From storm-damaged solar panels on Anglesey to new grid corridors, battery compounds, wind farms, ports and offshore arrays, Wales is being reshaped project by project. The public is still not being shown one complete bill.
By Shane Oxer | Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
STORM DARRAGH EXPOSED THE HIDDEN SYSTEM
Storm Darragh did in a few hours what official accounts still fail to do. It exposed the physical system behind the targets.
At Porth Wen on Anglesey, hundreds of solar panels were photographed on the ground after being blown from their fixings in December 2024. EDF had described the roughly 50 MW development as a £60 million solar farm. The company said replacement work would continue into early 2025, but no complete public total for the damage and repairs could be found.
That storm bill is not the whole Welsh energy question. It is a warning about what disappears when the public is shown only headline capacity and construction figures. Resilience, repair, insurance, replacement, reinforcement, balancing and eventual decommissioning are also part of the system – and somebody pays for every one of them.
If this is being built as one electricity system why is the bill still being presented in fragments
That is why Parliament must demand the full evidence
SIGN THE PETITION — MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
THE VISIBLE LEDGER ALREADY REACHES £9.826 BILLION
I have assembled the clearest public ledger that can presently be defended. It contains seven published headline figures:
£3.2bn National Grid’s Wales regional investment plan for transmission maintenance, upgrades and development.
£3.0bn Bute Energy’s stated investment in more than 2.2 GW of Welsh onshore wind projects.
£2.26bn The revised project estimate for Awel y Môr offshore wind in North Wales.
£1.0bn The reported refurbishment of the Dinorwig and Ffestiniog pumped-storage stations.
£200m RWE’s Pembroke battery project at 350 MW and 700 MWh.
£106m Development expenditure for Future Port Talbot to reach a consent-ready position.
£60m EDF’s published construction figure for Porth Wen before the storm-damage bill.
£9.826 billion is already visible and it is still not the final bill
That figure must not be misrepresented. It mixes a regulated network programme, corporate investment commitments, named project estimates, refurbishment, development expenditure and a completed build. The spending falls in different years and through different funding channels. Some boundaries may overlap.
But that qualification does not make the problem smaller. It proves the point. Wales is being transformed by an interconnected programme, yet no public body has reconciled the figures into one auditable account. The public is left to piece together billions of pounds from separate press releases, planning documents and regulatory papers.
THE GRID DOES NOT ARRIVE FREE
The Welsh Government’s corrected Energy Generation and Use report says Wales had 4.8 GW of renewable capacity in 2024 and renewable generation equal to 55 per cent of annual electricity consumption. It also says demand could rise from 14.5 TWh in 2024 to 23.8 TWh in 2035 and that renewable generation must triple.
But annual equivalence is not hour-by-hour self-sufficiency. When local output is low, power must be imported. When it is high, excess must be moved or curtailed. That makes networks, storage, balancing, backup and cross-border transfers part of the cost of delivering the target – not optional footnotes.
National Grid’s Wales plan identifies £3.2 billion of investment, 387 km of overhead-line reconductoring, eight major substation interventions, three new substations and fourteen new supergrid transformers. It expects 3.1 GW of new low-carbon generation to connect, including 2.4 GW offshore.
That is not the end of the network story. Western Link 2 is a proposed Scotland-to-Wales high-voltage direct-current connection of about 340 km, including roughly 260 km offshore and 25 km underground in Gwynedd. Its public project page gives no complete project cost.
Bute Energy says it intends to invest £3 billion in more than 2.2 GW of onshore wind. The affiliated Green GEN Cymru pipeline is described as 300 km of new grid infrastructure, while a 2026 sponsor profile described an ambition to invest nearly £1 billion by 2030.
That near-£1 billion has not been added to the ledger. Public material does not reconcile it with Bute’s £3 billion wind commitment. Adding it blindly would manufacture a total. Leaving it invisible would be equally indefensible. Parliament should require the overlap to be shown.
STORAGE NUMBERS CONCEAL THE REAL QUESTION
The same Welsh Government report records only 115 MW of operational battery capacity, but 44 battery sites with planning permission that are under construction or ready for construction, together exceeding 2.3 GW. It publishes no single capital cost for that pipeline.
Nor does 2.3 GW tell the public how long the stored power will last. MW measures power. MWh and discharge duration show how much energy can actually be delivered. RWE’s £200 million Pembroke project is unusually clear: 350 MW, 700 MWh and two hours of discharge.
The public account must show that detail for all 44 sites, along with cell degradation, augmentation, fire-safety provision, insurance, replacement and decommissioning. The separate £1 billion refurbishment of Dinorwig and Ffestiniog is a reminder that storage assets do not renew themselves for free.
