UK Infrastructure

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/15726788

Tucked away beyond the industrial landscapes of north-east Derbyshire and the M1 corridor, the Amber Valley is an oasis of greenery: ancient trees, listed buildings and public footpaths that are increasingly popular with tourists.

But Katie Hirst, a local resident, fears that appreciative visitors will vanish along with the unspoilt landscape if a route of 50-metre-high pylons is brought down the valley as National Grid intends.

“People come here for wonderful walks and the unspoilt landscape, and that would be gone, and the economy would really suffer,” said Hirst, a co-founder of Save Amber Valley Environment (Save), one of a growing number of grassroots groups opposed to pylon schemes across the country.

...

More than 600,000km of power lines will have to be unrolled across the UK over the next few years for the country to properly decarbonise. But the pylons and the renewable infrastructure that will carry them are already causing anxiety and resistance.

There were forceful statements from Keir Starmer last week, saying he would take the “tough decisions” necessary to get pylons built. The next day Ed Miliband was a little more emollient, promising to consider benefits for communities affected by the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, and community ownership of the assets, which could include onshore windfarms and solar farms.

So how is this going to work? For the government to meet the ambitious target of decarbonising electricity generation by 2030, new infrastructure – including wind turbines, on and offshore; solar farms; and new transmission systems such as pylons – will be essential.

But the other parliamentary parties either oppose pylons, or allow MPs in certain constituencies to oppose them. Local groups in some areas are also organising.

...

The Labour party says it can meet its ambition of being a “clean energy superpower” only by building the new infrastructure necessary. The decarbonising electricity target is likely to require a doubling of onshore wind capacity, a quadrupling of offshore wind and a tripling of solar power by 2030. This will require what transmission companies have described as a “colossal” investment in power grid upgrades, which will cost billions of pounds and is likely to make the country’s electricity infrastructure more visible than ever before.

The UK will need to install five times as many pylons and underground lines in the six years to 2030 as it has in the past 30 years – and four times more undersea cables than there are now, according to estimates from National Grid. Existing pylons and ageing cables will also need to be replaced. More than 600,000km of lines will need to be added or replaced by 2040 based on the age of existing transmission and distribution lines, the rollout of renewables and growing electricity demand, according to data from the International Energy Agency. This means cables will need to be rolled out at a pace of almost 100km every day for 17 years.

It is now even harder and more expensive for the UK's biggest water provider to borrow money as leading credit ratings agency Moody's has downgraded its debt to "junk" status.

Thames Water's parent company had already defaulted on some loan payments that make up its £16.5bn debt pile. More pressure will be put on its ability to meet debt obligations as a result of the downgrade.

The utility is in a perilous financial position, due to run out of money next May as it cannot raise any investment from current shareholders who described the company as "uninvestable".

Water regulator Ofwat requires utilities to maintain an "investment grade" debt ranking, something Thames Water no longer has.

Water companies could face a spate of legal challenges by people and businesses affected by sewage pollution after a ruling that United Utilities could be sued by a private company for damage caused by the dumping of human waste.

Lawyers said it was a “watershed moment” as the courts had previously ruled that penalties for water companies were a matter for the regulator, and companies could not sue firms for damage caused to their property by sewage pollution.

The Manchester Ship Canal Company, which has been trying since 2010 to bring a claim against United Utilities, has alleged that discharges from 121 sewage outfalls within its networks constituted a trespass.

In February 2012, the high court ruled in favour of United Utilities, but this was later overturned by the court of appeal, and then restored by the supreme court in 2014. Then, in March 2021, the high court ruled it was the role of regulators and not the courts to address problems caused by sewage dumping.

The Environmental Law Foundation, supported by the Good Law Project, challenged this decision, arguing that there should be legal options for people directly affected by sewage pollution. But the court of appeal found against them and said the only option for recourse in issues caused by pollution was through the regulator, and that the law did not allow people or companies directly affected to bring private claims against the water companies.

The case then went to the supreme court, which overturned the previous rulings and found that United Utilities can be held to account for damage caused by discharges.

The court said the 1991 Water Industry Act does not prevent the company from bringing a claim for nuisance or trespass when a canal is polluted by sewage discharges from United Utilities’ sewers, even if there has been no deliberate misconduct or negligence.