The original article referred to “A giant hydro scheme which would double the UK’s ability to store energy for long periods”.  The ECU disagreed with the complainant’s objection to the use of the word “giant” on the basis the project’s capacity to generate electricity was relatively modest, because the description was not solely a reference to the project’s electricity performance; as well as noting that the project would be the biggest hydro scheme in the UK for 40 years, the article went on to explain that it would be “one of the biggest-ever engineering projects in the Highlands, creating up to 500 construction jobs at its peak”.   However, it was an error to say it would double the UK’s ability to store “energy” for long periods because it would double only its ability to store electricity, and the UK has substantial stores of other sources of energy.  The error had been corrected as a result of the complaint, but the ECU decided that, as no acknowledgement or explanation was added to the article, the correction was insufficient to resolve the issue of accuracy.

Partly Upheld