science. It asks what was spent, what it bought, and who was paid." | Characterisation | — counter/about.html:88 |
— | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with the site's editorial rules |
| A12 | Corrections policy: "A correction backed by a document is made and dated on this page. A figure with no document stays a claim." | Characterisation (policy) | — counter/about.html:94 |
— | Not found / open Policy statement, no factual claim. Consistent with A20 ("None yet") |
| A13 | Contact address justsayinmin@proton.me |
— | Build setting counter/about.html:95; counter/build_site.py CONTACT |
— | Not found / open Set on 14 Oct 2026 to the site's own address; no claim |
| A14 | "Do not send personal details you would not want kept. Messages are read by the person who runs the site and are not published." | Characterisation (policy) | — counter/about.html:96 |
— | Not found / open Policy statement. Consistent with counter/ask.html:163 ("never with the sender's name") |
| A15 | "This site sets no cookies and runs no tracking or analytics." | Assertion about the site | Built public copy site/*.html |
grep for cookie, localStorage, sessionStorage, analytics, gtag, fetch(, XMLHttpRequest across all site/*.html: the only hit is this sentence (site/about.html:214) |
Verified VERIFIED for the built public copy |
| A16 | "Its typefaces are stored with the site, so your browser contacts no font service." | Assertion about the site | Built copies site/about.html (only <link rel="stylesheet" href="fonts/fonts.css">); counter/fonts/ (8 .woff2 files); site/artifacts/about.html:2-3; counter/about.html:2-3 |
No googleapis or gstatic reference in any site/*.html. But site/artifacts/about.html:2-3: <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Bricolage+Grotesque…">, and that copy carries the same sentence |
Fixed FIXED in the build 12 Oct 2026: counter/build_site.py drops the sentence from the private preview copy, which loads web fonts; the public copy keeps it. Finding was: PARTIAL. True for the public copy. The private preview copy prints the same sentence while loading Google Fonts. HANDOVER §C says the private preview copy uses Google Fonts by design. See Problem 3 |
| A17 | "The company that hosts the site records visits in its own server logs, as every web host does." | Characterisation | — counter/about.html:101 |
— | Not found / open General statement. No host is named and it cannot be checked against a document |
| A18 | "Five maps on the Shetland link page are reproduced from SSEN Transmission's published consultation booklets" | Assertion about the site | Shetland link page counter/shetland2.html:138, figures at :140-158 |
"The five maps below are reproduced from SSEN Transmission's published consultation booklets …"; five <figure> blocks (img/shetland2-01-…, -03-…, -05-…, -06-…, -09-…), each captioned with the booklet |
Verified VERIFIED |
| A19 | "… for criticism and review" (the legal basis for reproducing the maps) | PRIMARY (statute) | Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.30(1), legislation.gov.uk sources/crawl/legislation.gov.uk/ukpga_1988_48_section_30.txt:60-61 |
"Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work … does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement … and provided that the work has been made available to the public." | Verified VERIFIED that the exception exists as described. The acknowledgement it requires is given at counter/shetland2.html:138 and in each caption. Whether this use is fair dealing is a legal judgement and was not tested here |
| A20 | "They remain SSEN's copyright and will be removed if SSEN asks." | Characterisation | — counter/about.html:107; counter/shetland2.html:138 |
shetland2: "remain the copyright of Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission … SSEN may ask for any of them to be taken down and this site will comply." | Not found / open Characterisation, consistent with the Shetland page. The booklet's extracted text has no copyright line ( SSEN-BK, grep "©|copyright": 0 hits) |
| A21 | Charts drawn from "open data: Kingfisher BulletinA fisheries-liaison service that publishes notices warning fishing vessels about offshore works, including which vessels are involved. more › notices" | Data source / licence | Kingfisher Bulletin notices sources/crawl/kingfisherbulletin.org/notice*.html (notices held); captions e.g. counter/shetland2.html:168 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-12.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. The notices are held and cited, but no Kingfisher terms of use or licence is held, so "open data" is not established |
| A22 | "the Crown Estate Scotland offshore wind dataset (Open Government Licence)" | PRIMARY (dataset) / licence | Crown Estate Scotland, Offshore Wind feature service sources/crawl/services3.arcgis.com/offshorewind_layer0_meta.json |
"name": "Offshore Wind (Crown Estate Scotland)", "copyrightText": "" (empty), "description": "" (empty) | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-12.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. The dataset is held but its licence is not stated in the local copy. The only Crown Estate "Open Government Licence v3.0" line held is a map credit in its 2025 annual report (sources/crawl/www.crownestatescotland.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%20to%2031%20March%202025%20-%20Web.txt:440-442), not the dataset. Register row C53 also states "OGL v3.0" without a licence source |
| A23 | Charts drawn from open data: "EMODnet" | PRIMARY (service metadata) | EMODnet Human Activities WFS capabilities sources/crawl/ows.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/capabilities.xml:1 |
"<ows:Fees>NONE</ows:Fees><ows:AccessConstraints>NONE</ows:AccessConstraints>" | Verified VERIFIED as open access: no fees and no access constraints declared. The service metadata names no licence for the layers used |
| A24 | "coastline data © OpenStreetMap contributors" | PRIMARY | OpenStreetMap land polygons (osmdata.openstreetmap.de), README sources/crawl/osmdata.openstreetmap.de/land-polygons-split-4326/README.txt:32-33 |
"This data is Copyright 2026 OpenStreetMap contributors. It is available under the Open Database License (ODbL)." | Verified VERIFIED. The licence is ODbL, and the page's attribution matches the README |
| A25 | "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0." | PRIMARY (licence statements of sources used) | ICOThe regulators for information rights complaints: the UK Information Commissioner (ICO) for Ofgem and NESO; the Scottish Information Commissioner for SSEN Transmission, which handles requests under the Scottish regulations. more ›; OBR; legislation.gov.uk; Ofgem ICO-REQ:146; OBR-FRS:31-33; sources/crawl/legislation.gov.uk/ukpga_1988_48_section_30.txt:249; OFG-TC:20-25 |
ICO: "All text content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated."; OBR: "This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated."; Ofgem: "…under and in accordance with the terms of the Open Government Licence … must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the document title of this document must be specified in that acknowledgement." | Verified VERIFIED: the official sources used state OGL v3.0. The licence text (nationalarchives.gov.uk, linked from the page) is not held locally, so the page's wording could not be compared with the licence's own attribution wording. Ofgem's documents add a condition (Crown copyright and document title); the generic line does not meet it on its own, though the pages' source lists name the documents |
| A26 | "Its use here does not mean any public body endorses this site." | Characterisation (disclaimer) | OGL v3.0 non-endorsement condition not held |
— | Not found / open Disclaimer, no factual claim. The OGL condition it reflects is not held locally (see Fetch needed) |
| A27 | "Typefaces: Bricolage Grotesque and Atkinson Hyperlegible" | Assertion about the site | Built copy and font files counter/fonts/ (bricolage-grotesque-normal-latin.woff2, atkinson-hyperlegible-next-normal-latin.woff2 and 6 others); site/about.html:26-31 |
site/about.html:30 h1 font "Bricolage Grotesque"; :26 body font "Atkinson Hyperlegible Next" |
Verified VERIFIED for the built copy. The page source still declares Big Shoulders Display, Source Serif 4 and IBM Plex Mono ( counter/about.html:3, :22-27); apply_theme() in counter/build_site.py swaps them at build |
| A28 | "… under the SIL Open Font License" | Licence | Font licences counter/fonts/fonts.css:1 (the site's own comment) |
"Bricolage Grotesque and Atkinson Hyperlegible are under the SIL Open Font License." | Not found / open NOT FOUND — source not held locally. No OFL licence file or foundry page is held; the only local statement is the site's own CSS comment |
| A29 | "Corrections made: None yet. First published 14 October 2026." | — | Build setting counter/about.html:116; counter/build_site.py PUBLISHED |
— | Not found / open The date is filled in by the build on publication day; no correction recorded |
Every row from the register for counter/ask.html. · 55 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Label "Moray Firth Energy · ask for it yourself" and H1 "Ask for it yourself" | — | — counter/ask.html:78-79 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open Heading, no claim |
| Q2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | — counter/ask.html:80 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, the same callout as R1 (Table 5) and A2 (Table 12) |
| Q3 | "Many of the missing figures are held by the regulator, the system operatorThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more › and SSEN Transmission." | Characterisation | — counter/ask.html:81 |
— | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with counter/missing-figures.html. That page's own figures are not re-registered here |
| Q4 | "The law lets anyone ask for them, and they must answer or say why not." | Characterisation / PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › (ICOThe regulators for information rights complaints: the UK Information Commissioner (ICO) for Ofgem and NESO; the Scottish Information Commissioner for SSEN Transmission, which handles requests under the Scottish regulations. more › guidance) | ICO guidance for the public counter/ask.html:81; ICO-EXP:33, :44, :52; ICO-REQ:36 |
