For years, electricity customers have helped pay for Drax’s switch from coal to biomass. Now, with consumer support continuing into 2031, the site is being promoted for a vast AI campus. The people financing the energy system deserve a full account of what they are getting back.
By Shane Oxer and Annette Exley — Hope to Save Our Countryside Campaigners | 4 November 2026
Drax Power Station. News screenshot supplied by Shane Oxer from Construction Enquirer’s coverage. Visible cooling-tower plumes are water vapour; the carbon figures below come from published reporting.
Another multibillion-pound announcement. Another promise of jobs, investment and national renewal. For families trying to afford their electricity and heating, the first question should be what this development will mean for their bills.
Drax has become a test of whether ministers and regulators can distinguish a commercial opportunity from a continuing claim on the public. Consumers have already made a substantial contribution. They are entitled to see the terms of the next chapter.
The public has already paid billions
Ember’s published analysis estimates that Drax received £8.72 billion in biomass support from 2012 through 2025, including £999 million in 2025 alone. That annual estimate works out at roughly £2.7 million a day. These figures should be attributed to Ember, whose analysis uses company reporting and scheme-payment data.
The support has come through the Renewables Obligation and Contracts for Difference, mechanisms whose costs are recovered through the electricity system and consumers’ bills. The policy encouraged coal-to-biomass conversion by treating qualifying biomass electricity as renewable generation. Households and businesses helped make that transition commercially viable.
The support continues. Drax’s annual report confirms a new contract covering April 2027 to March 2031. DESNZ’s earlier assessment estimated the proposed arrangement at about £470 million a year in 2023–24 prices; actual payments depend on market conditions and the final terms. Annual support is expected to fall substantially, while continuing for four more years.
The Government’s case is that Drax provides dispatchable electricity when the system needs it. That is a service with value. Ministers must still demonstrate that the price, the alternatives and the allocation of risk offer consumers the best deal.
A £20 billion headline needs a public account
The announcement of 3 November brings together Drax, Brookfield and Radiant, backed through the Brookfield–Qai venture. The ambition exceeds 1GW of data-centre capacity, with potential investment above £20 billion, including semiconductor chips. The first phase targets up to 100MW of computing capacity in early 2028, subject to planning, network and commercial conditions.
That is a proposed commercial investment package. It should not be described as a £20 billion UK public subsidy. The question is how the campus would interact with a power station already receiving consumer support, and which additional costs would fall on the wider electricity system.
A large investment announcement does not settle that question. Publish the connection costs, developer contributions, shared operating costs and protections against commercial delays. Residents and billpayers need figures they can examine.
The 500MW private-power question
A parliamentary answer from 7 September confirms that Drax’s 2027–31 contract allows it to request permission to supply up to 500MW to a data centre through a private wire. Government and the Low Carbon Contracts Company must assess affordability, energy security and sustainability.
Permission to request that arrangement does not establish that it has been approved, or that privately supplied electricity will receive subsidy. It does establish the need for a published explanation of how public support and private revenues would be kept properly accounted for.
How would the costs of boilers, maintenance, fuel handling, cooling and reserve capacity be divided? How would private power revenues affect the support Drax needs? What safeguards would prevent the same shared costs being recovered twice?
The CMA’s Subsidy Advice Unit had already asked DESNZ to better evidence why closure was the most likely outcome without support. If a long-term AI power contract improves the station’s commercial prospects, the assumptions behind continuing subsidy should be tested again.
Drax says its public-system role will remain unchanged. Ministers and the system operator should publish the analysis demonstrating what capacity remains available during winter peaks, maintenance and major outages.
The first phase will draw from the grid
Drax’s own announcement says the first phase would import electricity from the grid. Later phases envisage direct biomass supply. Locating computing equipment beside a power station does not remove its demand on the national system.
A continuous electrical load of 500MW would consume about 4.38 terawatt-hours a year, calculated over 8,760 hours. That is an illustration of scale, not a forecast: published computing capacity and total facility demand are different measures, and cooling and other equipment also use electricity.
