HOPE · Energy & countryside

PROFESSOR STEPHEN HAWKING WARNED US. NOW FOLLOW THE POWER.

HOPE to save our countryside

18 October 2026

By Shane Oxer · HOPE — Hope to Save Our Countryside

I believe Britain risks mortgaging our children’s future to a corporate AI boom before the full costs, resource demands and public return have been demonstrated.

The Government promises growth, investment and technological sovereignty. We are entitled to judge that promise by what it means for ordinary people: their bills, their water, their land and their power to challenge decisions.

Professor Stephen Hawking warned in his Cambridge speech of 19 October 2016 that AI could bring “new ways for the few to oppress the many.” He also recognised its extraordinary potential to improve human life.

His warning makes the ownership and terms of this expansion a public question. Useful technology deserves a fair bargain for the people who sustain it.

Archive portrait of Professor Stephen Hawking in Cambridge, photographed by Doug Wheller, with the existing crop by W.carter. — Professor Stephen Hawking in Cambridge. Archive photograph by Doug Wheller; existing crop and light adjustment by W.carter, CC BY 2.0. This is not a photograph of his October 2016 speech.

OFGEM: CONSUMERS PAY FOR THE NETWORK OVER 45 YEARS

Ofgem’s December 2025 network-funding decision, paragraph 2.14 explains the commitment:

“From a consumer perspective, this is conceptually the same as repaying a 45-year loan to the network companies with associated interest payments”

The payments cover financing costs and shareholder returns. Its final decision for the current transmission price control retains a 45-year depreciation assumption.

Decisions taken today can reach into our children’s bills. That can be justified for necessary infrastructure delivering lasting public value. It demands a rigorous account of the need, the cost and the people expected to pay.

Now put that beside the Government’s answer to Parliament on 10 September 2026:

“Government is not tracking the network reinforcement cost data associated specifically with new data centres.”

Ofgem and network companies may hold relevant estimates. The department promoting expansion still cannot supply that complete account from its own tracking.

The funding mechanism covers networks generally. We must identify each campus’s developer payments and the costs recovered from others. Before ministers celebrate the investment, they should be able to explain the bill.

THE PLAN TO REMOVE CONSUMER PROTECTION’S OVERRIDING STATUS

Ofgem was established with protecting consumers as its principal objective. Its responsibilities have since expanded.

The Energy Act 2023 added Net Zero and carbon budgets to its decision framework. A growth duty was extended to Ofgem from 21 May 2024.

The Government’s April 2026 Ofgem Review goes further: it proposes moving away from “a single, overriding principal objective”, giving consumer interests, Net Zero and economic growth equal legal status.

Government says this will improve long-term outcomes without downgrading consumer protection. It is nevertheless proposing to remove that protection’s overriding position.

When those objectives conflict, whose interests prevail? Who challenges a bill-payer burden justified by forecasts of future growth?

The September draft guidance makes the legislative dependency clear. Publishing the review does not itself change the law.

This is a change the public should debate before it happens. A regulator supervising commitments lasting decades needs the authority and resolve to challenge the programme on consumers’ behalf.

CHEAPER POWER FOR AI. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNT FOR EVERYONE ELSE?

The Government’s electricity-pricing plan proposes support for eligible AI Growth Zone projects from April 2027, subject to legislation and delivery conditions.

In Scotland, the published maximum is £24 per megawatt-hour. Other specified northern regions have different maximums.

The Government says eligible projects will earn support by reducing electricity-system costs, without imposing additional costs on other bill-payers.

That claim should be independently tested. Publish the baseline, the savings, the payments and the protection if forecasts prove wrong. Show whether the gains reach households as well as investors.

Qualifying Climate Change Agreement holders can already receive a 92% reduction in the electricity Climate Change Levy. This concerns one tax component, not the whole bill; domestic supplies do not pay that levy.

Under distribution charging reforms introduced in April 2023, some wider reinforcement costs are recovered across network customers, with exceptions.

Our objection is to an unproven bargain. Selective support must demonstrate a genuine system benefit, fair cost allocation and enforceable protection for everyone else.

LEEDS: THE WATER WARNING, THEN THE DROUGHT

On 11 November 2025, South Leeds Life reported Yorkshire Water’s warning about Microsoft’s proposed Skelton Grange campus: the requested 100 litres per second could not be supplied for another two years. Residential properties would take priority during drought.

That was an initial request and historical warning. The final operating requirement must be established from the later technical agreements.

The February council report recorded a separate holding objection about drainage information and network capacity. The April report records no objection from Yorkshire Water and supports the drainage arrangements.

The April report also relies on mains backup during insufficient rainfall or peak demand. Rainwater harvesting is expected to reduce mains cooling-water use by approximately 40%.

Then, on 9 October 2026, the Environment Agency declared Yorkshire in drought after sustained dry weather depleted river and reservoir levels.

The critical question is how the system performs when rainfall fails. Expected rainwater savings do not establish the dependable supply available through a prolonged hot, dry period.

