Zonal Pricing in Energy Divides the Nation

Power Struggle: The £8 Billion Battle to Rewire Britain and Your Bills

A fierce gale blasts into Scotland in the dead of night. This is perfect weather for the country’s vast offshore wind installations. You would imagine them spinning at full capacity, pouring clean, cheap electricity into homes and businesses across the United Kingdom. However, they were inactive. Instead, their operators receive substantial payments, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds for a single half-hour, to stop the turbines from turning. This paradox lies at the heart of a ferocious policy battle gripping the UK’s energy sector. It is a battle that pits giant energy firms against new suppliers, north against south, and has profound implications for every household’s bills and the nation’s climate ambitions.

This strange situation exists because Britain’s electricity grid is a relic of a past age. It was engineered to ferry power from large fossil fuel plants located near major cities. The system's original design was never intended for the green energy revolution. Now, it struggles to handle the massive amounts of electricity generated by wind facilities in the gusty expanses of Scotland and from distant, wild seas. This gridlock has created an absurd reality. The UK provides huge sums to waste clean energy while simultaneously paying gas plants to fire up and fill the gap. This inefficiency is not just a technical headache; it adds billions to national energy costs.

A System at Breaking Point

The core of the problem is a geographical mismatch. Britain’s most powerful renewable resources, primarily wind, are in Scotland and off its coasts. However, the greatest demand for electricity is hundreds of miles south, in England's densely populated cities. The wires connecting these regions, the transmission network, act as a bottleneck. They lack the capacity to move all the green power generated in the north to where it is needed most. When the wind blows strongly, this bottleneck becomes critical. The system overloads.

To prevent this, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) intervenes. It instructs wind farm operators to curtail, or reduce, their output. These generators then receive "constraint payments" as compensation for the lost revenue. On June 3rd, for instance, the Ocean Winds consortium received a payment of £72,000 for just half an hour of shutting down its Moray Firth wind facilities. Concurrently, the Grain gas-fueled station near London received £43,000 to increase its output, filling the energy void. These payments happen nearly every day.

The Staggering Cost of Gridlock

The financial toll of these daily interventions is staggering. In 2024, UK consumers paid over £390 million in constraint payments to Scottish wind farms alone. Analysis from Octopus Energy showed that Seagreen, which is Scotland's largest offshore wind installation, collected £65 million in one year to limit its generation 71 percent of the time. Yet, these payments to wind farms are only part of the story. The bulk of balancing costs, around 76%, actually goes to gas-fueled power plants that are paid to ramp up their production.

This entire dysfunctional process is known as "balancing the grid." This year, the expense of managing the grid has already surpassed £500 million. The body responsible for the electricity network, NESO, warns that the total annual cost could spiral to almost £8 billion by 2030. This huge expense is not absorbed by the government or energy companies. Instead, it is passed directly onto consumers through higher energy bills, undermining the promise that achieving net zero would deliver cheaper electricity for everyone. The system's inefficiencies are hitting every household in the pocket.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Gas Price Paradox

A fundamental flaw in the current national market exacerbates the cost crisis. The wholesale rate for electricity across Great Britain is set by the most expensive generator needed to meet demand at any given moment. Due to the grid's limitations, even on the windiest days, some gas-powered generation is nearly always required to top up the system and ensure stability. As gas is typically more expensive than renewables, its price becomes the benchmark for all electricity sold on the national market.

This means that even when renewable sources are generating over fifty percent of the country’s power, consumers do not feel the full benefit of this cheap, clean energy. The persistent reliance on gas to set the price keeps wholesale costs artificially high. This structural issue is a major reason why falling renewable energy generation costs have not translated into significantly lower household bills. The system effectively allows expensive fossil fuels to hold the entire market hostage, negating many of the economic advantages of the UK's world-leading wind power resources.

