UK Grid Reform: Bottom Line on DESNZ, NESO, Ofgem

How large demand projects secure a connection to the grid is about to change. The Government has set out initial proposals and has given industry the chance to input. Regen's response is linked below.   It is understandable that any government with an industrial strategy will want to ensure projects contributing to that strategy can connect - if they can't then the industrial strategy will be undermined. Regen supports the introduction of "prioritisation mechanisms" allowing government to accelerate strategic demand projects. Our key concern is that under current proposals, areas outside Mayoral Strategic Authorities cannot submit projects for strategic designation. A quick look at a map of MSAs suggests there would be no route for local authorities along the south coast of England to nominate ports with electrification plans for strategic prioritisation. The Government should reconsider the role of democratic input into this process.   The most controversial idea mentioned in the consultation is to introduce auctions to re-allocate connection capacity. Regen is cautious about the use of auctions. Our concerns are that the price to secure a connection would not reflect the costs of providing the capacity and that auctions would likely favour developers with greatest financial resources. It is hard to imagine Network Rail coughing up more for a connection than a data centre - so how would Network Rail accelerate its connection?   Other proposals which we support include aligning network planning with a government data centre strategy and a bigger role for non-firm connections. An overall comment is that the proposals are all at a very early stage of development with many questions unanswered. We have set out five key questions for DESNZ to consider on p3 of our consultation response.   We also think DESNZ and NESO should be publishing more data on the nature of the connections queue, including its composition by sector, capacity, location, and anticipated connection dates. More data and a fuller impact assessment will help us to have a more informed policy debate. We will discuss this and other connections topics at the Regen and Electricity Storage Network grid connections working group today. Joe Colebrook | Nikki Beverley Pillinger | Hannah Stanley | Rachel Hayes | Merlin Hyman OBE | Olly Frankland | Alex Temple

https://lnkd.in/eCkrY-Bc FERC just made something very clear… As demand from data centers, AI, and advanced manufacturing accelerates, the question isn’t just how much load is coming—it’s who controls how that load connects to the grid. At a recent forum, Laura Swett affirmed that when large loads connect to the interstate transmission system, it falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. That’s a big deal. For years, load growth has largely been a state and local conversation. But when that load touches the transmission system—especially in organized markets like PJM Interconnection—it becomes a national issue tied to reliability, cost allocation, and speed to market. Here’s what this means: 🔌 The federal government is stepping in to help accelerate interconnections 🏗️ Large load customers (data centers, AI, industrials) will likely face more standardized rules ⚖️ The balance between state control and federal authority is shifting in real time And zooming out… This is another example of something we talk about all the time: Energy policy is economic policy. If states want to attract investment, jobs, and innovation, they need to ensure: • Reliable, dispatchable generation • Modern transmission infrastructure • Clear and predictable interconnection pathways Because the reality is simple: 👉 The states that can power growth will be the ones that capture it ⸻ #EnergyPolicy #GridReliability #FERC #PJM #DataCenters #Infrastructure #EconomicDevelopment

For most of the last decade, the grid connection queue was a fact of life. As a developer it was part of everything you knew or did. You applied. You waited. We all did. Sometimes for years. The system was first-come, first-served — which meant that whether your project was ready to build tomorrow or existed only as a speculative spreadsheet, you occupied the same space in the same queue. By the time NESO began its reform process, that queue had grown to over 700GW. Four times what Great Britain needs to deliver its 2030 clean power targets. That era is now well and truly over. NESO, working with Ofgem and DESNZ, has fundamentally restructured how projects connect to the grid. The new system prioritises readiness — projects with planning permission, land rights, and genuine delivery capability move to the front. Speculative and stalled projects have been deprioritised. A new pipeline of 283GW has been confirmed, with Gate 2 connection offers being issued in phases through 2026 and into 2027. For large energy users — industrial customers, data centres, logistics operators, NHS estates — this matters in ways that haven’t yet fully landed in most boardroom conversations. The old queue gave everyone an excuse. ‘We’re waiting for a connection’ was a legitimate reason to defer decisions about generation, storage, private wire, and on-site energy strategy. That excuse is becoming harder to sustain. The new system rewards those who have thought it through. It will expose those who haven’t. The connection queue changing isn’t just a story about generators and developers. It’s a story about how every large energy user in the UK needs to rethink their energy strategy — because the system they were waiting for has fundamentally changed around them. The question is no longer ‘how long is the queue.’ It’s ‘are you ready for what comes next.’