In the October response attributed to Microsoft and published by campaigners, the company rules out River Aire abstraction and refers to the planning process and wider water commitments. The published response supplies no numerical site-specific water limit.

Acceptance of drainage arrangements does not itself demonstrate a drought-secure cooling-water allocation. Publish the agreed supply, peak demand, storage endurance and operating restrictions.

The April draft minutes also record that the council had no specific policy for checking whether the grid could accommodate electricity generated or used. Network operators have separate responsibilities. Which body assures the complete programme of power, water, cooling and promised heat reuse?

Harworth announced a resolution to grant consent in April. The planning portal still showed the application as current on 16 October. The final permission and conditions remain to verify.

Before operating, prove the water is available—including in drought. Where cooling demand would threaten essential household supplies or environmental limits, enforceable restrictions must require the operator to reduce that demand.

Existing Skelton Grange National Grid infrastructure in Leeds in September 2023, not a photograph of the proposed data centre. — Existing National Grid infrastructure at Skelton Grange, Leeds, photographed on 9 September 2023. The old power station stood nearby. This photograph does not show the proposed data-centre development. Photo: Stephen Craven / Geograph, CC BY-SA 2.0; reproduced without alteration.

WATER RESILIENCE CANNOT BE PROMISED TWICE

Leeds sits within a wider planning problem. Affinity Water’s evidence to Parliament describes approximately 125 proposed or under-construction data centres across its region, including the Slough–West London corridor.

It says data-centre demand is absent from its WRMP24 forecasts. Using resilience headroom for growth reduces the margin protecting existing users against drought, equipment failure and water-quality problems.

That margin has a public purpose. Allocating it to a new commercial user requires an account of what remains for everyone else.

Some cooling designs use very little process water. Others have significant peak requirements. Each site needs a binding, drought-tested water budget.

SDC M40’s consultation environmental report considers water delivered by truck during low rainfall or drought. Where would that water come from, under what restrictions and at whose expense?

For electricity, SDC M40’s power strategy considers an on-site gas-fed energy centre as one route. Under that scenario, sufficient grid capacity is anticipated by 2040. A direct transmission connection is the alternative.

That makes firm power, interim generation, emissions and delivery dates part of the public account. A promise of clean growth must survive the engineering reality required to deliver it.

The Fens Reservoir targets supply from 2036. The proposed White Horse Reservoir near Abingdon targets 2040. Those dates must be reconciled with development, household growth and drought resilience. A future reservoir is not present supply.

THE LAND RIGHTS CAN OUTLIVE US

National Grid explains that a one-off easement payment can secure permanent equipment rights registered against a property title, continuing when ownership changes.

A future owner can inherit access obligations and restrictions after the original payment has been spent.

SSEN’s specimen deed illustrates successor obligations, equipment access and restrictions on building or planting. Its optional relocation clause places specified costs on the landowner. It also includes maintenance and damage safeguards.

These are illustrative mechanisms; each project’s actual deeds matter. A payment to one generation can secure rights that constrain the next.

The Government’s answer of 23 October 2025 said it had not assessed the fairness of recurring wayleave payments versus one-off easement payments.

At Uxbridge Moor, the council’s September 2025 disposal decision explicitly links a conditional land sale to data-centre connections. Negotiations took place against the prospect of compulsory purchase. Financial and legal details sat in confidential annexes; the council said it had obtained best consideration.

National Grid identifies around 1.8GW of requested data-centre connections in the cluster.

Public-interest powers are helping unlock commercial demand. The public should see the need, alternatives, compensation and lasting return that justify those interventions.

The Government’s Growth Zone policy also proposes safeguarding land, case by case, for future expansion. Land availability is being protected for investors. The interests of the communities living with those decisions need equally durable protection.

PRIVATE INVESTMENT DOES NOT SETTLE THE PUBLIC ACCOUNT

Near Scunthorpe, Elsham Tech Park is promoted with up to £10 billion of private investment. Its water report compares cooling designs; the wider Northern Lincolnshire bid promotes several campuses.

Each needs its own account of power, water, permanent employment, public contributions and deliverability. A large investment headline cannot supply those answers.

Ofgem’s July 2026 Curate consultation describes how permission and a grid connection can increase land value. It warns that speculative projects tie up scarce capacity and distort network investment signals, with resulting harms borne by consumers.

The investment case must be tested against credible end-user demand, secured funding and the consequences if a project withdraws.

The National Wealth Fund’s Scottish DataVita deal includes a £202 million guarantee. It supports approximately £300 million of financing, with the capacity of two buildings contracted to CoreWeave for 15 years.

A guarantee may never produce a taxpayer loss. It still creates public exposure whose value depends on the fee, risk protections and benefits secured.

Government also promises strategically important AI companies will remain anchored here. Asked about UK headquarters, hiring, tax residency, intellectual property and clawbacks, its 10 July 2026 answer on Sovereign AI equity investments argued such anchoring conditions would create a “significant competitive disadvantage”.

The fund’s FAQ describes its approach to avoiding bespoke conditions that harm competitiveness.