A Radical Solution: The Zonal Pricing Debate

In response to this escalating crisis, the administration is exploring a fundamental overhaul of the electricity market. This proposal, part of the wider Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA), is known as zonal pricing. It would dismantle the UK's single nationwide electricity market, which has been in place since privatisation over three decades ago. In its place, multiple, smaller regional ones would be established, each with its own wholesale electricity price determined by local supply and demand.

The idea is to create more accurate price signals that reflect the reality of the grid. Proponents, including the energy supplier Octopus Energy, the regulator Ofgem, and Citizens Advice, argue this would create a more efficient system. They believe it would cut the billions wasted on constraint payments and ultimately lower bills for everyone. However, the proposal has ignited a firestorm of opposition from major energy producers and investors, who warn it could destabilise the market and jeopardise the UK’s net-zero targets. The battle over zonal pricing has become one of the most ferocious policy battles in the industry's recent history.

The Argument for a Divided Grid

Advocates for zonal pricing argue it would solve the gridlock paradox. Take Scotland, a nation endowed with tremendous wind power but a relatively small population of 5.5 million. Under a zonal system, on a day with strong winds, Scottish power producers would no longer be paid to switch off. Instead, they would be compelled to sell their surplus electricity to local consumers. With a glut of cheap power and limited demand, the local wholesale price would plummet. On certain days, Scottish consumers might even receive their electricity at no cost.

This would not only benefit households but could also reshape the industrial landscape. Proponents suggest that zones with consistently cheap renewable power, such as Scotland, Yorkshire, and areas in Wales, would become magnets for energy-intensive industries. Businesses like data centers, chemical manufacturers, and advanced manufacturing companies could relocate to these areas to take advantage of low energy costs. This would stimulate regional economic growth and create green jobs where they are most needed, helping to rebalance the national economy.

Image Credit - Freepik

Attracting Green Industry and Investment

The capability of zonal pricing to drive industrial strategy is a key part of its appeal. By creating regions with some of Europe's cheapest electricity, the UK could attract billions in new investment. Energy-intensive sectors are crucial to the modern economy but are often forced to operate in countries with lower energy costs. A zonal system could reverse this trend, making Britain a more competitive location for everything from battery gigafactories to green hydrogen production facilities. This could create a virtuous circle of investment and innovation.

Furthermore, advocates say zonal pricing would encourage smarter investment in the energy network itself. Higher prices in demand-heavy regions like London and the South East would create a powerful incentive for developers to construct new renewable generation, such as solar farms and battery storage, closer to these population centres. This would reduce the overall reliance on the long-distance transmission of power, easing the burden on the national system and lessening the need for controversial new pylon networks across the countryside.

Learning from International Examples

The concept of zonal pricing is not entirely new. Several other European countries, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Italy, have already implemented similar systems. Advocates for the reform in the United Kingdom point to these examples as evidence that it can work. In Sweden, for instance, the transition to regional pricing happened in only 18 months, demonstrating that such a shift can be managed efficiently. These markets use price signals to manage grid congestion and encourage a more balanced distribution of energy resources.

However, the experience in these countries has not been without its challenges. While some regions benefit from lower prices, others face higher costs, leading to political tensions. The success of these systems often depends on the specifics of their design, including the number of zones and the mechanisms used to mitigate price volatility. Proponents in the UK argue that lessons can be learned from these international examples to design a system that maximises efficiency while protecting consumers from extreme price shocks.

The Promise of National Savings

Ultimately, the central claim from advocates like Greg Jackson, who is the CEO of Octopus Energy, is that zonal pricing would render the whole system significantly more efficient, generating huge national savings. Independent analysis commissioned by Octopus projects the savings could exceed £55 billion by 2050, which they assert could trim £50 to £100 annually from a typical bill. The contention is that by eliminating the absurd waste of compensating wind farms for shutting down, the system would save billions in balancing costs.