The public should see the complete demand forecast, the firm connection rights and the arrangements for keeping that demand supplied. It should also see the effect on other users seeking connections and on the costs borne by existing customers.
Carbon does not disappear under a renewable label
Drax’s 2025 ESG report records 14.085 million tonnes of direct biogenic carbon dioxide across the group, separately from its headline Scope 1 and 2 figures. This is a group-wide disclosure, not a station-only lifecycle total. It is nevertheless clear evidence that substantial physical emissions accompany the biomass business.
The IPCC explains that excluding biogenic CO₂ from the energy-sector total avoids double counting with land-sector carbon accounting. It expressly warns that this does not establish carbon neutrality or sustainability. Forest Research says the climate outcome depends on the forests, the material used and what would otherwise have happened to it.
Drax’s station fuel table includes low-grade roundwood and thinnings alongside wood-industry residues. The full assessment must examine sourcing, processing, transport, forest-carbon effects and timescales. A renewable classification cannot answer all those questions.
Ofgem found failures in Drax’s 2021–22 profiling-data reporting, leading to a £25 million voluntary redress payment. Its decision did not find evidence that renewable certificates had been wrongly issued. The April 2026 audit update found the Canadian reporting reviewed for 2023–24 materially correct, while identifying documentation improvements. Both findings belong in the account.
The Environment Agency granted a carbon-capture permit variation in August 2026. A permit does not establish that commercial capture is operating. Expected wood consumption and physical emissions should be published for the station with and without the AI campus.
An energy concentration is growing around Selby
Eastern Green Link 2 is already under construction: a 2GW subsea transmission link between Peterhead and Drax, targeting operation in 2029. Its developers have described approximately £4.3 billion of nominal investment. That network project has its own purpose and funding case; its whole cost cannot be assigned to the proposed AI campus.
The solar developments are substantial too. East Yorkshire Solar Farm is described at approximately 400MW, connecting at Drax. Helios has consent for 190MW, with its Order providing for a Drax connection. Light Valley proposes a 500MW connection at Monk Fryston. In the wider Humber corridor, Keadby 2 already operates 893MW of gas generation.
Generation, transmission and large electricity demand are concentrating across this area. Communities need to see the combined consequences for land, traffic, noise, water and the landscape. Each project’s funding must be traced, while the cumulative physical impact is assessed as a whole.
Drax’s existing cooling infrastructure also requires scrutiny. The campus should publish its own annual and peak water needs, drought arrangements and discharge impacts. Existing industrial infrastructure is an asset, not evidence of unlimited spare capacity.
Make the benefits measurable before committing the costs
Drax points to Baringa’s February 2025 modelling, commissioned by the company, which estimated £1.6–3.1 billion in system savings from keeping the station open under the support arrangement. Those modelled benefits deserve examination alongside the costs. They do not establish the consumer benefit of the newly announced AI campus.
The assessment should now include prospective private power revenues, extra demand, network requirements, emissions and delivery risks. It should show the expected change in household and business bills, who pays if the tenant or timetable changes, and what enforceable benefits the host communities receive.
The Government’s Data Centre Covenant, published on 28 October, says developers should cover the energy costs they create so households and other businesses do not pick up the bill. That commitment provides a specific test for Drax. Publish the evidence showing how it will be met.
Billpayers who helped sustain this power station are entitled to transparent terms, a fair allocation of costs and a measurable return in security and affordability. Their contribution should strengthen their claim to answers.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE
Our Parliamentary petition 780321 — Suspend Climate Change Act targets & undertake a full national impact assessment calls for Parliament to examine the full costs and impacts, including bills, energy security, land and infrastructure requirements, and rising demand from data centres.
It has passed 10,000 signatures and qualified for a Government response. We are now campaigning for 100,000, when it will be considered for a parliamentary debate.
The Drax announcement strengthens the case for that assessment. Before further commitments are made, the public should be able to see who pays, who benefits and who carries the risk.
Figures and published arrangements checked on 4 November 2026. Subsidy estimates are attributed to their sources; the proposed AI investment is not presented as a UK government grant. Sources are linked throughout.
Leave a Reply