"Usually they need to respond to your request within 20 working days."; "…the public authority just doesn't hold the information … it should explain that to you."; "…refuse or partially refuse … 'exemptions' under the FOIA and 'exceptions' under EIR."; "a request can also be made in the name of an organisation or by one person on behalf of another" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with ICO guidance. The statutes behind it (FOIA s.1, EIR reg 5) are not held locally |
| Q5 | OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more ›, the regulator: request address information.rights@ofgem.gov.uk | PRIMARY | Ofgem statutory consultation on eight SHET Early Construction Funding applications, 5 Mar 2026 sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-03/Eight-SHET-projects-ECF-and-proposed-license-modification.txt:1547-1548 |
"…they are available from information.rights@ofgem.gov.uk" | Verified VERIFIED. The crawled Ofgem document gives it as the address for obtaining documents |
| Q6 | Ofgem: Freedom of Information Act 2000Legal rights to request information from public bodies (FOI) or environmental information from a wider range of bodies (EIR). more › | PRIMARY (statute not held) | FOIA 2000 Schedule 1The list in the Freedom of Information Act that defines which bodies the public can make FOI requests to. more › — |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in a local copy: the FOIA text is not held. Ofgem is a government department (the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority); the Schedule 1 citation is still needed |
| Q7 | NESO, the system operator: request address InformationRights@neso.energy | PRIMARY | — grep of sources/crawl/: 0 hits |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in a published source held locally. The page tells readers to check each body's website for its current information-requests address before sending ( counter/ask.html:91) |
| Q8 | NESO: Freedom of Information Act 2000 | PRIMARY (statute not held) | FOIA 2000 — |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in a local copy: the FOIA text, and any designation covering NESO, are not held |
| Q9 | SSEN Transmission: request address TransmissionDataProtection@sse.com | PRIMARY | — grep of sources/crawl/: 0 hits; FACT-SHEET.md fact 55 records no information-rights contact on ssen-transmission.co.uk |
— | Not found / open NOT FOUND in a published source held locally. The page tells readers to check each body's website for its current information-requests address before sending ( counter/ask.html:91). It is a data-protection mailbox |
| Q10 | SSEN Transmission: Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 | PRIMARY (correspondence) | SSEN Transmission's own reply to an environmental information request, 14 Oct 2026 Correspondence held privately, not published |
Reply headed "Request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004" | Fixed FIXED on the page 14 Oct 2026 (was the UK regulations). The page states SSEN Transmission's practice, not a ruling on the law |
| Q11 | "SSEN Transmission is a private company" | PRIMARY | Companies HouseThe UK government registry where companies file their accounts and ownership details, most of which the public can read for free. more ›, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc (SC213461) CH/SC213461/index.html:391-394; CH/SC213461/SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:119 |
"Company type … Public limited Company"; "The Company is owned 75% by SSE pic [OCR for plc] and 25% by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP)." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. It is privately owned, but in company law it is a public limited company, not a "private company". What the sentence needs to say is that it is not a public authority. See Problem 1 |
| Q12 | "… so the Freedom of Information Act does not cover it" | PRIMARY (statute) | FOIA 2000 s.3 and Schedule 1 not held locally |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. No FOIA text is held. HANDOVER correction 35 says the claim needs the Schedule 1 citation. The ICO pages speak only of "public authorities" (ICO-REQ:47, ICO-EXP:33), which fits the claim without proving it |
| Q13 | "Check each body's website for its current information-requests address before you send." / for SSEN, ask under the EIR and, if it says they do not apply, ask why | Characterisation (advice) | ICO guidance counter/ask.html:91; ICO-REQ:47 |
"…where possible, send your request directly to the team who deal with information requests. It should be straightforward to find their details on the organisation's website…" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with source |
| Q14 | ICO says a request should have "a subject line that says it is an information request, such as 'Freedom of Information request' or 'Environmental Information request'" | PRIMARY | ICO, How to write an effective request for information counter/ask.html:96-98; ICO-REQ:34 |
"an email subject line or heading for your letter which makes it clear that you are making an information request. For example, you could use 'request for information,' 'freedom of information request' or 'Environmental Information request';" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q15 | "your name, and contact details the body can use to reply in writing" | PRIMARY | as Q14 counter/ask.html:99; ICO-REQ:36-37 |
"your name – a request can also be made in the name of an organisation …"; "contact details the public authority can use to respond to you in writing;" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q16 | "a clear description of the information you want" | PRIMARY | as Q14 counter/ask.html:100; ICO-REQ:39 |
"a clear description of the information you want; and" | Verified VERIFIED. Scope note: the ICO's "Do include" list has seven items ( :34-40) and the page gives three. Format is covered at :102. The date of the request (:35) and search details such as dates (:40) are left out. This is a selection; nothing in it is wrong |
| Q17 | "It also helps to number each item, to ask for copies by email in the form the body holds them, and to ask for a list of anything withheld and the reason for each." | Characterisation (advice) | ICO guidance counter/ask.html:102; ICO-REQ:38 |
"how you would like to receive the information (for example by email or printed out and posted to you);" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with source on format. Numbering items and asking for a withheld list are the site's own advice |
| Q18 | "If the body has already published an answer, it may point you to it. That counts as an answer." | PRIMARY (law) | ICO guidance; FOIA s.21 / EIR reg 6(1)(b) (not held) counter/ask.html:102; ICO-REQ:64 |
"An informal discussion with the organisation before you make an information request gives them the opportunity to … direct you to any relevant information which is already publicly available" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The ICO text is about informal advice *before* a request. The rule that pointing to published information is a lawful response is not in any ICO page or statute held locally. See Problem 2 |
| Q19 | Letter: the project "SSEN Transmission calls Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2, which Ofgem calls Shetland to Coachford (SHL256Ofgem's project code for this link: 'New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland - Coachford'. more ›)" | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more › consultation, 1 Aug 2024; Ofgem tCSNP2 decision, 11 Dec 2024 counter/ask.html:107; OFG-CONS:2384; OFG-TC:2775-2779, :1629 |
"SHL256 New 1.8GW HVDC link Shetland - Coachford … SHET"; decision table row "Shetland to Coachford | HNDFUE AC project: Shetland to Blackhillock | SHET"; §3.95 "For the Shetland to Coachford project…" | Verified VERIFIED. The code SHL256 appears in the August 2024 consultation. The decision uses the name without the code |
| Q20 | Letter: "… and NESO calls Shetland to Blackhillock" | PRIMARY | NESO, Beyond 2030 ET Update data workbook, 30 Jun 2026 NESO-B30U, sheet "Baseline - Onshore", row 89 (header row 6) |
"SHETLAND | HNDFUE AC project: Shetland to Blackhillok | SHET | Wider work | New offshore circuit | 2035 | 3 - Design/development and consenting" | Verified VERIFIED. NESO spells it "Blackhillok". Ofgem's decision uses the same description ( OFG-TC:2775-2779). NESO's March 2024 workbook described the project as "Offshore network cable connecting wind farms in Shetland to the Scottish mainland" (NESO-B30, "System-Wide View", row 35) |
| Q21 | Letter: treat as EIR where environmental; list what is withheld; "If any item would exceed the cost limit, please tell me before refusing…" | Characterisation (letter text) | ICO guidance counter/ask.html:109; ICO-EXP:46-47 |
"If a public authority estimates that complying with a FOI request would cost more than £600 (for central government, Parliament and the armed forces) or £450 (for other public authorities), then it can refuse your request."; "Under EIR, there isn't a set cost limit…" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with source: FOI has a cost limit and the EIR have no fixed one |
| Q22 | Letter: "The cost of this project is recovered from electricity billpayers." | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision §6.10 counter/ask.html:110; OFG-TC:2219-2222 |
"…in accordance with the RIIO price control regulatory framework to ensure that only the efficient costs for the delivery of these projects can be recovered from energy consumers." | Verified VERIFIED. Ofgem says "energy consumers". This is consistent with correction 27 (billpayers, not taxpayers) |
| Q23 | Letter: "There is a strong public interest in seeing the costs and the reasons for the decisions." | Characterisation | — counter/ask.html:110 |
— | Not found / open The requester's argument, no factual claim |
| Q24 | Ofgem Q1: SSEN's submissions for SHL256 "in the second Centralised Strategic Network Plan (tCSNP2)" | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision, title; NESO Beyond 2030 ET Update, June 2026 counter/ask.html:119; OFG-TC:3-5; sources/crawl/www.neso.energy/document/383376/download/index.txt:101 |
"Decision on the regulatory funding and approval framework for onshore transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 projects"; NESO: "…Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP) 2028" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The "t" stands for "transitional". The full CSNP is due in 2028, so "the second Centralised Strategic Network Plan" misnames it. See Problem 3 |
