MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
Ten investigations. One national question: Is Britain’s energy transformation affordable, physically deliverable and properly accountable?
For years, the British public has been told that transforming our electricity system is necessary for energy security, lower bills and a cleaner future. But the official records raise further questions about the scale, sequencing and accountability of that transformation.
Over the past week I have published ten investigations into electricity bills, transmission costs, the delivery of grid upgrades, the regulator, data centres and the effects of energy infrastructure on our countryside.
Taken together, they make a case for serious scrutiny of how Britain plans and pays for its energy future. This is not simply a political argument about climate change. It concerns household bills, construction timetables, industrial competitiveness, communities and who is responsible for the decisions being made.
Here are ten findings I believe every household, business and Member of Parliament should consider.
1. £70 BILLION FOR THE GRID — WHERE IS THE COMPLETE VALUE-FOR-MONEY CASE?
Britain is planning up to £70 billion of electricity transmission investment between 2025 and 2031. It is an enormous financial commitment, much of it expected to be recovered through charges paid by electricity consumers.
Yet the National Audit Office found in September 2026 that the Government had not demonstrated that the selected portfolio of transmission projects was the best way to meet its objectives. It identified gaps in integrated programme management and whole-system appraisal.
Individual projects may have business cases. That alone does not prove the combined programme is the most economical route to a reliable electricity system. The grid needs modernisation, but necessary investment must still be justified.
THE QUESTION: Where is the independent, whole-system comparison showing that the proposed investment gives better value than other combinations of generation, storage, demand management and network development?
Source: National Audit Office, September 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
2. ONLY THREE OF 56 ESSENTIAL GRID PROJECTS ARE EXPECTED TO FINISH BEFORE THEIR OPTIMAL DATES
The Public Accounts Committee’s briefing for its 22 October 2026 hearing recorded that, of 56 ongoing projects considered essential to Clean Power 2030, only three were expected to be delivered before their optimal delivery dates. Four were forecast to complete after 2030.
An optimal delivery date is the point at which an asset is needed to limit wider system costs. Missing it is not automatically the same as missing a 2030 contractual deadline. But delays can still have a serious price.
A government deadline does not install a transformer. A connection agreement does not commission a new line. Generation and the grid need to be ready together.
THE QUESTION: How many gigawatts counted towards the 2030 pathway will be physically connected, capable of export, and supported by every essential network reinforcement?
Source: House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, 22 October 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
3. WE ARE PAYING BECAUSE GENERATION HAS OUTRUN THE GRID
When electricity cannot reach the people who need it, the system operator has to intervene. That can mean paying wind farms to reduce output and paying other generators, often gas stations nearer demand, to produce more.
The National Audit Office reported £1.9 billion in grid constraint costs in 2025/26. It warned those costs could reach as much as £7.8 billion by 2030 without concerted action. The higher figure is a risk scenario, not a bill already incurred.
Renewable generation is not the only source of network challenges. But building generation faster than the infrastructure needed to transport its electricity can impose avoidable costs.
THE QUESTION: Who is accountable for the cost of poor sequencing, and where is the published plan showing how costly network constraints will be reduced?
Source: National Audit Office, September 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
4. ANNUAL ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ARE FORECAST TO MORE THAN QUADRUPLE
NESO’s tariff publications show an annual transmission revenue requirement of approximately £3.32 billion in 2021/22. The October 2026 five-year forecast indicates approximately £13.80 billion by 2031/32.
That is more than four times the earlier figure. These are annual tariff revenue requirements, not simply new construction expenditure or audited revenue already received.
The costs cover existing network assets, investment, operation and financing. The public deserves to know which elements drive the rise, who receives the money and what savings are expected in return.
THE QUESTION: What will the average household pay for electricity transmission each year up to 2035, and what evidence supports the promised benefits?
Source: NESO TNUoS tariff reports, including October 2026 forecast.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
5. GAS IS NOT THE WHOLE EXPLANATION FOR ELECTRICITY BILLS
Gas has a major effect on wholesale power prices, and that fact should not be ignored. But neither should the substantial charges beyond wholesale energy.
The House of Commons Library illustrated a typical annual electricity bill of £875 under the April–June 2026 price cap. That included about £214 for networks, £42 for balancing and £78 for policy and social schemes.
Those three components totalled £334, around 38% of the illustrated electricity bill. They are different charges and not one single ‘Net Zero levy’. Some support vulnerable households; others finance infrastructure and the operation of the system.
Gas prices matter. But presenting them as the whole story conceals other important financial pressures.
THE QUESTION: Why is there no single, regularly updated public account showing every major electricity charge, where the money goes and how the figures change?
Source: House of Commons Library, 13 May 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
6. THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN REVIEW QUESTIONS WHETHER OFGEM HAS THE RIGHT POWERS AND STRUCTURE
Ofgem exists to protect the interests of electricity and gas consumers. Over time, its responsibilities have grown as the energy system has become more complicated.
The Government’s April 2026 review concluded that Ofgem’s current structure, tools and capabilities are no longer sufficient for a rapidly changing energy market. It also identified overlapping duties and blurred accountability involving Ofgem, DESNZ and NESO.
The Government proposes reforms, including three equal principal objectives covering consumers, Net Zero and growth. That change requires legislation. It creates a central question about how affordability will be protected when policy goals compete.
THE QUESTION: When a national energy target conflicts with consumer affordability, who is responsible for deciding what gives way — and on what published evidence?
Source: DESNZ, Ofgem Review final report, April 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
7. OFGEM HAS CHALLENGED HOW NESO DEMONSTRATES VALUE FOR MONEY
The National Energy System Operator has a vital role in keeping the lights on and informing long-term infrastructure decisions. Its performance deserves careful and fair scrutiny.