Extreme weather events, targeted sabotage, and new sources of electricity demand focused attention on energy network resilience. Energy companies, Government, and investors must work together to unlock investment in the data and tech solutions that keep our grid safe, secure and efficient. We asked investors which areas of the crucial grid supply chain need the most investment or policy support. They said: Optimisers (83%) Data & tech solutions (71%) Hardware manufacturing (68%) Visit our web page to find out which parts of the grid they thought were already investment ready. Link to the findings: https://lnkd.in/eUcPqqvv #DeloitteET Netti Farkas-Mills Emma Dent Kirsty Davis Ariema Singh Arran Taylor Daniel Grosvenor Liz Wells MRTPI Matthew Guest Bia Bedri

This is a reality check. $600B+ in planned investment means nothing if power delivery and grid infrastructure can’t keep up.

👉 🇫🇮 SS INDEX FINLAND EDITION ⚡📊4,022 substations. Fleet Median R = 0.406. Consequence modifier R3 is the highest in the Nordic block (σ = 0.071). Finland’s grid shows a distinctive profile: Infrastructure leads (I = 0.421), Energy Transition follows closely (T = 0.400), and the Consequence modifier (R3) is the strongest in the Nordic bloc (σ = 0.071). R3 captures the human and economic stakes of failure at each substation: in Finland’s case, the large geographic spread of population, industrial dependency on continuous power (pulp, paper, data centres), and Arctic exposure conditions mean that individual substation failures carry unusually high consequences. 📉588 substations in High band (14.6%). The highest-risk substation is Karihaara sähköasema in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa, R = 0.681. 40.2 million simulations. 19 maakuntaa covered. 📍The consequence of failure defines the system. → https://lnkd.in/evxrzS5w ———————————————————————————————————————— Every grid risk framework rates a substation in a prosperous urban district and one in a vulnerable rural community as equal risks. The SSI Index is the only framework that asks the question they all ignore: when this substation fails, who suffers most? That is the gap we close — across the OECD, 180,000+ substations and the communities they serve. #FinlandEnergy #GridResilience #SSIIndex #NordicGrid #InfrastructureInvestment

Rising energy demand, an aging grid, and new barriers to infrastructure deployment are threatening affordability and American economic competitiveness. Ceres, Inc. commends the leadership of Reps. Peters and Evans, along with Reps. Garbarino, Vasquez, Ciscomani, Gray, Kiggans, and Houlahan in advancing bipartisan solutions to reduce costs for American businesses and families by unleashing affordable, reliable, homegrown clean energy. By eliminating unnecessary hurdles and ensuring fair, efficient reviews, the CERTAIN Act would provide the private sector with the confidence needed to unlock capital and ensure projects move forward at the pace America needs to win the AI race and accelerate advanced manufacturing and electrification. Congress must seize the momentum and pass legislation that includes critical reforms for permit certainty, transmission planning, and grid modernization in 2026.