| Q25 | Ofgem Q2: "tCSNP2 decision, OFG1164, 11 December 2024" | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision counter/ask.html:120; OFG-TC:6, :17 |
"Publication date: 11 December 2024"; "OFG1164" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q26 | Ofgem Q2: Ofgem put SHL256 in the delivery track, against "the system operator's advice that it stay in the development track" (paragraphs 3.89 to 3.95) | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision §§3.87-3.95 counter/ask.html:120; OFG-TC:1582-1583, :1540-1577 (§3.87-3.88 and Table 5), :1629-1634 |
§3.89 "The ESO considered that all four projects listed should be in the development track due to their immaturity."; Table 5 lists "Shetland to Coachford … SSE … Delivery" as the fourth project; §3.95 "…As such we have decided to allocate this project into the delivery track and award PCF as part of this decision document." | Verified VERIFIED. Note: the ESO's view is recorded in Ofgem's "Summary of consultation responses" ( :1581), so it was a consultation response rather than formal advice. Ofgem says "ESO" because NESO took over from 1 Oct 2024 (OFG-TC:447) |
| Q27 | Ofgem Q3: Pre-Construction Funding "£68.430 million reported for SSEN Transmission's four-project portfolio" | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision, PCF table and delivery-track table counter/ask.html:121; OFG-TC:2785-2798; SHET rows DSUP :2735, BKUP :2759, PKUP :2767, Shetland to Coachford :2775 |
"Provisional view of PCF to be awarded (£m 2018 prices) … SSENT 68.430"; " Figures do not include the three Asset Classification projects not included in the delivery track at the outset." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figure and the four-project scope are right. The page leaves out that it is a *provisional* figure and is in *2018 prices*. See Problem 4 |
| Q28 | Ofgem Q4: "the 31 December 2027 deadline to submit all material planning consents" | PRIMARY | Ofgem tCSNP2 decision, delivery-track PCD table counter/ask.html:122; OFG-TC:2775-2779 |
"Shetland to Coachford … Submission of all material planning consents … 31st December 2027" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q29 | Ofgem Q5: "the 600MW capacity test in Ofgem's 30 November 2021 decision (paragraph 3.41)" for the existing Shetland link | PRIMARY | Ofgem, Shetland HVDC Link – Project Assessment Decision, 30 Nov 2021 counter/ask.html:123; OFG-L1:5-6, :1264-1271 |
"3.41. SSEN Transmission advised us that it would not be able to demonstrate the full 600MW capacity of the HVDC cable at project completion … subsequent tests at incremental capacity levels, eventually up to 600MW, would be undertaken as more generation is installed." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q30 | Ofgem Q6-Q7: correspondence on community benefitMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › funding since 1 January 2024; any cost-benefit or bill-impact assessment | — | — counter/ask.html:124-125 |
— | Not found / open Request, no factual claim |
| Q31 | NESO Q1: cost-benefit inputs "in the Beyond 2030 workbook and tCSNP2, including the generation capacity assumed and the capital cost assumption" | PRIMARY (named document) | NESO, Beyond 2030 project workbook, 19 Mar 2024 counter/ask.html:129; NESO-B30, sheet "System-Wide View", row 35 (header row 4) |
"Offshore network cable connecting wind farms in Shetland to the Scottish mainland | Interface Point | New offshore circuit | Shetland Hub | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 - Strategic Optioneering | 1800 MW: DC 525 kV Bipole (2 Cables)" | Verified VERIFIED: the workbook exists and lists the project. The row carries no capital cost, which is what the request asks for |
| Q32 | NESO Q2: "The maturity assessment that placed the project at level 2, 'Strategic Optioneering'" | PRIMARY | NESO Beyond 2030 workbook (Mar 2024); NESO Beyond 2030 ET Update data workbook (Jun 2026) counter/ask.html:130; NESO-B30 "System-Wide View" row 35; NESO-B30U "Baseline - Onshore" row 89; OFG-TC:688-690 |
Mar 2024: "2 - Strategic Optioneering"; Jun 2026: "3 - Design/development and consenting | 2026-06-01 00:00:00 | Delivery track status"; Ofgem: "Delivery track (large projects): For large projects currently at NESO maturity level 3 or above." | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Level 2 is correct for the March 2024 workbook. NESO's June 2026 update records level 3, last updated 1 June 2026. The page gives no date, so the request reads as if level 2 were current. See Problem 5 |
| Q33 | NESO Q3: boundary flow and constraint data for the existing Shetland link; constraint paymentsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › to Shetland generators | — | — counter/ask.html:131 |
— | Not found / open Request, no factual claim |
| Q34 | NESO Q4: "NESO's advice to Ofgem on putting the project in the delivery track (tCSNP2 decision, paragraphs 3.89 to 3.95)" | PRIMARY | as Q26 counter/ask.html:132; OFG-TC:1582-1583, :1629-1634 |
as Q26 | Verified VERIFIED, with the same note as Q26 |
| Q35 | SSEN Q1: "The site scoring and weighting used to drop Sandend and keep Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay as landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › options" | PRIMARY | SSEN Transmission, Aberdeenshire coast consultation booklet, Autumn 2026 counter/ask.html:136; SSEN-BK:378-384, :441-453 |
"Three sites were shortlisted and taken forward to stage 2 design, which were: Sandend, Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay … Following this event, the Sandend landfall was discounted on the basis that it interacted with more Marine Protected Areas as opposed to Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay, and resulted in a longer, more technically complex onshore route." | Verified VERIFIED. The booklet gives reasons in a site table ( :441-453). It does not say whether a numerical scoring or weighting exists; the request assumes one |
| Q36 | SSEN Q2: "the Cruchie and RivestoneThe two sites shortlisted for the Strathbogie Hub, north-east of Huntly. more › hub sites" | PRIMARY | as Q35 counter/ask.html:137; SSEN-BK:647 |
"The project team have selected two sites, at Cruchie and Rivestone, for detailed assessment" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q37 | SSEN Q3: "the 30km onshore cable" | PRIMARY | as Q35 counter/ask.html:138; SSEN-BK:628 |
"The onshore cable will run for approximately 30km from the landfall to the substation site." | Verified VERIFIED (SSEN says "approximately") |
| Q38 | SSEN Q4: environmental survey and scoping reports for the Aberdeenshire landfall and onshore route | — | — counter/ask.html:139 |
— | Not found / open Request, no factual claim |
| Q39 | SSEN Q5: "Marine survey reports under marine licences EPS-00011333 and BS-00011332" | PRIMARY | Marine Directorate licensing register, marine.gov.scot counter/ask.html:140; sources/crawl/marine.gov.scot/node27638_EPS-00011333.html:14, :84-91; sources/crawl/marine.gov.scot/node27635_BS-00011332.html:14, :84-91 |
"European Protected Species Licence- Geotechnical, Geophysical and Benthic Surveys - Shetland HVDC Link 2 project- EPS-00011333"; "Basking Shark Licence- Geotechnical, Geophysical and Benthic Surveys - Shetland HVDC Link 2 project- BS-00011332"; "Licence holder: Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc"; "Licence expiry date (as granted): 2026-12-31" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. Both licences exist, are held by SSEN Transmission and cover Shetland HVDC Link 2 surveys. But they are wildlife licences (European protected species and basking shark), not marine licences. See Problem 6 |
| Q40 | SSEN Q6: "the proposed Strathbogie HubThe proposed converter and substation site north-east of Huntly where the onshore cable from the landfall would terminate. more › converter stationA large facility that converts electricity between the direct current used by a subsea cable and the alternating current used by the onshore grid. more ›" | PRIMARY | as Q35 counter/ask.html:141; SSEN-BK:638-644 |
"Strathbogie Hub … We are proposing a new converter station and substation hub to the north-east of Huntly … including an HVDC converter station, AC substation…" | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q41 | SSEN Q7: the calculation behind any community benefit figure for the Aberdeenshire part | — | — counter/ask.html:142 |
— | Not found / open Request, no factual claim (FACT-SHEET.md fact 51 records that no such figure has been published) |
| Q42 | "The body should usually answer within 20 working days." | PRIMARY | ICO, What to expect after making an information request counter/ask.html:149; ICO-EXP:33 |
"Usually they need to respond to your request within 20 working days." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q43 | "If it asks you to clarify, the clock starts again when you reply." | PRIMARY | as Q42 counter/ask.html:149; ICO-EXP:34 |
"If they ask you to clarify your request, the 20 working days don't start until you have provided clarification." | Verified VERIFIED. ICO's wording is "don't start until"; the effect is the same |
| Q44 | "For a Freedom of Information request it can take longer to weigh the public interest, but it must tell you." | PRIMARY | as Q42 counter/ask.html:149; ICO-EXP:35 |
"They might also need to extend the time … if they need to consider the balance of the public interest … If they're going to do this, they must write to let you know within the initial 20 working days." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q45 | "Under the Environmental Information Regulations it can take up to 40 working days if the request is complex." | PRIMARY | as Q42 counter/ask.html:149; ICO-EXP:35 |
"Under EIR, they can take up to 40 working days if the request is complex." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q46 | "If nothing arrives after 20 working days, write to check it was received." | PRIMARY | as Q42 counter/ask.html:149; ICO-EXP:36 |
"If you don't receive a response after 20 working days, follow up with the public authority to make sure they received the request." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q47 | Internal review: "write back and ask the body to review its decision. Say clearly why you disagree." | PRIMARY | ICO, What to do if you are dissatisfied with the response counter/ask.html:150; ICO-DIS:32-33 |
