Last week’s House of Lords report into electricity grid infrastructure delivers a blunt verdict: ‘The grid is not ready’ for net zero. Published by the Industry and Regulators Committee, the report points to critical institutional failings that limit delivery of the UK’s clean power ambitions.
As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill reaches its Report Stage, these structural issues matter. For those seeking timely grid connections, this scrutiny is only the beginning. The debate has focused on queue reform, but the deeper threat to delivery may now lie in the planning system itself writes Paul Rogers, Technical Director at planning, design, and environmental consultancy tor&co.
Capacity questions that still need answers
While grid connection reform is welcome, its scope is fundamentally redistributive. The new ‘first-ready, first-served’ approach may help advance projects with planning certainty (Gateway 2), but it doesn’t create new capacity. Without urgent investment in physical infrastructure and reinforcement, developers will still be competing for access.
Gateway 1 projects face a real risk of delay or abandonment unless supported by strategic coordination and funding. Their later connection dates could push investment elsewhere or cause delays. Cancelled projects risk millions in lost UK investment. The Committee also warned that too much reliance is being placed on unproven reforms that may not deliver at scale or pace, risking bottlenecks even after reforms.
Meanwhile, Great British Energy’s emerging role introduces uncertainty. If it acts as a generator or investor, it may compete for grid headroom. Without a clear remit, it could crowd out private capital.
These are not theoretical concerns. NESO estimates over 700GW of projects are stuck in queues, while just 150GW is needed to meet net zero by 2035. Queue reform may help in the short term, but unresolved capacity will slow delivery.
Planning improvements, but not yet delivery-ready
Recent reforms offer useful changes, but many are targeted at improving the NSIPs regime. Raising the NSIP threshold for solar and wind to 100MW enables more projects to go through local planning. Updated policy now gives greater weight to low-carbon energy. Onshore wind can now re-enter the planning system in England. Under-resourced councils could face delays.
But the Lords Committee is clear: consent reform alone won’t deliver net-zero-scale infrastructure. Overlaps between Ofgem, DNOs, NESO and the incoming Future System Operator remain unresolved. Developers need confidence that reforms lead to viable projects.
As one witness told the Committee, “planning and delivery need to be joined at the hip”; a principle not yet reflected in how reforms are being implemented. The Committee specifically criticised the absence of a joined-up government plan linking grid investment, planning policy and delivery timelines. A missing framework that continues to undermine project confidence and coordination.
Winners, losers and uncertainties
The shift to ‘first-ready’ will advantage developers with planning consent and clear investment backing. But many early-phase and innovative projects may fall behind and risk losing financing windows. This shift risks a two-speed pipeline, stalling early-phase projects.
Without the kind of central delivery body recommended by the Lords Committee, akin to a Net Zero Delivery Agency, grid strategy remains fragmented, and risks reinforcing outdated infrastructure patterns.
Great British Energy’s role adds further complexity. If it functions as a generator or grid actor, developers need assurance that access remains transparent and not seen as a competitor, especially for SMEs.
What developers should do now
With political momentum building but delivery questions mounting, developers must approach current reforms with pragmatism and speed. In this shifting landscape:
- Audit your pipeline: Prioritise projects with planning certainty and investment backing. Ready-to-build status is now a competitive advantage.
- Engage regionally: Work with DNOs and councils to ease bottlenecks.
- Make the case beyond emissions: Highlight jobs, resilience and energy security.
- Track institutional reform: Monitor how the Future System Operator and Great British Energy evolve.
The Committee also flagged that Ofgem’s regulatory framework may be constraining DNO investment flexibility. Developers should stay alert to how this could affect local reinforcement and capacity upgrades.
The Lords report has rightly re-centred the debate on delivery risk. Developers now need to respond with speed, strategy and strong planning advice. Reform is in motion. Now the connections must follow.
