Although this article is from March 2016, it is a great verification of Tories considering a form of Nationalisation of National Grid back then (due apparently to "Big Profits"). It begs the question.... Why did they not follow through? And what will they do about it now? Surely, this further illustrates why Mrs Leadsom must halt developments and call a Public Inquiry.
The Week UK | National Grid: will Tories nationalise the energy system operator? | Mar 3, 2016
Ministers are considering a range of options, including an independent, public-owned company
As concern grows over the UK's energy security, it has emerged that the government is considering stripping a key system-operator role from National Grid and handing it to a public-owned body.
That sounds a bit like a nationalisation?
It does, doesn't it? But it's not quite that simple.
National Grid is a private company formed from the split of the Central Electricity Generating Board in 1990 and was fully privatised along with the regional power companies that were handed ownership in the subsequent years. It listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1995. The company is both the system and network operator of the UK's power grid.
What is being proposed is a public-owned, not-for-profit company takes over the "system operator" role. It would "manage the country's electricity supplies, switch off factories and request emergency back-up generation" to prevent blackouts, says The Times.
So National Grid would remain private?
Yes, but it will be stripped of key powers to oversee a network from which it derives big profits. That's no bad thing, say its critics, and is, in fact, the main reason the reforms are being considered.
National Grid is said to have major conflicts of interest. In particular, says The Guardian, it "owns many of the country's electricity transmission lines and pipelines… [and] has a financial interest in supplying ever larger volumes of power rather than encouraging demand reduction, which is another way of preventing power shortages and keeping the lights on".
The Times also cites its huge investments in the new cables that will quadruple the UK's power importing capacity at a time when "virtually no new power stations are being built" at home.
How would a new oversight regime work?
There are a few options, by all accounts, but the one ministers are thought to be "leaning" towards is a model similar to that used for Network Rail: the company would be independent of government but publicly owned and overseen at arm's length by Ofgem, the industry regulator.
"This option maximises independence of the system operator both from market participants and government. It is the approach taken by the majority of [other countries] and has been demonstrated to work well," says a report outlining the proposals.
What does National Grid think?
Well, understandably it is not keen on the plans and rejects any notion that it has conflicts of interest.
"We take very seriously the need to provide confidence that any potential conflicts of interest are properly managed and have a lot of experience operating in an environment where this is a key part of what we do," it said. "We will continue to work closely with government and regulators to proactively manage potential conflicts as our role develops."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said it was looking at various options for changing the way the system worked. "There is a strong case for greater independence for the system operator to promote more competition in our electricity system," it added.
SEAS attended the Cabinet meeting at Suffolk County Council on January 14th where Councillor Richard Rout, Cabinet Member for Environment and Public Protection, presented their response to SPR's DCO proposals for offshore windfarms East Anglia One North (EA1N) and East Anglia Two (EA2). Find out exactly what your local Suffolk County Councillors have said to add weight to your Representations.
Plans for offshore windfarms off the Suffolk coast have not been thought through adequately, says Suffolk County Council. Among the issues raised were the visual impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, impact on tourism, the severe effects on the village of Friston, doubts about the planting mitigation, noise and disturbance on communities and road networks.