"Step 1: Ask the public authority to carry out an internal review … Politely explain why you disagree with the response, being as clear and specific as possible." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q48 | "A review should usually take another 20 working days." | PRIMARY | as Q47 counter/ask.html:150; ICO-DIS:34, :47 |
"Usually, a public authority should respond to your request for an internal review within another 20 working days."; "Under Environmental Information Regulations there is a legal requirement that internal reviews must be carried out as soon as possible and within 40 working days." | Verified VERIFIED. ICO adds that under the EIR the legal limit is 40 working days |
| Q49 | "Do not leave it long before asking." | PRIMARY | as Q47 counter/ask.html:150; ICO-DIS:34 |
"Don't wait too long to request the review – a public authority could refuse to deal with it if you wait longer than 40 working days." | Verified VERIFIED. The page leaves out the 40-working-day figure |
| Q50 | "If the review does not settle it, complain to the ICO within six weeks of the body's last response." | PRIMARY | as Q47 counter/ask.html:151; ICO-DIS:50-51, :56 |
"Step 2: Complain to the ICO … If you're unhappy with the outcome of their internal review, you can complain to the ICO"; "Please bring your complaint to us within six weeks of their response or your last substantive contact with them." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q51 | "Send copies of your request, the reply, your review request and the outcome." | PRIMARY | as Q47 counter/ask.html:151; ICO-DIS:55 |
"We will need to see copies of the most relevant parts of your correspondence with the organisation – your request, their response, your request for an internal review and the outcome of their review." | Verified VERIFIED |
| Q52 | "Each body's final reply should say which commissioner to complain to; use the one it names." | PRIMARY (law) | FOIA s.17(7); EIR reg 14(5) (not held) counter/ask.html:151 |
— | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-13.md). Finding was: NOT FOUND — source not held locally. Neither ICO page held says this, and the statutes are not held. For SSEN Transmission, research/EIR-applicability.md:35 (a lead) says complaints go to the ICO, not the Scottish Information Commissioner |
| Q53 | Source line: "ICO, guidance for the public on official information: preparing and submitting a request; what to expect; what to do if you are dissatisfied (read 7 October 2026)" | PRIMARY | ICO, three pages counter/ask.html:153; ICO-REQ, ICO-EXP, ICO-DIS (file dates 7 Oct 2026 11:20) |
ICO-REQ:24 and ICO-DIS:24: "Due to changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act, this guidance is under review and may be subject to change." |
Verified VERIFIED: three pages held, read on the date stated. The ICO banner saying the guidance is under review is not mentioned on the page; adding "(under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act)" would record it |
| Q54 | Keep a record: copy every email sent, save replies with the date in the file name, note each reference number and due date | Characterisation (advice) | ICO guidance counter/ask.html:159-161; ICO-REQ:102-107 |
"keep a copy of your correspondence; … This will provide helpful evidence if you need to follow up your request or complain…" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with source |
| Q55 | "Your request goes, in your name, only to the body you write to. Nothing reaches this site unless you send it. … Figures are published with the document they come from, never with the sender's name." | Characterisation (policy) | — counter/ask.html:163 |
— | Not found / open Policy statement, consistent with counter/about.html:96. (ICO-EXP:50 "Disclosure under FOI or EIR is disclosure to the general public" concerns the information released, not the request) |
Every row from the register for counter/index.html. · 27 rows
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | Quote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Site mark "Moray Firth Energy" and H1 "Who pays for the wind, the cables and the grid" | — | — counter/index.html:81-82 |
— | Not foundLabels on the evidence register showing whether a figure's source was checked and confirmed, corrected, missing, or wrong. more › / open heading, no claim |
| H2 | Callout "Paid for by the public: as electricity billpayersAnyone who pays an electricity bill. Most of the costs on this site are recovered this way, not from taxes. more ›, and as taxpayers standing behind the loans." | Characterisation | Billpayer side: H6–H9. Taxpayer side: SSE plc Annual Report 2026 counter/index.html:83; SSE-AR26:6529-6530, :16568-16571 |
"a £1.0bn committed 12-year bank facility with an £800m guarantee from the UK National Wealth Fund"; "Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc agreed £2.0bn of new ECA and National Wealth Fund guaranteed facilities. As at 31 March 2026 there were no drawings on … the new ECA and National Wealth Fund facilities" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with R1/R37 (same callout on risk.html). Caveat: the taxpayer support is contingentA risk that only turns into an actual cost if something specific happens, such as a loan guarantee only being called on if the borrower defaults. more ›. The guarantees were undrawn at 31 Mar 2026, and the other £1.0bn is backed by Swedish (EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more ›) and Italian (SACE) export credit agencies, not by the UK |
| H3 | Lead: "The cost of the UK's renewables and net zero programme, followed through the public record. It starts with the national bill…" | Characterisation | — counter/index.html:84 |
— | Not found / open Explanation of the site's scope, consistent with the page cards (H17–H27) |
| H4 | Lead: "…ends on one stretch of the Banffshire coast, where the cables come ashore" | Characterisation / PRIMARYLabels on the evidence register showing how strong a figure's source is: an official document, a press report, arithmetic, or an estimate. more › (landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more ›) | SSEN Transmission, Shetland HVDCHigh Voltage Direct Current: the technology used for long subsea electricity cables, including the Shetland link. more › Link 2 Aberdeenshire consultation booklet (autumn 2026); SSEN LT374 marine consultation booklet counter/index.html:84; SSEN-DOCS/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.txt:36-38, 379; SSEN-DOCS/ssen-lt374-shetland-2-marine-consultation-booklet.txt:903-904 |
"public feedback on two options at either Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay"; "Aberdeenshire coast as denoted by the red rectangle"; "Offshore wind farm cables and a telecommunication cable make landfall at Boyndie Bay" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with SSEN's documents. Existing offshore wind cables already land at Boyndie Bay, and Shetland 2 is proposed for Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay. SSEN calls it the "Aberdeenshire coast". "Banffshire" (the historic county) appears in no local source, but it describes the same coast |
| H5 | Panel label "Start here · the bill to the UK public" and heading "What it has cost so far, and what is still to come" | — | — counter/index.html:87-88 |
— | Not found / open heading, no claim. Scope note: of the three lines behind H6, only the RO covers the UK. CfDsA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more › and constraint costsMoney paid to a generator to switch off, or reduce output, because the grid cannot carry all the power it is producing. more › are Great Britain only (see H8, H9) |
| H6 | Tile "£97bn paid through electricity bills so far, at least" | COMPUTED | H7 + H8 + H9 counter/index.html:90 |
74,669,876,778.02 + 13,805,896,240.25 + 9,070,000,000 = 97,545,773,018 → £97.5bn; tile rounds down to £97bn | Verified VERIFIED. "At least" is supported: the total leaves out FiT, the Capacity Market and RO payments after Mar 2025 ( research/UK-BILL-TOTALS.md:21). Caveat: the three inputs are on mixed price bases (RO and CfD nominal; constraints in 2023-24/2024 prices), and the tile does not say so. The exclusions are far larger than this effect, so the "at least" wording holds |
| H7 | Input to H6 (not shown on this page): Renewables Obligation £74.67bn, SY1–SY23 (Apr 2002–Mar 2025) | PRIMARY (summed) | OfgemThe UK government regulator for gas and electricity, which sets how much network companies can charge billpayers. more ›, Renewables Obligation Annual Report Scheme Year 23, and dataset (Mar 2026) OFG-RO/Renewables_Obligation_Annual_Report_Scheme_Year_23_Dataset.xlsx, sheet "Figure 5.12", rows 35–57; OFG-RO/RO_24-25_SY23_Annual_Report.txt:3200-3203 |
23 values, first "SY1 (2002-03) 250439567.06", last "SY23 (2024-25) 7702867432.03"; sum = 74,669,876,778.02. Text: "The value of the scheme was £0.25 billion in SY1 … reaching £7.70 billion in SY23 (2024 to 2025)." | Verified VERIFIED. Nominal. Scope GB + Northern Ireland ( OFG-RO/RO_24-25_SY23_Annual_Report.txt:285-287). Ofgem's sheet labels SY2 and SY3 "SY8 (2003-04)" and "SY9 (2004-05)" (rows 36–37); the values are in sequence |
| H8 | Input to H6 (not shown on this page): CfD payments £13.81bn net, 30 Jun 2016–22 Sep 2026 | PRIMARY (summed) | Low Carbon Contracts CompanyThe government-owned company that manages and pays out Contracts for Difference, and publishes the daily figures. more ›, Actual CfD Generation and avoided GHG emissions LCCC/full_actual/page_*.json (60 files) |
117,196 unique records, field CFD_Payments_GBP, first Settlement_Date 2016-06-30, last 2026-09-22; sum = £13,805,896,240.25 | Verified VERIFIED. Net of farms' payments back. Nominal. Scope Great Britain ( AR8:103 "new low carbon electricity generating projects in Great Britain") |
| H9 | Input to H6 (not shown on this page): thermal constraint costs £9.07bn, 2018-19 to 2025-26 | PRIMARY (summed) | NAO HC 589, Figure 4 and para 8 NAO:996-998 (bar labels), :262-266, :1022-1024, :203 |
Bars 0.56 + 0.52 + 0.65 + 1.21 + 1.04 + 1.54 + 1.65 + 1.90 = 9.07; "thermal constraint costs have risen from £0.6 billion in 2018-19 to £1.9 billion in 2025-26 (in 2024 prices)"; note: "We have adjusted costs to 2023-24 prices" | Verified VERIFIED. Real terms, not nominal: the NAO's text says 2024 prices and its figure note says 2023-24 prices. Scope GB ( :203). Provenance caveat: the Figure 4 note attributes "Actual thermal constraint costs 2018–2026" to NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more ›'s June 2025 report (:1022-1023), which cannot contain 2025-26 outturn. The NAO's own text nonetheless presents £1.9bn for 2025-26 as historic |