THE SEA IS ANOTHER ACCOUNTING UNIVERSE
Awel y Môr belongs in the visible ledger because its revised funding statement gives a named project estimate of about £2.26 billion. The Celtic Sea must be handled differently.
The Crown Estate’s Round 5 Information Memorandum forecast up to £19 billion of total investment. The current programme offers up to 4.5 GW across three project-development areas covering 1,000 square kilometres of seabed. The Crown Estate describes more than 260 floating turbines, around 1,000 anchors, at least 300 km of mooring lines and about 900 km of cables.
That £19 billion has not been added to the £9.826 billion ledger. Round 5 is a Celtic Sea regional programme spanning Wales and South West England, not a Welsh-only account. Its forecast may also intersect with ports, connections and supply-chain investment reported elsewhere. Adding it without reconciliation would create false precision.
Port Talbot shows how easily a headline can mislead. Government has agreed a grant of up to £64 million within £106 million of development expenditure to bring the future floating-wind port to a consent-ready position. That is not the construction bill. It is the cost of reaching the point where the full construction decision can be made.
PEAT IS NOT A FOOTNOTE
Natural Resources Wales says peatlands cover only 4 per cent of Wales but hold 30 per cent of its land-based carbon. Around 90 per cent is damaged. Its 2025 assessment warns that further losses of vulnerable peat soils through development pressure should be avoided.
That does not mean every proposed turbine stands on deep peat. It means the public account must follow the evidence rather than the slogan. At Nant Mithil in Radnor Forest, the current proposal is for 30 turbines producing 198 MW. The developer says turbines and hardstandings are not placed on defined peat areas.
Yet the project’s own consultation report records Welsh Government land-quality officials raising concern that more than 31 per cent of the soils proposed to be stripped – 28,601 cubic metres – were organic-rich and peaty. It also records work to avoid deeper peat and manage the excavated soils.
That is the nuance a serious national assessment must capture. Not a blanket accusation. Not a blanket reassurance. Roads, drainage, hydrology, excavation, restoration, monitoring and long-term liability must be costed alongside the megawatts.
WHAT IS STILL MISSING
Even the £9.826 billion visible ledger leaves major programmes outside because the price is unpublished, the scope is regional or the relationship with other figures has not been reconciled:
- Green GEN Cymru – 300 km of proposed grid infrastructure and a near-£1 billion ambition whose overlap with Bute Energy’s wind portfolio is not shown.
- Western Link 2 – about 340 km of high-voltage connection with no complete public project cost.
- The Welsh battery pipeline – 44 sites and more than 2.3 GW, but no aggregate cost, duration profile, replacement plan or lifecycle account.
- Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru – a 1 GW public-land wind ambition without one published capital account for the full programme.
- Prosiect Maen Hir – more than 350 MW of solar plus storage, with no complete capital and lifecycle account in the scoping material.
- Porth Wen storm repairs – hundreds of panels damaged, yet no complete repair and replacement total located.
- The costs beyond construction – financing, maintenance, insurance, network losses, curtailment, storm repair, component replacement, land restoration, waste, recycling and decommissioning.
A developer’s investment, a regulated network allowance, a government grant and a consumer-backed contract are not interchangeable. But they can all end up affecting electricity bills, taxes, public borrowing, industrial competitiveness, land values or the price at which power is supported.
Every organisation can defend its own number The public needs to know how all the numbers fit together
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
This is exactly why my Parliamentary petition matters.
The petition asks the Government to temporarily suspend the legal duties to meet statutory carbon budgets and the 2050 Net Zero target until Parliament has considered an independent national assessment of the full costs and impacts.
Parliament should require one auditable national schedule showing:
- Every generation, network, storage, port and enabling project on a common price base and delivery date.
- Which costs sit inside each headline figure and which are additional.
- The split between private capital, regulated network revenue, public grants and consumer-backed support.
- Hourly system requirements, including storage duration, backup, imports, balancing and curtailment.
- Financing, maintenance, replacement, resilience, repair and decommissioning.
- The impact on bills, taxpayers, industry, farming, food security, landscapes and local communities.
Whatever your view of Net Zero, this standard of evidence should not be controversial. Wales should not be asked to accept an industrial transformation of its hills, coasts, farmland and electricity system on the basis of separate figures that nobody has reconciled.
Britain is building one system Parliament must demand one complete account
Read it Sign it Share it
SIGN THE PETITION — MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
Shane Oxer
Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
Research checked 26 September 2026
Leave a Reply