Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1 from law firm Eversheds echoed concerns of employers' group, the CBI that the UK government decision to cut subsidies for renewables will damage investment and jobs. She said the NAME_2 government missed the boat by not doing enough when subsidies were in place. Both government rejected the criticism. The UK government cut subsidies because it is already meeting its renewable energy targets, but Ms NAME_3 told BBC Radio NAME_4 that was "not a sensible decision" because it made the UK a less attractive place to invest. Ms NAME_3 said NAME_4 was not near where it should be on renewables, particularly when compared to Scotland's "strong leadership position". "We didn't create that environment initially and we're paying the price for it now," she told the NAME_4 at Work programme. "Unfortunately there isn't a huge amount we can do about that now because the [UK] government sets the level of

Summary:
1. The NAME_2 government has been accused of not doing enough to promote renewable energy in NAME_4 and is "paying the price" for it, a business lawyer has said.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 The letter p should appear at least 17 times.
user