| H10 | Tile "£12.2bn paid each year now" | COMPUTED | latest year of H7 + H8 + H9 counter/index.html:91 |
RO SY23 7,702,867,432.03 + CfD calendar 2025 2,640,168,618.27 (re-summed, LCCC/full_actual) + constraints 2025-26 1,900,000,000 (NAO:997) = 12,243,036,050 → £12.24bn |
Verified VERIFIED. The three "latest years" are different periods (Apr 2024–Mar 2025, Jan–Dec 2025, Apr 2025–Mar 2026), and the price bases are mixed as in H6 |
| H11 | Same tile: "about £420 a household" | COMPUTED | H10 ÷ H12 counter/index.html:91 |
12,243,036,050 / 29,003,000 = £422.13 → about £420 | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-14.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The arithmetic is right, but the tile reads as what a household pays. It is the national total divided by the number of households. the-bill.html says so: "Households pay part of this directly on their bills. Businesses pay the rest." (counter/the-bill.html:152). Also, the divisor is UK households, but two of the three lines are GB only (H8, H9). See Problem 1 |
| H12 | Input to H11 (not shown on this page): 29.0 million UK households, 2025 | PRIMARY | ONS, Families and households in the UK: 2025 (17 Apr 2026) ONS/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2025.txt:105; ONS/datasets/familiesandhouseholdsfamiliesandhouseholds/current/familiesandhouseholdsuk2025.xlsx, sheet 5, row 21 |
"In 2025, there were 29.0 million households in the UK"; sheet 5 "All households" 2025 Estimate = 29003 (thousands), CI ± 155 | Verified VERIFIED |
| H13 | Tile "£803bn cost to the public finances to 2050-51, per the OBR" | PRIMARY (official estimate) | OBR, Fiscal risks and sustainability, July 2025, paras 1.32, 4.31, 4.32 counter/index.html:92; OBR:932-935, :6469-6472, :6528-6530; price base :6446 |
"Our latest central estimate of the fiscal cost of climate change mitigation through to 2050-51 is £803 billion (21 per cent of GDP), or £30 billion a year on average, of which two-thirds can be attributed to lost receipts"; "an estimated £803 billion"; "The latest estimate (in real terms)"; "£ billion (2024-25 prices)" | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-14.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. The figure and the OBR attribution are right. But the OBR presents it as a "central estimate" (a projection) in 2024-25 prices, two-thirds of it lost receipts (mainly fuel duty, OBR:936). The tile states it as a cost without "estimated". It sits under the heading "what is still to come" (counter/index.html:88), which signals the future but not that this is an estimate. See Problem 2 |
| H14 | Tile "0.65% the UK's share of world emissions" | COMPUTED | DESNZThe UK government department responsible for energy policy, including subsidy auctions and community fund guidance. more › final UK GHG statistics 2024 (5 Feb 2026) ÷ UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 counter/index.html:93; DESNZ-GHG/6982294819d3abdb495f37ce/final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-tables-2024.xlsx, sheet 1.1 row 14; DESNZ-GHG/6982292019d3abdb495f37cd/2024-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics-statistical-release.txt:4-5; UNEP:1335, :1394 |
DESNZ "Total greenhouse gas emissions" 2024 = 373.4003 MtCO2e; UNEP "GHG … 57.7±5.5" GtCO2e (2024). 373.40 / 57,700 = 0.647% → 0.65%. Cross-check: EDGAR UK 380.02 / world 53,769.6 (sheet GHG_totals_by_country rows 71, 215) = 0.71%; DESNZ excl. LULUCF 373.12 / 53,769.6 = 0.69% | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-14.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. 0.65% is correct on the UNEP basis for 2024, but it is the low end of a 0.65–0.71% range across sources. The research file says "the share is therefore stated as a range, not a single number" (research/UK-SHARE-OF-EMISSIONS.md:77). The tile gives no year or basis. The site's own country table gives the UK 0.69% (EDGAR, 2025) (counter/real-cost.html:303). The global figure is read from a UN-hosted mirror, not UNEP's own site. See Problem 3 |
| H15 | Group labels "The national picture" and "The Moray Firth and the Banffshire coast" | — | — counter/index.html:99, 104 |
— | Not found / open heading, no claim |
| H16 | Card "The real cost": "Scotland's share, the 2010 rule that made it worse, the cost set against public services" | Characterisation | real-cost.html; NAO HC 589 para 8 counter/index.html:100; counter/real-cost.html:101,108,170,267; NAO:262-266 |
real-cost: "This page covers Scotland's renewables…"; "These are the words of the 2010 impact assessment, the forecast made at the time, and the outturn since"; "£30bn a year, set against public services". NAO: "Successive governments' 'connect and manage' approach has allowed new generation projects to connect before the network was ready. As a result, thermal constraint costs have risen" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with real-cost.html. "Made it worse" (the 2010 rule raised constraint costs) is supported by the NAO's finding |
| H17 | Same card: "17 countries compared" | Characterisation (count) | real-cost.html country table counter/real-cost.html:284-304 |
"The seventeen largest or most relevant emitters"; 17 table rows: China … EU-27 … Germany … France, United Kingdom, Norway | Fixed FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026 (wording changed to match the source; log research/register-tables/fixes-14.md). Finding was: PARTIAL. There are 17 rows, but one is the EU-27, a bloc that also contains two other rows (Germany, France). That is 16 countries plus the EU. The target page itself says "emitters", not countries. See Problem 4 |
| H18 | Card "Wind or nuclear": "every cost, including the ones the headline price leaves out, and a debt calculator you control" | Characterisation | nuclear.html counter/index.html:100; counter/nuclear.html:138, 249, 351 |
"2. Two ledgers"; "Costs the headline price leaves out"; "4. Calculator: how borrowed money grows" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with nuclear.html. "Every cost" is the site's framing and was not tested against a complete cost list |
| H19 | Card "The options": "Norway's model, the North Sea, carbon capture, shale, nuclear in series, and power prices for industry" | Characterisation | options.html counter/index.html:100; counter/options.html:76, 147, 248, 314, 351, 390 |
"1. Norway: the same size at its peak, a different policy"; "2. North Sea and the Atlantic frontier"; "3. Gas with carbon capture"; "4. Shale gas"; "5. Nuclear in series"; "6. Energy-intensive industry" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with options.html (six sections match the six topics) |
| H20 | Card "How the money works": "The five routes to the bill, the loan guarantees, who owns it, and why it is hard to see" | Characterisation (count) | who-pays.html counter/index.html:105; counter/who-pays.html:81, 85-105, 112, 123, 135 |
"Five ways it reaches your bill" (routes 1–5 at :85, :90, :95, :100, :105); "Where taxpayers come in"; "Who owns it, and where the profit goes"; "Why it is hard to see" | Verified VERIFIED (five routes counted). Content as Table 2 |
| H21 | Card "The running meter": "Subsidy paid by billpayers since 1 January, ticking live; dividendsA payment a company makes to its shareholders out of its profits. more › abroad; the vessel meter at an offshore vessel fleet manager's estimated day ratesThe charge for hiring a vessel, including its crew, for one day; rarely published for offshore wind contracts. more ›" | Characterisation / ESTIMATE (vessel rates, post-22 Sep meter) | moray-subsidy-meter.html counter/index.html:105; counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html:62, 69-77, 82, 107 |
"Paid by electricity billpayers to Moray Firth wind farms since 1 January 2026"; "Published actuals, 1 Jan – 22 Sep"; "Estimate since 22 Sep"; "Dividends paid to owners based outside the UK"; "Day rates are the best estimates available … They come from an offshore vessel fleet manager who runs this site" | Verified Explanation, consistent with the meter page. The vessel rates are labelled as estimates on the card ("estimated day rates"): VERIFIED as labelled estimate. "Ticking live" covers both published actuals to 22 Sep and an estimate after that. The meter page labels the split, the card does not |
| H22 | Card "The cable on this coast": "Shetland HVDC Link 2: what is proposed for Boyne Bay and Boyndie Bay, with the checked maps and charts" | PRIMARY (landfall options) | SSEN Aberdeenshire consultation booklet, autumn 2026 counter/index.html:105; SSEN-DOCS/shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet---autumn-2026.txt:36-38; counter/shetland2.html:100, 109 |
"public feedback on two options at either Boyne Bay or Boyndie Bay" | Verified VERIFIED. "Proposed" matches SSEN's consultation status, and no preference is stated (correction 38) |
| H23 | Card "Money leaving the UK": "Dividends, interest and fees paid or owed to owners and lenders outside the UK, from filed accounts" | Characterisation | leaving-uk.html counter/index.html:105; counter/leaving-uk.html:85, 93, 102-105 |
"Dividends, interest and fees that the Moray Firth wind farms and SSEN Transmission pay (or owe) to owners and lenders based outside the UK, drawn from each company's own Companies House…" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with leaving-uk.html (figures as Table 4). Note: the bank-interest panel is "interest charges recorded in the accounts, not cash paid" ( :105), which "paid or owed" covers |
| H24 | Card "Risk and return": "Who carries each risk, the returns achieved, and the revenue per unit each farm earns" | Characterisation | risk.html counter/index.html:105; counter/risk.html:95, 130, 188 |
"Revenue per unit delivered"; "Who carries which risk"; "Return achieved" | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with risk.html. Revenue per unit is computed for two of the four farms. Moray West is "Not computable" (R14), and Caledonia has no generation (R22) |
| H25 | Card "The missing figures": "Sixteen figures the public pays for but cannot see, each with a blank to fill" | Characterisation (count) | missing-figures.html counter/index.html:105; counter/missing-figures.html:85, 87, 126-142 |
H1 "Figures the public pays for but cannot see"; "Each has a blank beside it"; ITEMS array ids "1" to "16" | Verified VERIFIED (16 items counted) |
