Reform UK say they’ll fight solar, battery and pylon developments in councils they control.

But can they actually block projects?

In most cases: no — but for sub-50MW schemes, refusal means delay. And in 2025, delay = grid risk.

Full breakdown here 👇
linkedin.com/pulse/power-...
#Energy #Grid

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome! Really interested to see where REMA goes on decoupling gas and electricity prices in the UK. Such a critical issue for getting to zero emission heating.

9. However, if they do choose locational pricing, they need to radically speed up the REMA process whilst also providing sufficient transparency and clarity to mitigate the development cost of capital risk. (end)

8. Overall, I would say that the long term political risks for labour of not opting for locational pricing outweigh the short term benefits of avoiding the decision. It's another one where short term expediency should not outweigh the best long-term strategy.

7. Yes, they could put in under-sea cables at vast expense to avoid this, but then the costs will start to mount and pressure on domestic and business bills will be red-meat for opposition parties.

6. Labour may not care about building lots of transmission over Tory constituencies in the SW, but may care a lot about the blow back from building lots of transmission in red wall constituencies in the N of England, which is where it is most needed to address constraints around the B6 boundary.

5. The political risk of not adopting locational pricing is cost, which it might be ok to absorb over time, but also the political cost of building lots more transmission lines, which will be needed if there is no incentive for generation and demand to co-locate.

4. On the one hand labour has made such a strong play on the 2030 clean electricity goal that there is a high political risk to not meeting that, and if there was an increased cost of capital due to location pricing it could create an investment hiatus and make it harder to achieve the 2030 target.

3. The question I have been pondering is how the choice stacks up in terms of political risk for the government and Ed Milliband?

2. Detractors say that the uncertainty it might create would increase the cost of capital for developers, and it will take a long time to design and agree, and that it represents a major distraction at a time when we need to be accelerating the deployment of clean energy assets.

1. A very rough simplification of the debate on locational pricing seems to be that proponents say it will create incentives for generation and demand to be developed close to each other and thereby avoid the need for lots of transmission lines to be built and so save lots of money for consumers.

(Thread) Given that we are expecting DESNZ to publish a summary of responses to the latest REMA consultation at some point I have been mulling the political calculations associated with locational pricing in the UK electricity market.

Ok, just getting set up here!