“Private companies and states can innovate the grid further with market-driven solutions like consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) to address immediate infrastructure challenges and insulate existing ratepayers from possible impacts from new, large-scale loads. CRE would create off-grid utilities that “generate, transmit, and sell electricity directly to customers under voluntary contracts, without interconnecting to the existing regulated grid or seeking permission from economic regulators at the state or federal level.” Proponents argue CRE will lower energy costs, relieve existing grid constraints, and help meet rising electricity demand without bypassing permitting, safety, and environmental standards applied to existing grids. CRE utilities are likely to be powered by reliable, abundant, and cheap energy sources and technologies—including advanced natural gas turbines, SMRs, and next-generation geothermal—that produce fewer emissions, waste less water, and occupy less land. This reform is gaining traction federally and in the states. New Hampshire became the first state to adopt this reform last summer, while Senator Tom Cotton introduced a federal companion bill, the DATA Act, in early 2026.” https://lnkd.in/d-rf-HXC

https://lnkd.in/ehHff3xc The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to take steps to modernize how our grid is planned and operated—this time by accepting new transmission coordination rules tied to the expansion of the Southwest Power Pool into the Western U.S. At a high level, this move is about improving coordination between regions—something the industry has struggled with for years. Despite federal requirements going back over a decade, interregional transmission planning has produced virtually no major projects, even though it has proven critical during extreme grid events. That’s the gap this effort is trying to address: * Better coordination between neighboring regions * More efficient identification of transmission needs * Stronger ability to move power across broader geographies And that matters—because transmission is what ultimately unlocks generation, supports reliability, and helps manage costs. But it also reinforces a bigger point. We are seeing a lot of focus right now on demand growth—especially from AI and data centers—as the primary driver of rising energy costs. Yet at the same time: * We are still struggling to build transmission across regions * We are still working through market design and coordination challenges * And we are still seeing structural inefficiencies that impact price and reliability This isn’t just about how much demand is coming. It’s about whether the system is built to move power efficiently, plan regionally, and deliver when it’s needed. Efforts like this are a step in the right direction—but they also highlight how much work remains. Because without stronger coordination and infrastructure, even the best generation mix won’t be enough to keep costs down and reliability high. #EnergyPolicy #FERC #Transmission #GridReliability #Infrastructure #EnergyMarkets #SPP #DataCenters

Energy Drain vs Future Build Power is no longer defined by force projection alone. It is defined by how a system allocates its energy over time. In boardrooms and policy circles, the pattern is familiar: resources are committed to stabilizing recurring disruptions, quarter after quarter, until stabilization itself becomes the strategy. What began as an intervention turns into maintenance. What was once decisive becomes structural drag. The numbers are difficult to ignore. Since 2001, the United States has committed close to $8 trillion to wars and their long-term consequences in the Middle East. In the early phase of a new conflict, spending can reach $1–2 billion per day. This is not episodic expenditure; it is a sustained energy drain embedded in the system. The mechanism is not new. After the collapse of the Ottoman order, Britain governed the region through indirect control, drawing boundaries and managing the balance. It produced temporary stability but seeded long-term fragmentation. Over time, the cost of maintaining that structure exceeded the capacity to sustain it. The current model differs in form but not in burden. Acting as a global security provider distributes risk outward while concentrating costs inward. Outcomes remain unstable, while commitment persists. The system does not resolve tension; it circulates it. A parallel system is emerging with a different logic. China directs capital into infrastructure, logistics, and energy corridors. Ports, railways, and supply chains do not remove conflict, but they reorganize dependence. According to global infrastructure estimates, trillions are being redirected into connectivity rather than containment. The axis quietly shifts. The contrast is structural. One system absorbs shocks by spending on security. The other reshapes flows by investing in connectivity. Both are forms of power, but they operate on different time horizons. Albert Hirschman once described development as the strategic creation of linkages. What is visible today is a divergence in where those linkages are being built and where they are being defended. The Middle East remains the zone where these logics intersect, not as a center of resolution, but as a field of ongoing tension. The likely outcome is not a decisive victory, but prolonged containment, fragmented proxies, and negotiated pauses that defer rather than end conflict. Power, in the end, is not exhausted in moments of defeat. It is diluted in the quiet persistence of costs that no longer transform outcomes. And history rarely announces that moment clearly.