| H26 | Card "Evidence registerA table listing every figure used on these pages, with its source document, its class and whether it has been checked. more ›": "The figures on the Moray Firth pages, each with its source, class and verification status" | Characterisation | evidence.html counter/index.html:105; counter/evidence.html:128, 527, 835, 951, 1672, 2239 |
Tables 1–6: moray-subsidy-meter, who-pays, missing-figures, leaving-uk, risk, glossary.json | Not found / open Explanation, consistent with the register as currently built. Once Tables 7–14 (national pages and this page) are added, the card will understate the register's scope |
| H27 | Link text "Read the bill →" | — | — counter/index.html:95 |
— | Not found / open heading, no claim (navigation) |
SC213461-accounts-2026-03-31.txt:1074), and SHET paid no dividend that year. The page (as it now stands, who-pays.html:131) already discloses both the "share of profit, not cash" caveat and the coincidental equality. No further change needed; recorded here so the coincidence isn't mistaken for an error on a future edit.moray-subsidy-meter.html used "938MW" (sum of three CfDA government contract that tops up a wind farm's income when the market price is low, and claws money back when it is high. more ›-registered unit capacities) while FACT-SHEET.md separately cites "950MW" (Auction Outcomes nameplate capacityThe maximum power a wind farm is rated to generate, which is usually higher than the capacity actually covered by its subsidy contract. more ›) — two legitimate but different figures from the same evidence base, previously undisclosed. The page now shows "938MW under contractThe generating capacity actually covered by a subsidy contract, which can be a smaller number than a farm's full nameplate capacity. more › (950MW nameplate)," which is accurate and resolves the inconsistency.research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md.research/OWNERSHIP-CHAINS.md, labelled there as SECONDARY and never independently re-crawled). The current page text (moray-subsidy-meter.html:83) already discloses this ("...who stands behind two of them... is as reportedA number taken directly from a company's own accounts or a regulator's own published document, not calculated or estimated by this site. more › by the owners themselves"), which is the right level of caution — no further action needed, but worth a standing note that the identity (not the percentage) is press-sourced.sources/crawl/shipais.uk/*.json file. Their evidence rests on the site author's own MarineTraffic screenshots (per research/MORAY-FIRTH-SHIPPING-2026-10-02.md), not a locally quotable primary file. This is disclosed implicitly by the page's wording ("there is no public record of which vessels worked on which days before 2 October") but the register flags it as NOT FOUND against the specific instruction to check against shipais.uk — the underlying observation itself (screenshots, supplied by the site author) is not independently re-verifiable from local files and should be treated as the weakest evidence tier on the page.ssen-lt374-shetland-2-marine-consultation-booklet, shetland-hvdc-link-2-aberdeenshire-consultation-booklet, marine-consultation-booklet, northern-substation-hub-consultation-booklet). The claimed count of "seven" was not reconciled against a confirmed list; the underlying absence-of-detail finding was not re-verified line by line. Recommend a recount before next publication, though nothing found contradicts the claim.BEA:690-692), so the gross cash paid to lenders was about £100.9m, partly offset by swap receipts. Moray East's cash-flow figure for interest paid cannot be recovered from the OCR. Recommend relabelling the headline "Bank interest expense".BEA:1597). Moray East pays Moray East Holdings Ltd (MEA:2601), and only the narrative for the post-year-end and 2024 dividends adds "followed by MEHL issuing dividends to its shareholders" (MEA:185, :2004-2005). Splitting by stake and calling it "cash out the door" to foreign owners is [INFERENCE], which research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:20-25 itself labels as such. The page's "computed" tags partly disclose this.research/BENEFICIAL-OWNERSHIP.md:45); the local TRIG site pages do not state it. This is consistent with correction 22. The "How this is worked out" text is internally consistent: TRIG is included and only the Beatrice Equitix share is excluded. Its wording ("Beatrice's TRIG share, £14.7175m, is registered in Guernsey") is awkward and sits after the Moray East sentence. Suggested wording: "TRIG, which receives Beatrice's £14.7175m, is incorporated in Guernsey." Correction 22's phrase "the Equitix vehicle" is ambiguous, but FACT-SHEET.md 14H ties it to Moray East's 26.6% holder, so excluding the Beatrice Equitix share is correct.CH/15065285/persons-with-significant-control.html). Treating all £27.717m as leaving the UK needs a caveat. Register row C27 did not record this.AR26:6529-6530). Only £1.0bn (EKNA foreign government body that guarantees loans to help its own country's exporters win contracts abroad. more ›, SACE) is foreign-guaranteed. The page's own next sentence lists the NWF facility, so it contradicts itself.AR26:12839, :12865), and that NCI figure is Group-wide. "SSE plc's accounts attribute £188.3m" should say "adjusted". "Unrealised" is the wrong word for this profit; "retained" or "undistributed" is accurate.:875) also records a £70m lender ticket from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, which the "13 + EIBThe European Investment Bank, a lender to some of the Moray Firth wind farm financing syndicates. more ›" count omits.research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:23 was never crawled.MWE:1881-1885), so it may ultimately be bank equity-bridge interest. Only the £31.831m guarantee feeA charge paid for a third party's promise to cover a loan if the borrower cannot repay it. more › is stated as charged by OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables (MWE:1887). "Lithuania" and "state-controlled" appear nowhere in the filing.MEA:1837-1842).research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:28 cites SHET:189 for the nil-dividend quote; the quote is at :1074-1075 and :871. :15 says Beatrice had "12 banks + EIB"; it should be 13. §5.5 (:112) calls TRIG "a UK-listed fund" without its Guernsey incorporation, which sits awkwardly with :21. §4 (:83-102) says no vessel operators were confirmed and no supply contracts were found. research/VESSELS-AND-SUPPLIERS.md has superseded it, yet the page's Sources paragraph still sends readers to both files.:224 and :239).research/MORAY-FARMS-SUBSIDY.md:190); the page turned that into a 2025 average. The year's net was −£941,106 against roughly ±£15m gross flows each way. That is near break-even, not a market running at 2.4× strike. Suggested wording: "In 2025 the market reference price averaged about £81/MWh, slightly above the £79.95 strike for most of the year, so the net CfD payment was slightly negative (−£0.94m)."07101438...txt:1778), which is 27% of revenue and not explained in the research. Sale of electricity alone gives £142.66/MWh. It is hard to reconcile £187.07/MWh with a roughly £80 strike and a roughly £81 average market price. The "Others" line and PPA pass-throughA cost Ofgem lets a network company recover in full from billpayers, rather than paying for out of its own profit. more › costs (:89-90) need explaining before the tile can stand as "what the public pays". For Beatrice, the levyA charge added to suppliers' costs, which they pass on in bills, to fund things like the Contracts for Difference subsidy. more ›-funded CfD element is £244.5m ÷ 2,128,900 MWh = £114.85/MWh. The rest is PPA sales to SSE Energy Supply and Danske Commodities (SC350248...txt:1085-1086). The arithmetic is correct. The label overstates what it measures.research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:31 says no UKIB/NWF role was found. The only guarantees in the filing come from shareholders: OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables (10515140...txt:1886-1889). The same card's public-risk line then says the state-guaranteed exposure "applies elsewhere, not to Moray West itself". The clause (inherited from RISK-AND-RETURN.md:24) should be removed or sourced.SC350248...txt:1298). No local file names the current lenders or confirms the EKF guarantee survived the refinancing. The table presents this as current.et2-she-rfpr-commentary-2025.txt:767-768) gives Baa1An independent agency's assessment of how likely a borrower is to repay its debts, shown as a letter-and-number grade. more ›/BBB+ with no outlook. "Stable" comes from SSE plc group releases.sources/crawl/www.ofgem.gov.uk/riio3_finance_annex.txt is the RIIO-3Ofgem's current five-year price control, which sets how much transmission companies can charge billpayers and what return they earn. more › Sector Specific Methodology Decision Finance Annex of 18 July 2024, not the Final Determinations, and contains no "5.70". The 5.70% SHET cost of equityThe profit margin Ofgem lets a regulated grid company earn on shareholders' money, built into billpayers' charges. more › is VERIFIED at .../sites/default/files/2025-12/RIIO-3-Final-Determinations-Finance-Annex.txt:3616 (Table 16), which is the path FACT-SHEET.md:35 already uses. The TIM "relative exposure … between investors and consumers" quote comes from the 2024 SSMD (:5725). The FD confirms TIM continues (:3526). RISK-AND-RETURN.md:289 and :302 need correcting. The page's Sources line attributes everything to the FDs.10515140...txt:1743-1744).decommissioning-orei-guidance.txt:530-532, 654-655, 902-903). The clause should be dropped, leaving "Not established – out of scope".SC350248...txt:85, :107, :551 and :1098. Line 270 is the generation line (2,128.9 GWh), not revenue. Beatrice revenue split is at :1096-1098 (not :1504-1506), and the mechanism at :1088-1091 (not :1493-1496). Moray East generation is at 07101438...txt:381-382 (not :498-499). The Moray West filing's own strategic report (:128) calls the £21,927k pre-tax loss "loss for the year". The page correctly uses post-tax £16.401m.SC350248…txt:253-254). Moray East's £56,790k is in the subsequent-events note of the FY2025 accounts (07101438…txt:2625). Both came after the year end but before the accounts were issued. Suggested fix: "after the year end covered by their latest accounts". "To the same ownership split" is not stated in either filing; it is an