Debate contribution: Renewable Electricity Generation Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Renewable Electricity Generation Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5673902
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member raises a critical point. Look at it the other way: some of those generators may gain an advantage in a contract-for-difference auction because of the very fact that they get a ROC. We will have to be mindful of that. Of course, the bigger the scale, the more the ROC and the more advantage they may then obtain. However, the Member raises a valid point. ROC was a payment that you got basically to foot the bill of the building. You got a return on the investment that you had to put in within a relatively short number of years and, then, you enjoyed the ROC for the remaining 15 years or whatever. That is the basis of ROC, but this is a critical juncture as to what we do going forward. Let us say that a farmer wants to upgrade a turbine to a bigger one. Will that allow him to fall into a contract for difference? That may well have been an issue for that farmer continuing to enjoy a ROC payment. I am not sure that he would have been able to upgrade and retain the ROC. Those are all questions that need to be delved into, but, unfortunately, they are not answered in the Bill.
211 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:18 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.