Local Area Energy Plans

Yet there is still a gap. NESO’s regional plans need local inputs to be credible, including demand projections, spatial constraints, sequencing preferences, but there is no meaningful or consistent dialogue taking place with local authorities. Without that, regional planning will either proceed on assumptions that are subsequently contested or stall while fighting objections to top-down diktats.

Even worse, communities with valuable National Grid connections are inundated with projects, some of which are unlikely ever to proceed. I recently hosted a surgery near Ratcliffe-on-Soar, in my Rushcliffe constituency, which hosted a coal-fired power station. One parish councillor told me that he and a small team of volunteers had reviewed over a dozen applications for new grid connections—over a dozen. This level of disorder means host communities cannot see the wood for the trees, and cannot picture how the projects that do go ahead will contribute to a joined-up narrative about local energy generation.

I believe that there is an answer: mandatory local area energy plans. This is not a new idea, as local area energy plans have existed as a methodology since 2018. Dozens of councils have produced them, detailing specific energy system changes, locations and delivery timelines, but they remain voluntary in England. That means the essential transition to green energy is potentially being made without consistent, meaningful local engagement across the country. I do not want to see that.

This Bill proposes that we do four things. First, it would place a duty on every local authority in England to prepare, adopt and maintain a local area energy plan. Secondly, critically, it states that these plans must identify sites capable of meeting energy generation targets set for each area. The Secretary of State would set those targets but communities would help to decide where the infrastructure goes, much like local plans for housing. In so doing, we would spread the load and take people on the journey.

Thirdly, the Bill would make data-sharing by distribution network operators mandatory, meaning that constraint data, reinforcement plans, connection queues and capacity forecasts would be provided in standardised formats. Finally, the Bill would give legal weight to local area energy plans. I believe that energy needs and generation should be a material consideration in planning decisions, and considered as formal evidence in network investment cases assessed by Ofgem.

Let me be clear about what the Bill would not do. It would not allow local area energy plans to contradict national policy statements, and it would not provide a mechanism for blocking infrastructure that has legitimate need. Rather, it recognises that local area energy plans can help to shape where, how and when infrastructure is delivered locally, and bring communities and elected representatives into a very important and consequential conversation. Handled badly, energy projects become a source of major grievance. Handled well, as has happened in Bassetlaw, they become something else: a story about jobs, investment, agency and, ultimately, consent and control.

I believe that this Bill is the only way to genuinely shift the dial away from “this was done to us” to “I had a say”; away from “nobody cares” to “this project was considered and discussed locally”; and away from “why here?” to “I understand why and how we are playing our part.”

I do not pretend that this Bill will satisfy everyone. Some people do not want wind turbines or solar farms full stop, and no amount of process should change that. However, in my experience, local opposition is not normally a fundamental objection to renewable energy. Rather, such opposition is about feeling blindsided and lacking control, and about not having a local narrative about which energy projects have been consented to and why, or an understanding about how those projects can contribute to a better, cleaner, local future.

It is estimated that £40 billion could be spent annually on new energy infrastructure between now and 2030. The question is not whether that money should be spent, because it must be spent; the question is: what evidence and voices inform how and where it is spent? The window of opportunity is narrow, because business plans for the next price control period and the regional energy strategic plans will both be finalised by 2028. Getting the local layer right now is therefore essential. That will reduce conflict, prevent delays and limit expensive changes down the line, so I hope the Government will take this matter seriously.

This Bill gives communities a genuine stake in where and how energy infrastructure is delivered. It connects local planning to real investment decisions and ensures that the transition happens with people, not to them, while still making the essential shift to cleaner, greener energy eminently deliverable. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

That James Naish, Chris Bloore, Maya Ellis, Dr Allison Gardner, Jodie Gosling, Chris Hinchliff, Ms Julie Minns, Perran Moon and Samantha Niblett present the Bill.

James Naish accordingly presented the Bill.