inference.10515140…txt:1886-1890). The entry also contradicts itself ("has paid … rather than paid out in cash"). Suggested fix: "owes … accrued and capitalisedInterest added to the recorded cost of a project under construction, rather than paid out in cash straight away. more ›, not yet paid". The fees were charged by OW FS Offshore S.A. and UAB Ignitis Renewables, not "Ocean Winds and Ignitis" by name.cfd-ar8…txt:931, :1457). LCCC appears only as counterparty and administrator. The Delivery Body is not identified in any local file I opened; it is generally understood to be NESOThe National Energy System Operator, the body that keeps Great Britain's electricity grid balanced minute by minute. more ›, which I am stating from memory and have not verified.datastore_search_auction_q_Moray.json), not a DESNZ file. Also, Capacity_MW is the capacity entered at auction; calling it "nameplate" is the register's convention (C14), not a field label.research/MONEY-LEAVING-UK.md:15 says "12 banks + EIB". Its own §3 (:75) and research/PROJECT-FINANCE.md:13 say 13 commercial banks plus EIB. The glossary follows the 13 figure.notice_completed: 0.sources/nao.txt:729-735, not :725-732. The glossary entry id scottish-sac is the SACE (Italy) entry, a misleading id with no factual effect.:99). The page itself carries press figures (2.8GW / 2.3GW, B73), a company's own outturn claim (Kintyre £197m, B74), a secondary figure (Our World in Data 4.3%, B41) and a figure computed from company filings (£139.9m, B47). Suggested rewording: "Almost every figure on this page is from a government body, a regulator or the national auditor; the few that come from company filings, a company or the press are labelled as such.":100, :126). The page says price years "are stated" and "are given in the tables below". There is no price year for the £803bn (OBR, 2024-25 prices, OBR:982), the £70bn (the NAO gives none) or the £21.7bn (nominal, over 25 years). Suggested fix: add "2024-25 prices" to :163, "price year not stated by the NAO" to :166, and "nominal, over 25 years" to :168.:109, :165, :209). The CCC states "around £4 billion per year" (CCC7:4639) and "around 0.2% of UK GDP" (:323). It never states £108bn. The £108bn is this site's sum of data-sheet rows 165 and 166 (670.116 − 562.157 = 107.96). 2025 to 2050 is 26 years, not 25 (26 data values; OBR:6014-6015 "the 26 years from 2025 to 2050"). Suggested rewording for :109: "Its headline is the net cost, around £4bn a year; its data sheet sums to a net £108bn." For :165, label official, summed. For :209: "It does not state the 26-year total.":135). The LCCC data give 2022 payments back of £810.8m against payments out of £465.2m, a net £345.5m back. "Generators paid back £0.35bn" states the net as if it were the payback. Suggested rewording: "in 2022, when gas prices spiked, generators paid back £0.81bn and received £0.47bn, a net £0.35bn back.":155). "£83 … up from £51 the year before" (NAO ¶1.6, TNUoS in the April 2026 cap) sits beside "£104 by 2030-31, up from £44 in 2025-26" (NAO summary, 2025-26 prices, building and maintaining the grid). Both are the NAO's, but the reader sees £51 and £44 for the same year with no explanation. Suggested addition: "(The NAO gives £51 for the 2025-26 price-cap allowance and £44 for the grid build-and-maintain element in 2025-26 prices.)":167). The NAO's own lead figure is "£6.6 billion to £7.8 billion in 2030 if grid upgrades are not accelerated" (NAO:281-282). The page gives the bounds of £1bn and £12.7bn but leaves this case out. Ofgem's £30 saving (B57) is measured against it. Suggested rewording: "£1bn to £1.9bn if eight upgrades are brought forward, £2.8bn to £3.6bn if three are, £6.6bn to £7.8bn if none is brought forward, and £12.7bn with no upgrades at all.":210). The £116bn is the CCC's net economic cost, restated by the OBR in 2025 prices (OBR:6012-6015); it is not an OBR estimate. It nets £720bn of capital costs against £604bn of savings, while the £803bn is a fiscal cost that is two-thirds lost receipts. "The smaller one is the one usually quoted" has no source. Suggested rewording: "The OBR report gives two figures: the CCC's net cost to the economy, £116bn in 2025 prices, and its own cost to the public finances, £803bn, two-thirds of which is tax no longer collected." Drop the "usually quoted" sentence, or source it.:212). The full bullet is "Wider system costs beyond those faced by the developer, and wider system benefits of deploying generation assets. These cannot be assessed without whole power system modelling." (GENCOST:266-268). It applies to all technologies. Suggested rewording: "The government's cost report puts both 'wider system costs' and 'wider system benefits' out of scope, saying they 'cannot be assessed without whole power system modelling'. The grid, the bottleneck payments and backup are billed separately.":213). The NAO says the network charge rises to £104, "£60 higher than 2025-26" (NAO:307-308), and gives Ofgem's estimate that consumers end up "around £30 a year better off" (:312). No figure is given for the whole bill. Suggested rewording: "The grid charge on the bill still rises by £60.":215). [FIXED on the page 12 Oct 2026] The full sentence is "For commercial reasons, ECF and PCF figures are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published." (Ofgem press release, 9 Dec 2025). Suggested rewording: Ofgem on early grid funding: "For commercial reasons, ECF and PCF figures are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published". Also add the date to the sources line (:266).:227). The source says "National Grid expects these constraint costs to drop to nearly zero in 2017/18". It adds that the later forecast "depends on uncertain assumptions" and that constraints were "anticipated to start rising again from 2018/19" under one scenario (OFG-CM6:30-32, :430-432). Suggested rewording: "To fall to 'nearly zero in 2017/18' (National Grid, reported by Ofgem, December 2015, which warned costs could rise again from 2018/19).":243). No earlier forecast is shown for the £803bn, £670bn or £70bn. The authors' own previous estimates were higher: OBR 2021, £1.1 trillion or 29% of GDP (OBR:6529-6531); the CCC's Sixth Carbon Budget net cost was £204bn higher in 2025 prices (OBR:6016). Under the same burden of proof both ways, either add those, or reword to: "…quoted as their authors give them. Earlier forecasts for other projects are set beside their outturn below.":230). 2.3GW is this site's subtraction (2.8 − 0.5); no source states it. Label it computed beside press, and say "proposed offshore wind east of Shetland" rather than "behind the case", since Ofgem's need case named three prospective farms (FACT-SHEET.md:119).:100); the GOV.UK CCUS collection (:104) is the line that holds "over 25 years". B50: the NSTA factsheet also gives 8 kgCO2e/boe for pipeline imports, mostly Norwegian, which is lower than UK gas; the page shows only LNG against UK gas. B40: the page's 0.65% (UNEP basis, 2024) differs from real-cost.html's 0.69% (EDGAR, 2025); both are right on their own bases.…/ofgem-agrees-early-investment-and-updated-dates-proposed-electricity-superhighways:3957,3965,3981). For the Beyond 2030 (tCSNP2Ofgem's transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 process, under which this project was assessed and put in the delivery track. more ›) lines, Ofgem's Dec 2024 decision does publish a provisional PCF per transmission owner: SSENT £68.430m, 2018 prices (sources/tcsnp2_decision.txt:2783-2793). It does not publish one per project. Suggested wording: "Early construction and pre-construction funding for the ASTI lines (EGL3, EGL4 and others). Ofgem says these 'are not published at this stage and only percentages of budgets are published'. For the Beyond 2030 lines Ofgem has published only a provisional pre-construction total per owner (SSEN Transmission £68.4m, 2018 prices), not a figure for any single line."RNP:1865-1868). The card cites only the NAO, whose Figure 5 gives gas £916m, wind £369m and other £56m, with gas at 68% of the total (NAO:1102-1105). DESNZ itself says "roughly two-thirds of the total constraint costs". Suggested wording: "In 2024/25 gas turn-up cost £910m and wind turn-down £370m (DESNZ), so gas took about 71% of the two and about two-thirds of all thermal constraint costs (NAO Figure 5: 68%).":163: "Western Link (high column), Eastern Green Link 1 and Eastern Green Link 2 are Scotland–England links counted at their whole cost; no Scottish share is published for the two Eastern Green Links."OM6:30-32). Para 3.6 says that under Gone Green "constraints are anticipated to start rising again from 2018/19", and para 3.7 ties the later fall to the Eastern HVDC link "which the model assumes will be 2023/24" (OM6:429-443). Suggested wording for :206: "The NAO says Ofgem forecast these costs would fall to zero by 2023-24 (NAO:1181). The sixth monitoring report held here says 'nearly zero in 2017/18', expects them to rise again from 2018/19 under its high-renewables scenario, and models a fall when the Eastern HVDC link completes, assumed 2023/24." Consider adding the caveat sentence after the OM6 quote at :184.NAO:1051-1058). Same burden of proof both ways: add one sentence under the £2.0bn table giving the NAO's view, without changing the figures.