The national energy regulator, Ofgem, has just signed off on a staggering £28 billion investment package for the nation’s gas and electricity networks. This move, they claim, is a vital step to shore up security, bolster resilience, and pave the way for a fully electrified economy. On the surface, it’s a grand vision: £17.8 billion is earmarked to prop up and modernise the national gas grid, keeping it—in their words—”among the safest and most resilient in the world.” A further £10.3 billion is destined for the electricity transmission network, promising new power lines, substations, and fancy tech to stop the lights from flickering. Add this to the upcoming RIIO-3 price control period starting in 2026, and Ofgem boasts the total investment in grids could balloon to a cool £90 billion.
Let’s be blunt: this is a monumental bet, and the bill is being passed directly to the public. Ofgem admits, with a bureaucratic shrug, that these investments will inevitably push network charges on household bills higher. Their own figures project that by 2031, the average dual-fuel household will have forked out an extra £108 specifically for these grid upgrades—£48 for gas, £60 for electricity. Then, with the confidence of a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat, they claim that the benefits of a expanded grid and reduced reliance on imported gas will magically whittle that increase down to a mere £30 per year, or “less than £3 a month.” For families already hammered by a prolonged cost-of-living crisis, where energy bills remain stubbornly at historically high levels, this feels less like a careful calculation and more like wishful accounting. The promise of future savings has a nasty habit of evaporating, while the line items on our bills are painfully concrete.
From a deeply skeptical standpoint, this entire scheme reeks of a dangerous paradox and a profound misallocation of capital. The core of the government’s own net-zero strategy is to wean the nation off fossil fuels, notably gas for heating. So, sinking nearly £18 billion into the *gas* network is akin to spending a fortune gold-plating a horse and cart while claiming you’re building a bullet train. Industry analysts and critics have repeatedly warned that this locks in costly gas infrastructure for decades, creating a “stranded asset” risk that future generations will be forced to pay for, regardless of whether they use it. It’s a sop to the powerful gas lobby disguised as pragmatism.
Furthermore, the regulator’s mantra that “investing in networks is the cheapest way to use clean energy” is a highly contentious claim that deserves fierce scrutiny. A chorus of energy economists and consumer groups argue that Ofgem consistently underestimates the potential of cheaper, decentralised solutions like local battery storage, demand-side response, and truly ambitious home insulation programmes. Pouring tens of billions into vast, centralised grid projects primarily enriches the monopoly network companies, whose profit is guaranteed as a percentage of their capital expenditure. It’s a system that incentivises pouring concrete and stringing cables over smarter, more innovative solutions that could save consumers money faster. The promised boon for energy-intensive industries like steelmaking is also speculative; without a parallel, guaranteed supply of cheap, *truly* green electricity—which is far from certain—it’s just moving the emissions problem around.
In the end, this £28 billion approval is a masterclass in kicking the can down the road while presenting it as progress. It burdens bill-payers today with the cost of maintaining a gas system we’re supposed to be abandoning, and it doubles down on a traditional, top-down grid model at the very moment technology demands flexibility. The regulator pats itself on the back for keeping the projected bill increase “low,” but for millions, any increase is a fresh burden. This isn’t a bold step towards a resilient future; it’s a hugely expensive, backward-looking compromise that protects incumbent interests and ensures the complexity of our energy bills—and the profits of the network operators—will only grow. The public is being asked to fund a bridge to the past, all while being sold a ticket to the future.