These savings could then be allocated to ensure no one’s costs exceed current levels. A portion of the multi-billion-pound efficiency dividend could be redistributed to shield consumers in higher-priced zones from bill increases. Supporters, including Ofgem's chief executive Jonathan Brearley, believe this approach offers the best path forward to a resilient and affordable green energy system. They see it as a necessary step to break the stranglehold of expensive gas on electricity prices and deliver the true benefits of renewables to every consumer in the nation.

A High-Stakes Gamble: The Opposition's Case

Despite the potential benefits, the proposal for zonal pricing faces fierce opposition from many of the companies responsible for building and operating the UK's renewable energy infrastructure. Major power companies like RWE, ScottishPower, and SSE argue that ripping up the current market rules would introduce a level of uncertainty that could cripple investment. They warn that such a radical change carries the risk of damaging the government's own push to decarbonise the power grid by 2030, a goal which relies on attracting tens of billions in private capital.

This opposition is not merely about protecting existing profits. It reflects a fundamental concern about the financial viability of future projects. Renewable energy facilities, especially large-scale offshore wind installations, are incredibly expensive to build. Developers finance most of the work through loans needed for these multi-billion-pound ventures. Any uncertainty about their future revenues makes lenders more cautious, which in turn drives up the expense of borrowing. This, the opponents argue, could make new green energy projects prohibitively expensive.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Peril of Investor Uncertainty

The central point of the opposition's case is that zonal pricing would destroy investor confidence. Tom Glover, the UK head for the German power behemoth RWE, stated that he cannot ask his board to bet billions on a market where the fundamental pricing rules are about to be rewritten. The current system of a single national price, combined with long-term government contracts (Contracts for Difference), provides a stable and predictable revenue stream, which is essential for securing financing for massive infrastructure projects.

Introducing regional prices would shatter this stability. Developers would face new risks, including the possibility that prices in their specific zone could be consistently low, making it difficult to recoup their initial investment. This uncertainty would be priced in by lenders, leading to higher interest rates. An economist from the consultancy AFRY, Stephen Woodhouse, warns that even a small increase in the expense of capital could have dramatic effects, potentially overwhelming any savings generated by the new system and making renewable energy more expensive for everyone.

A 'Postcode Lottery' for Bills

One of the most politically charged elements of the proposal is the creation of a "postcode lottery" for energy expenses. Under a zonal system, the cost of electricity would vary significantly depending on where you live. While consumers in renewable-rich Scotland might see their bills fall, households and businesses in London and a large portion of the South East, where demand is high and local generation is low, would likely face higher prices. Critics argue this is fundamentally unfair, penalising people based on their location.

This has sparked fears of deepening regional inequalities and creating a two-tier energy system. Public opposition is significant; a recent poll found that nearly 60% of people in England and Wales oppose the concept of regional pricing. Opponents argue that a person's electricity bill should not be determined by geographical chance, especially when housing and job markets give people little choice over where they can live. This potential for public backlash makes the policy a high-risk political endeavor for any administration.

Undermining the Green Transition

Opponents also warn that the timing of this reform is perilous. The UK is already facing a huge challenge to achieve its clean power objectives, which require an unprecedented ramp-up in renewable energy construction. The government is counting on the private sector to spend around £40 billion annually over the coming five years to build the necessary wind and solar farms. Introducing massive market uncertainty at this critical moment could cause investors to delay or cancel projects.

The recent cancellation of a massive wind farm planned off the Yorkshire coast, due to rising costs, highlights the fragility of the current investment climate. Adding market reform uncertainty to existing pressures from elevated interest rates and material costs could be disastrous. Trade body RenewableUK has warned that zonal pricing could disrupt investment in vital new clean-energy projects, jeopardising the 2030 target. They argue the focus should be on stable policies that build investor confidence, not radical experiments.

A Solution in Search of a Problem?

A further argument against zonal pricing is that it may be a complex solution to a problem that is already being addressed. The National Grid is currently rolling out its "Great Grid Upgrade," a colossal £60 billion investment programme designed to overhaul the transmission network over the coming half-decade. This initiative aims to build the new high-capacity power lines needed to transport electricity from the blustery north to the energy-hungry south, directly tackling the grid bottlenecks that cause constraint payments.