…Annual%20Report…%20-%20Web.txt:4135-4138, not :4227-4229 (R1). The Saudi pledge quote is at zerotracker.net/countries/saudi-arabia-cou-0177.data.txt:21. The OBR para 1.32 sits at OBR25:928-930 in the current text file.NESO-TNUOS:513), £36.182993 is the Conventional Low Carbon example at 75% load factor. That is the class that includes nuclear and hydro (:408-409). North Scotland's Conventional Carbon 40% figure is £17.192667/kW. For offshore wind (Intermittent, 45%) it is £26.699633/kW, and Argyll is higher at £27.262031/kW (:465). The same error is in FACT-SHEET.md:134 (fact 28). Suggested wording: "North Scotland's example generation tariff for an intermittent generator at a 45% load factor is £26.699633/kW, second only to Argyll (£27.262031/kW) of 27 zones; for conventional low-carbon plant (nuclear, hydro) at 75% it is £36.182993/kW, the highest of the 27. official, NESO, Final TNUoS Tariffs 2025/26".NAO17:1670-1672). Suggested: "HPC: the Department's estimate, reported by the NAO in 2017, was £10–15 a year of the average household bill up to 2030, in 2012 prices."WNN17:6), end of 2025 (EDF19:20) and June 2026 (WNN21:6). Suggested: fill the cells with "end of 2025", "end of 2025" and "June 2026".NAO17:255-257). Suggested: "HPC: built by NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited, owned 66.5% by EDF and 33.5% by China General Nuclear (NAO, 2017)" and "HPC: financed in full by its two investors (NAO, 2017)".G23:711-713). Suggested: "The latest DESNZ/BEIS report found with both on one basis is from 2016 … The 2020 report carries the 2016 nuclear assumptions forward; the 2023 report uses them together with public Hinkley Point C data."Math.max(2080, on) or show "switch-on after 2080", and state that build years are rounded to whole years.counter/options.html:179) says exploration and appraisal spending for 2026-2031 is "not published". NSTA's February 2026 medium-term projections publish it in the same table, one row above the capex projection the page uses (NSTA-MTP:26, under "2025 prices" at :24): £0.235bn (2026), 0.35 (2027), 0.136 (2028), 0.107 (2029), 0.107 (2030), 0.107 (2031). Suggested cell: "0.235, 0.35, 0.136, 0.107, 0.107, 0.107 (NSTA, Feb 2026, 2025 prices)".ROSE-S3 is the developer's "Response to Requirement #1 … of the Regulation 12(1) Notice dated 21 July 2025" (:2-5). It is not an assessment by OPRED. The 254 Mt is the P10 high-oil case (:589). The developer says its P50 "most likely" case is "about 30% lower" (:593). Jackdaw's 35.8 Mt is also the developer's "highest anticipated" case (JACK-S3:1752-1754). Suggested cell (:217): "254 MtCO2e (developer's high case; P50 about 30% lower) | 35.8 MtCO2e (developer's highest case, 2026 to 2037)", class "developers' submissions to OPRED (Oct and Nov 2025)". Box :243 to match.U-RES:689, 699, 718). The 0.2 / 0.7 / 1.3 row is Table 8: mapped leads and prospects after a 30 million boe unrisked volume cut-off and a 15% chance-of-success cut-off (:612, 616, 676). They are two different inventories, not one pool before and after a cut-off. Suggested rows: "Play-level, outside mapped leads and prospects, no cut-offs: P90, mean, P10 3.1, 4.7, 6.3" and "Mapped leads and prospects, with NSTA cut-offs (30 million boe, 15% chance of success): 0.2, 0.7, 1.3". The box at :242 should match.:175). NSTA's own projections table puts the identical figures under "2025 prices" (NSTA-MTP:24, 27). The income workbook states no basis. Suggested class: "official (NSTA); price basis not stated (NSTA's projection table labels the same figures 2025 prices)".GOV-EIA25:80). That release is also the source of the page's quoted words "subject to business case". Suggested class: "official (DESNZ release, 19 June 2025; the Spending Review text itself gives no figure)". In the box (:307), drop "(the project's own statement)".BGS13:1824-1826). Suggested: "Only official figures for what could be produced (2010, Upper Bowland only): 2.1 to 4.7 tcf (about 59 to 133 bcm), by analogy with two US shales". On that range the scale row reads "about 2 to 4 years of 2025 UK gas production".JACK-P3:219, 556). Imports were 61% of UK supply in 2024 (NSTA-EI24:25). Suggested: "about 6.5% of UK gas production at peak".SSET:1). It is not a stated Peterhead design rate. Suggested: "not stated for Peterhead; SSE's project page says CCS technology 'can capture at least 90%'".:241: "Public revenue at stake: …".OBR-EFO26:6382-6383). Suggested label: "OBR, 2024-25 outturn then forecast to 2030-31".GOV-FRK22:78).BGS22:273-275). That is softer than "cannot be predicted". Suggested wording is in the O137 status.GOV-NCC25:59-60).GOV-SSUK:68, 72). The £350m is in a PA report of the Business Secretary's Commons statement (PA-SSUK:114).CC-2012, table). O182: no source says whether BICS's £600m is additional to the existing £400m exemption. O48 and O167: primary citations are given here; the research files cited them only through other research files.AUT:717-725). The 2024 documents say 1.8GW for the link (OfgCons:2384; SSEN news release :498). No local source explains the difference. HANDOVER §5 corr. 2 is an inference that the documents do not state. Suggested wording: "Ofgem (August 2024) and SSEN (September 2024) gave the link as 1.8GW. SSEN's Autumn 2026 booklet describes 'a 2GW bi-pole, 525kV HVDC link' and an indicative 2GW converter station design. SSEN has not explained the difference."MAY:511-512; also :792-793). Suggested wording at :195: "For the Strathbogie Hub, SSEN's May 2026 booklet names Aberdeenshire Council under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. For the landfallThe point on the coast where a subsea cable comes ashore and connects to the onshore cable route. more › and the 30km onshore cable, no SSEN booklet names the determining authority or statute." At :186, replace "the determining authority and statute, which the booklet never names" with "the consenting authority and statute for the landfall and onshore cable".AUT:291-296): "there will be a permanent cabinet (called a link pillar), contained within a fenced area." Suggested wording: "the size and position of the permanent fenced link-pillar cabinet SSEN says will remain at the landfall".FD-FA:3614-3616). Suggested wording: "cost of equity 5.70% (CPIH-real), WACC 5.74% (semi-nominal; 4.67% real), for the five years to March 2031".AUT:291-296; the converter station at the hub), and s.38A(4)(a) leaves qualification to regulations. Suggested wording: "The buried cable itself cannot qualify. Shetland HVDC Link 2 is not on DESNZ's August 2026 list of projects expected to be eligible (FS 24)."AUT:378-387). Only the map legend ("Proceed to Stage 2") supports the caption. Suggested wording: "Site 9 Boyne Bay and Site 10 Inverboyndie are marked 'Proceed to Stage 2'. The facing text says Sandend was also taken to stage 2 design and dropped after November 2025."sources/commfunds.txt, 0 hits) or in any local file. The figure is the Scottish Government's benchmark for onshore renewables. Suggested wording: "The Scottish Government's £5,000/MW community benefitMoney a developer or network owner pays to communities near new infrastructure, recovered in full from billpayers. more › benchmark applies to generation, not transmission, and does not apply to this comparison." It needs a local source (see Fetch needed).AUT:861-862). Same standard both ways. Suggested wording: "SSEN's legend calls these outlines 'survey blocks'; its page heading calls them 'indicative landfall areas'. They are not a landfall footprint, which has not been published."SHETLAND-HVDC-LINK-2-DOSSIER.md:1241), not an outside quotation. Suggested wording: "SSEN's own figure … approximately 140m to the south of the Boyndie Bay site. An earlier figure of 512m in this project's own notes was measured to an interior reference point."AUT:688-711). The page itself gives two Aberdeenshire community benefit figures (:178-179). The hub includes "terminal tower platforms" (AUT:644), and the May booklet weighed "overhead line routeing challenges" (MAY:792). Suggested qualifiers: "site-specific building heights"; "any community benefit figure for Shetland HVDC Link 2 in Aberdeenshire"; "whether a new overhead line is needed at the hub (SSEN lists terminal tower platforms but has not said)".AUT:61-65). Suggested wording: "SSEN says it hopes to share 'a least constrained landfall, a proposed underground cable route, and a least constrained site for Strathbogie Hub, within the coming months'."counter/index.html (£97bn, £12.2bn, £803bn at :90-92), counter/shetland2.html (e.g. £1,465.0m :103, £2,159,444 :178), counter/who-pays.html (15 lines with £ figures), counter/moray-subsidy-meter.html and counter/missing-figures.html. The built copies match. Either label those pages or reword to: "Figures on the national pages carry a label: …. On the Moray Firth pages, the evidence registerA table listing every figure used on these pages, with its source document, its class and whether it has been checked. more › gives each figure's class and source."site/artifacts/about.html:2-3) prints the same sentence while loading fonts.googleapis.com. If that copy is ever shown to anyone, drop the sentence from it in public_variant() or the artifact variant.CH/SC213461/index.html:391-394). It is privately owned (SSE plc 75%, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan 25%; accounts :119), but "private company" is a company-law term it does not meet. Suggested rewording for counter/ask.html:91: "SSEN Transmission is a privately owned company, not a public authority, so the Freedom of Information Act does not cover it." The FOIA point itself (Q12) still needs the Schedule 1 citation (HANDOVER correction 35).ICO-REQ:64) is about informal advice before a request. The legal rule (FOIA s.21, information reasonably accessible by other means; EIR reg 6(1)(b)) is not held locally. Suggested rewording: "If the body has already published the information, it may point you to where it is published instead of sending a copy."OFG-TC:3-5), and NESO's full CSNP is due in 2028 (383376/download/index.txt:101). Suggested rewording for :119: "in the transitional Centralised Strategic Network Plan 2 (tCSNP2)".OFG-TC:2785-2792). Suggested rewording for :121: "as a project-level breakdown of the provisional £68.430 million (2018 prices) shown for SSEN Transmission's four delivery-track projects."NESO-B30 row 35). NESO's June 2026 update records "3 - Design/development and consenting", updated 1 June 2026 (NESO-B30U "Baseline - Onshore" row 89). Suggested rewording for :130: "The maturity assessment that placed the project at level 2, 'Strategic Optioneering', in the March 2024 Beyond 2030 workbook, and the evidence for moving it to level 3 by June 2026."marine.gov.scot/node27638_EPS-00011333.html:14; node27635_BS-00011332.html:14). They are wildlife licences for surveys, not marine licences under the Marine (Scotland) Act. Suggested rewording for :140: "Marine survey reports under survey licences EPS-00011333 (European protected species) and BS-00011332 (basking shark)."counter/the-bill.html:152), and two of the three lines (CfD, constraints) are GB-only while the divisor is UK households. Suggested rewording: "paid each year now, equal to about £420 for every UK household (households pay part on their bills, businesses the rest)".OBR:932-933), in 2024-25 prices, two-thirds lost receipts. Suggested rewording: "estimated cost to the public finances to 2050-51, OBR central scenario (2024-25 prices; two-thirds lost tax receipts)".research/UK-SHARE-OF-EMISSIONS.md:77). The site's own country table shows 0.69% (counter/real-cost.html:303), so the home page and real-cost.html disagree. Suggested rewording: "about 0.65–0.7%, the UK's share of world greenhouse gas emissions (2024)".