One of the big stories from the Labour Party Conference, concerns the Prime Minister’s announcement of a Great British Grid. If the Guardian, that enthusiast for all things net zero and proponent of the rapid expansion of renewable energy, notes that some “call it just another quango”, then perhaps it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. The criticism is reproduced in what is, by Guardian standards when dealing with such topics, a reasonably balanced article. We are told:

One network industry source told the Guardian: “If they want to have more competition, that’s fine. But at the end of the day, we are all chasing the same supply chains and skilled contractors, and then we’re all using the same planning system. The pressures won’t be different if you use a different name.”

It also answers the question “…are electricity networks driving up the cost of energy?” thus:

In short: yes. After years of underinvestment, Great Britain’s ageing power grids are in need of a multibillion-pound overhaul to build new pylons and substations while rolling out thousands of miles of new power lines across the country.

The amount spent by network companies is controlled by the industry regulator for Great Britain, Ofgem, before the costs are recovered through our energy bills – and the sums are rising fast. Network companies are expected to spend between £70bn and £80bn between 2026 and 2030, and network investments of £89bn could be needed in the 2030s, according to Neso.

This means bill levies will rise, too. Power grid costs currently make up almost a quarter of household electricity bills – almost £210 on the average annual dual-fuel bill last year. Some analysts believe that could rise to £341 a year by 2030.

Worse still, it notes that the companies within the energy networks industry

are already tightly controlled by Ofgem, which approves all their spending and how it is collected from bills. It is also guided by the government-owned Neso, which has set out the roadmap for the government’s energy policies.

“If the government wants things to be different it is within their power to make changes,” the industry source added. “I don’t think spending £4bn in an industry already spending £70bn in the next few years will do much to change anything.”

Sam Richards, the chief executive of the pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, accused Burnham of “setting up yet another quango” rather than “doing the serious work of bringing down bills” by reforming the market and the planning system.

“This is a sideshow,” he said. “Britain needs more competition and fewer barriers to new energy projects, not more government bureaucracy with a grand name.”

Pretty damning, then. So what do we actually know? The answer, I’m afraid, at this stage is not a lot. DESNZ has today issued a press release but it’s light on details, and the heading and sub-heading seem to have been written by a politician rather than by an engineer: “Great British Grid to speed up connections and cut bills – Families and businesses across the country will benefit from faster grid connections.”

It runs to just ten short paragraphs, with six further paragraphs under “Notes to editors”. We are promised “faster grid connections, greater energy security and lower costs”, but we aren’t really told how this will come about. We do learn that Great British Grid is to be a new publicly owned body “within” Great British Energy, and that it “will be able to invest in our electricity grid.”

In fairness to Andy Burnham, it’s not his fault that others chose to put the cart before the horse, nor that consequently gridlock has been an increasing and increasingly pressing problem. In fairness, too, he hasn’t had long to come up with a solution, but it doesn’t seem that he’s found one. Private investment (remember it’s never a cost, it’s always an investment) “will continue to play a vital role” but the “scale of the challenge” (it’s a challenge, not a glaring mess) “requires additional public investment and dedicated leadership”. That being the case, it seems only fair to ask what DESNZ and OFGEM have been doing and, for that matter, what has been the point of Great British Energy to date? And what form is this public investment and dedicated leadership to take? The press release doesn’t tell us how much public money is to be thrown at sorting out the mess, but as the Guardian has noted, the mooted figure of £4 billion, in the context of a spend of between £70bn and £80bn between 2026 and 2030, and network investments of £89bn in the 2030s doesn’t really amount to a row of beans. So it’s down to dedicated leadership, then? What does that amount to?

Great British Grid will bring together public and private investment to support the delivery of critical network infrastructure across the country. Working alongside existing network operators, it will help accelerate projects, increase competition and support the delivery of the grid upgrades needed to power Britain’s future.

We aren’t told how this will happen. Nor are we told how it will solve the problem that “…we are all chasing the same supply chains and skilled contractors…”. We’re told that the government is already working with NESO and Ofgem to reform the connections system, including overhauling the connections queue and removing more than 300 GW of speculative capacity, so this offers nothing new there. We’re told that further investment will be needed, but if the taxpayer can contribute a measly £4 Billion to a required figure that is well north of £100 Billion, we remain unenlightened. We’re told that “the government will also bring forward reforms to expand self-build connections”, but we don’t need a Great British Grid in order to implement those (self-build connection) reforms.

In addition:

The government will also accelerate the competitive tendering of transmission projects, allowing a wider range of organisations, including Great British Grid, to compete to deliver new network infrastructure. This will help drive innovation, improve delivery and secure better value for consumers.

Yet the Notes to editors make it clear that the role of existing network operators remains unchanged and that Great British Grid will complement, rather than replace, the existing institutions responsible for Britain’s energy system. Similarly Ofgem remains the independent economic regulator responsible for regulating the energy market and network companies, protecting consumers and ensuring value for money. NESO (National Energy System Operator) remains responsible for operating, planning and coordinating the electricity system. Also “We do not expect Great British’s Grid’s role to impact existing project commitments under the in-force and in-negotiation Ofgem licences.”

Finally, “The initial start-up costs for GBG will be covered by GBE’s existing budgets. As grid delivery has a long development time, the long-term budget for this expanded remit will be considered as part of a future spending review.”

Time will tell, I suppose, but this looks like a non-announcement to keep the faithful happy and to deflect from the failure of the government to achieve the reduction in energy bills that the Labour Party promised before the last general election. There seems to be little if any substance, and nothing that is talked about needed the creation of yet another Quango in order to achieve it. After all, don’t we already have a National Wealth Fund (the re-branded Infrastructure Bank)? It claims its strategy/mission is “to invest in capital-intensive infrastructure, supply chains and businesses across the UK, driving more than £100 billion of finance to unlock long-term economic growth and accelerate the transition to clean energy.”

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?