That tension demands an answer. If keeping the benefits in Britain helps justify public backing, show the binding commitments securing that outcome. Public equity may earn a return; wider national benefits need their own evidence.

BRITISH SOIL DOES NOT GUARANTEE BRITISH CONTROL

The Magnificent Seven are Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA and Tesla. Their roles differ, and important developers and financiers sit outside that grouping.

One documented public co-investment is Isomorphic Labs, whose privacy notice identifies it as an Alphabet company and Google affiliate. The individual government investment amount is withheld on commercial-sensitivity grounds.

Valuable scientific work and public accountability belong together. The public should know what stake, rights and measurable benefits its investment secured.

The CMA’s 2025 final cloud investigation found competition was not working well, identifying barriers to switching and sustained returns above capital costs for Microsoft and AWS. Its 16 October 2026 update reports improvements but continuing cloud barriers. The ability to change supplier belongs in any serious account of sovereignty.

Ownership, access to computing, data control, competition and retention of financial value are different tests. A British address answers only one of them.

Hawking’s warning should lead us to examine those relationships before they become harder to challenge.

A CONNECTED PROGRAMME NEEDS A COMPLETE PUBLIC ACCOUNT

Culham’s AI partnership opportunity was being marketed in July 2024, before its Growth Zone announcement. The AI Energy Council launched in April 2025 explicitly linked energy policy and AI growth. Google, Amazon and Microsoft appear in its April 2026 meeting record.

These links are documented. They should be matched by a complete account of costs, resource limits, delivery dependencies and public benefit.

For the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, NESO submitted six pathways to ministers on 28 August 2026. Its FAQ describes the options report as confidential. Ministers choose a preferred route before consultation on the draft.

NESO says information about other options will accompany consultation. The test is whether people can compare the consequences and still influence the strategic choice.

The methodology works within Net Zero by 2050. Parliament should separately examine the wider costs and practical consequences of the statutory pathway.

The population deserves a meaningful choice before long-lived commitments narrow its options.

WHY HOPE OPPOSES THIS APPROACH

We oppose committing people’s bills, public resources and future choices without demonstrating a fair, deliverable and enforceable bargain.

Developers should meet the additional network and water costs they impose, on independently checked terms. Claimed savings used to justify support should be measured and reviewed.

Existing water users and the environment need enforceable drought protection. Land agreements must be fair to future owners, with clear compensation, relocation and restoration obligations.

Public backing must secure measurable benefits and a fair allocation of commercial risk. Contracts should state what happens when commitments fail.

The Government’s Growth Zone policy promises local benefits, including business-rate retention. Those benefits must be tested alongside the costs and restrictions accepted in return.

Families should not become the financial backstop for private expansion. Ministers should be required to demonstrate that they are protecting the public before asking it to accept the commitment.

TODAY’S DEALS. OUR CHILDREN’S BILLS.

AI can improve human life. Its physical expansion still has to earn public consent through honest costs, dependable engineering and benefits people can hold its owners to.

Our petition asks Parliament to temporarily suspend Climate Change Act targets pending an independent national assessment of costs and practical impacts. Its scope includes rising electricity demand from data centres.

Sign the petition — make them show the evidence

Read the documents. Share the evidence. Ask your MP who is protecting the consumer, what obligations are being accepted and what will remain for the next generation.

Our children’s future deserves a better guarantee than a corporate promise.

Evidence notes

Evidence checked to 16 October 2026. The article combines documentary findings with HOPE’s stated policy position. Ofgem’s funding description covers networks generally; it is not an AI-only cost estimate or proof that long-term funding is inherently unfair. DESNZ’s answer concerns its own tracking. No project-specific household subsidy has been quantified here.

The proposed changes to Ofgem’s principal objectives require legislation. The 2023 and 2024 duties already have their own legal frameworks. Pricing support is conditional and prospective. Levy relief concerns a specific tax. The DataVita guarantee overlaps its financing package and is not a grant or realised loss. Sovereign AI’s equity conditions do not establish the terms of every public contract.

The initial Leeds supply request is reported by South Leeds Life; the original supply letter has not been inspected. The February drainage objection is superseded by the April report’s no-objection finding. Final technical supply agreements, issued permission and enforceable cooling-water limits remain to verify. The October company response is reproduced by campaigners and has not been independently authenticated. The proposed campus is not established as a cause of drought.

The SSEN deed is a template with an optional relocation clause, not an executed site agreement. Easements, temporary wayleaves, land safeguards and outright sales are different arrangements. Uxbridge Moor’s conditional disposal record does not establish completed compulsory purchase or undervaluation. Reservoir proximity does not prove dedicated AI supply. Capacity requests, IT load and actual consumption differ. Elsham’s water objection was withdrawn in the committee extract reviewed, with recommended conditions; final terms remain to verify.

Climate policy predates the current AI programme. The reviewed record does not establish it was originally devised for all seven companies. Hawking’s speech supplies a warning about concentrated power, not proof of individual wrongdoing or endorsement of HOPE. The photographs show Hawking and existing grid infrastructure, not an operating AI campus.

Open the linked source register