Chamber and committees

It will depend on the specific settings in each area. That is why LHEES are being taken forward at the local level.

If the committee has not had the chance to learn about the heat network in Shetland, for example, I think that that would be instructive. It has been in operation for 25 years, and the company is now looking to expand and extend it, including to potential customers who are not right in the town centre.

There are some energy losses that come from extensive heat networks, but the experience of Denmark is that you can have them over a very wide area, and they do not just have value in the inner core of a city, so we would like to ensure that as many parts of Scotland as can benefit from heat networks do so.

Of course, in less densely populated areas, other approaches to decarbonisation—including individual heat pumps and other technologies—will be, and already are, extremely successful.

That question is probably best directed at colleagues who work on the waste side. There are many reasons why there is an environmental desire to move away from burning our waste—to put it simply—even with modern technology. As Monica Lennon’s question hinted at, it requires a continual feed of waste material going in, and it is not consistent with a circular economy approach.

The approach with regard to heat networks is that, where an existing facility has waste heat that is going into the air and is not benefiting anyone, we might as well plug that into a heat network and get some value and use out of it.

Well, the proposals that we are about to consult on on heat in buildings set out how the heat standard will work, and they recognise that fossil fuel systems for emergency back-up might continue to be necessary. It is probably more likely that those would be portable systems, rather than an installed gas boiler.

We have an opportunity to ensure that the vast majority of the heat that is consumed comes from sustainable sources and is non-polluting. We also have an opportunity to ensure that we achieve that in a way that is consistent with affordability, tackling fuel poverty and other objectives.

The act set the initial targets. The new target that we are setting is for 2035. We do not have annual targets in between those.

Sorry, it is—

Yes. We have been exploring a range of models of operation. That might involve direct municipal ownership; it might involve joint ventures between local authorities and other partners. The opportunity exists not only to ensure that heat decarbonisation is achievable for people—that householders and businesses feel that a service is available to them and that it will provide them with long-term certainty about the consumer protection that is being built in and about low-carbon and affordable heat—but that they trust that it is being operated to a large extent in the public interest.

As Mark Ruskell knows, Denmark has generously shared its experience and expertise on heat networks and it has been advising us for a number of years on the development and implementation of the 2021 act. Denmark has been developing heat networks for 50 years and it is still rolling them out, because there is high demand for them in the third or so of the country that does not have access to them yet. People want to be connected to them, because they know that they are an affordable way to meet their heating needs, and that is the case more than ever given the cost of living crisis.

Denmark knows that the public have a high degree of trust in the operation of such systems in the public interest. If we can emulate that in as much of Scotland as possible, we will not only achieve decarbonisation and do it affordably, but—we hope—achieve the high degree of public trust that our neighbours in Denmark have achieved.

As I have said, the 2021 act requires us to set a 2035 target. We are doing that to comply with the act, but setting the target is helpful in itself as a clear signal to the sector.

It is a little bit like the wider heat in buildings agenda that we have been discussing recently and on which we will consult shortly. The Government’s setting a clear direction of travel is the clear signal that industry needs that Scotland is serious about getting the work done. That, indeed, can focus not only minds but investment capacity to achieve the targets.

In many ways, that is what happened with renewable electricity generation. Successive Scottish Governments set a clear direction of travel and gave clear market signals that Scotland was serious about renewable electricity. If we had not done that, setting targets alone would not have been effective.

By the range of actions that I have set out, Scotland is demonstrating not only the will but the focus that is necessary to achieve the targets that we are setting today.

It is developing. As I mentioned, some local authorities are further ahead than others and some have higher heat network potential than others. Earlier in the process, Glasgow was already beginning to take forward some of the work on LHEES. I think that the council had already begun to undertake that work before it was a legal requirement. The city is clearly one of the areas that have significant potential for heat networks, which is necessary given that there is a high density of homes there that will be difficult to decarbonise in other ways.

A significant number of local authorities have completed their LHEES and others are due to complete the work by the end of the year. The picture that is emerging, local authority by local authority, demonstrates that we have a handle on where heat networks are likely to be introduced, as well as—to address the convener’s concern once again—being confident that they will generate a return on investment. The developments will generate an income stream, which is one of the things that will make them attractive for investment.

Yes, indeed. We recognise that households in rural and island communities face higher costs and experience some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in Scotland. The targeting and level of support that is available reflects that situation: since last December, we provided an extra £1,500 on top of our £7,500 Home Energy Scotland heating energy efficiency grants, due to the higher costs in rural areas. Fuel-poor households in off-gas areas benefit from higher levels of funding, too, as part of the area-based schemes and warmer homes Scotland service, and our social housing net zero heat fund, which makes £200 million available up to 2026 to support social landlords in that agenda. Rural areas will benefit from an 11 per cent uplift, while remote areas can get 22 per cent more funding.

I visited many social housing providers including, most recently, Argyll Community Housing Association, which has already installed almost 1,400 air-source heat pumps, which covers more than a quarter of its housing stock. A great many of those organisations are leading the way.

The social housing net zero heat fund is available throughout the country and requires organisations to bid. We work very well with social housing providers throughout the country. I am happy to explore those figures, if Mr Briggs wants to write to me about them particularly.

The most important thing is that social housing providers in all parts of the country—urban, rural, east, west, north and south—are already benefiting, and will continue to benefit, from that investment, and we are keen to continue to work with them.