My response to the ESO East Anglian Network study
I have been a leading campaigner, along with offSET colleagues, for more choice on electrical transmission infrastructure – strongly opposing National Grid’s approach to offer just one ‘choice’ to communities; pylons through swathes of open countryside in Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk.
Today, I have formally responded to the ESO review of East Anglian transmission options, backing the ‘underground HVDC’ option because it avoids permanent damage to the countryside, BUT at a cost that is potentially even more economic than pylons.
When National Grid first offered my constituents a single ‘Henry Ford’ choice of one pylon route through our precious countryside, I vowed to campaign for a fair deal – meaningful choice, with credible evidence. I therefore called in Parliament for an independent expert review of alternatives to the pylons.
We were told there were no credible and cost effective alternatives. Of course, with ‘traditional’ undergrounding being more expensive than pylons by some margin, like many campaigners I had hoped for a fully offshore option – as we have already seen confirmed just this week in the north of England with the HVDC Eastern Link, costing billions.
In fact, ESO have found that by using HVDC cables underground, they are able to propose an alternative to pylons that could be delivered at comparable or lower cost. This is assuming a baseline of 2034 and, whilst some may say that pylons could be delivered quicker, it must be evident from the level of opposition that pylons would receive far more legal challenge. I am incredibly grateful to ESO for their work and the professionalism and open mind with which they have approached this challenge.
With an option at hand, backed by the most credible evidence, which means we can deliver our electricity transmission needs affordably and efficiently - yet without new pylons – we should seize this way forward.
Finally, it is of course the case that no option is without impact or infrastructure. Undergrounding can be damaging in construction because it usually requires such wide trenches – though any option will have construction impacts. However, that is particularly the case with traditional undergrounding, where pylon-borne power is undergrounded for part of its route, as would be the case with the pylon route being required to go underground through the AONB and Dedham Vale – including the need for large buildings both where the pylons go underground and emerge. Instead, with a single underground HVDC network, there isn’t the need to have such wide trenches and there would be far less impact than partial undergrounding between pylons.
This option is good for the Dedham Vale, and South Suffolk; it is affordable; and I believe it would be far less damaging to our countryside in the long term, supporting our rural way of life – including our crucial tourism and agricultural businesses.
I will now be setting out to National Grid my view and engaging with my constituents on theirs.