In September 2025, Ofgem’s assessment of NESO’s 2023–2025 business-plan period recognised achievements, but found that its reporting of evidence demonstrating value for money was consistently below expectations.
That is a specific regulatory finding about reporting and performance during a defined period. It does not prove the entire grid investment programme is wasteful. It does, however, strengthen the case for clearer financial evidence and accountability.
THE QUESTION: How will the regulator independently measure the value of NESO’s activities against their costs and actual benefits to consumers?
Source: Ofgem, NESO BP2 end-scheme assessment, September 2025.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
8. POLICY MAKERS MUST ALSO ACCOUNT FOR POLICY RESULTS
Jonathan Brearley became Permanent Secretary at DESNZ on 6 March 2026. His official biography records his earlier role in developing the Climate Change Act and his subsequent leadership of Ofgem.
Experience across these institutions is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. But it underlines how important it is that government officials, regulators and system operators clearly explain their different responsibilities and how decisions are independently challenged.
If costly assumptions prove wrong, the public should be able to follow the decision, identify who was accountable and see what has changed as a result.
THE QUESTION: Where is the independent review of earlier energy-policy assumptions, and who has authority to change the programme when the costs or delivery dates change?
Source: GOV.UK biography, Jonathan Brearley.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
9. DATA CENTRES HAVE CREATED A NEW TEST FOR ELECTRICITY PLANNING
Britain wants more artificial intelligence, cloud computing and data-centre infrastructure. These facilities need dependable electricity and sometimes very substantial grid connections.
Ofgem reported in July 2026 that demand connection applications had risen from 41GW to 125GW in less than a year, driven largely by data centres. It said data-centre projects represented at least 80GW of that pipeline.
Applications are not actual consumption. Some are speculative and may never connect. That is precisely why the electricity system should be planned using credible demand, not simply the combined total of requested connections.
Future housing, heating, transport and industry must also be included in an honest forecast of national requirements.
THE QUESTION: Where is the demand-led plan showing what electricity Britain will truly need, where it will be needed and what grid assets must be built first?
Source: Ofgem, 29 July 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
10. OUR COUNTRYSIDE CARRIES THE PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES
The costs of energy planning are not confined to electricity bills. Communities also live with major developments, changed landscapes, agricultural land impacts and local environmental risks.
On 27 October 2026, development consent was granted for the 800MW Great North Road Solar and Biodiversity Park project in Nottinghamshire.
My earlier investigation examined the history of flooding around Carlton-on-Trent and Sutton-on-Trent, and the assurances given in the project’s flood-risk material.
Previous floods do not, by themselves, prove that solar panels will increase future flooding. But residents are entitled to rigorous site-specific drainage and cumulative-impact evidence — and enforceable safeguards where a risk is identified.
THE QUESTION: Can the Government demonstrate that historic flood evidence, drainage, cumulative impacts and protection of nearby communities were all fully tested before consent was granted?
Source: DESNZ, Great North Road Solar decision, 27 October 2026.
Earlier investigation: Read the original article.
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER BRITAIN NEEDS ENERGY INVESTMENT
Of course it does. Britain needs reliable electricity supplies, modern infrastructure, secure domestic energy and the capacity to support industry, jobs and homes.
The real question is whether we are building the right system, in the right order, at a cost the country can afford.
These ten findings do not demonstrate that every renewable development is unnecessary or that all network investment is unjustified. They do demonstrate why public cost information, credible delivery timetables, proper comparison of alternatives and clear accountability are essential.
MY CHALLENGE TO GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
I have issued a public challenge to John Healey MP to defend the case for Net Zero in an independently chaired debate, supported by 21 evidence requests. That challenge remains open.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE — THE PETITION AND THE 10,000-SIGNATURE MILESTONE
Our parliamentary petition, Suspend Climate Change Act targets & undertake a full national impact assessment, calls for the statutory carbon budgets and 2050 Net Zero target to be temporarily suspended until Parliament has considered an independent assessment of their full costs and national impacts.
Our first target has been achieved. At 4:47 pm on Saturday 31 October 2026, the campaign’s live petition counter showed 10,002 signatures, taking us past the 10,000 threshold for a Government written response. At 100,000 signatures, the petition will be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee. These thresholds do not guarantee a policy change, but they provide formal opportunities to demand and scrutinise the evidence.
Whatever the latest signature count when you read this, the central request remains the same: publish the full national impact assessment and let Parliament examine the evidence.
Read the petition, check its latest verified signature total and sign if you support the request.
I believe Parliament should require a comprehensive, independently assessed national energy impact statement. It should show actual and forecast costs, realistic construction dates, alternative options, electricity reliability, industrial demand, and the effects on land and local communities.
Above all, it should identify who is accountable and who ultimately pays.
WHO IS PAYING?
WHO IS IN CHARGE?
WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE PLAN WILL WORK?
This is not a choice between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. It is about requiring evidence before imposing enormous financial and physical changes on the country.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE.
Shane Oxer — Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
Hope to Save Our Countryside
Evidence and accounting note
The £70 billion figure is an estimate of transmission investment over 2025–2031, not money already spent. Annual transmission revenue requirements are tariff measures and must not be added to construction costs as if they were separate expenditures. The £334 household-bill breakdown covers three distinct categories, not a single Net Zero levy. The £7.8 billion constraint-cost figure is a risk scenario, and electricity connection applications are not actual future consumption. Sources are linked beside each finding.
Leave a Reply