Critics of zonal pricing argue that this infrastructure investment is the real, long-term solution. They contend that introducing a disruptive new market system to solve a temporary congestion problem is illogical. Once the new grid infrastructure is in place, the capacity to move renewable energy will increase dramatically, significantly reducing the need for constraint payments and thereby diminishing the potential benefits from a zonal system. Therefore, they argue, the government should focus on accelerating the grid upgrade rather than embarking on a risky market redesign.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Vested Interests Accusation

The debate is further complicated by accusations of vested interests on both sides. Proponents of zonal pricing, like Octopus's Greg Jackson, claim that the large, incumbent power companies are simply trying to protect the "attractive returns" they get from the current "absurd system." He argues that their opposition is about preserving the existing system, which benefits their existing assets, rather than creating a more efficient market for consumers. Octopus, as a major supplier with an advanced billing platform, could stand to gain from the complexity of a new pricing model.

Conversely, the large power companies suggest that Octopus also possesses a vested interest. As the UK's largest energy provider with many millions of customers, any change that could potentially lower wholesale costs in some areas would be advantageous for its business model. They maintain their concerns are genuinely about the massive investment risk and the potential for the reform to backfire, ultimately leading to higher costs for consumers and a failure to meet crucial climate goals. This clash of interests has turned the policy debate into a deeply personal and acrimonious conflict within the industry.

The Political Minefield

The intense debate over zonal pricing has landed squarely in the lap of the government, which now faces a difficult and politically charged decision. The choice is being considered as part of the wide-ranging Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA), which aims to render the system suitable for a net-zero future. A decision is expected by mid-2025, but the administration is trapped between powerful, conflicting interests and a looming general election. The Prime Minister has reportedly requested to examine the specifics of the scheme, highlighting the political sensitivity of the issue.

This decision comes at a time when the government's entire net-zero strategy is facing unprecedented attack. The high expense of living, driven in part by soaring energy prices, has become a major point of public concern. Political opponents are seizing on this, framing the green transition as an expensive and misguided project. This makes any radical policy that could lead to higher bills for millions of people, even temporarily, a politically hazardous move. The outcome of the REMA review will therefore be a significant test of the administration's dedication to its climate agenda.

A Divided Scottish Stance

The Scottish Government finds itself in a particularly complex position. On one hand, the prospect of zonal pricing delivering a portion of the cheapest electricity in Europe is highly attractive. It aligns with the narrative that Scotland's vast natural resources could deliver greater prosperity. Some figures within the Scottish National Party have promoted the idea as a way to provide lower bills for Scottish households. However, the administration is also aware of the potential negative impacts on Scotland's vital renewables industry, a key part of its future economic plans.

As a result, the Scottish Government has so far remained on the fence, stating that more analysis is needed to understand the full implications. Ministers are engaging with both industry stakeholders, who warn of jeopardised investment, and consumer groups. This cautious approach reflects the high stakes involved. A wrong move could either alienate voters by failing to provide lower bills or damage a crucial growth industry by creating an unstable investment environment. The decision from Westminster will have profound consequences north of the border.

The Urgency for a Decision

While the debate rages, time is running short. The UK's ambitious target to decarbonise its power system by 2030 is fast approaching. Achieving this goal is entirely dependent on a massive and rapid deployment of new wind and solar installations. The businesses tasked with building them emphasize their need for clarity regarding the future direction of the electricity market before they can commit to billions in investment. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the REMA review is already having a chilling effect on investment decisions.

Whether the government opts for radical market reform with zonal pricing or doubles down on infrastructure investment through an enhanced national system, a clear and decisive path forward is urgently required. The current state of limbo threatens to stall the momentum of the green transition. The final decision will not just define the cost of power for countless homes; it will also mold the trajectory of Britain's energy security and its ability to meet its climate change obligations for a generation.