Power lines in Devon, UK. Credits: Veronica White | Unsplash, Public domain.

Not everyone hates pylons. Like wind turbines, they have some admirers. The Pylon Appreciation Society on Facebook has more than 8,000 members. But as the UK government presses on with plans to build hundreds of miles of new overhead electricity lines and the pylons to support them, tens of thousands of Britons are realising that the view from their windows is about to change.

To their detractors, pylons are ugly reminders of industrial Britain which ruin beautiful countryside. Even the economist John Maynard Keynes, who was generally keen on public works, wrote to The Times to complain about the ‘permanent disfigurement’ of the pylons being built near his home on the South Downs in 1929.

The case for new electricity lines of some kind is irrefutable. The current grid was designed to move electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations in the north of England, the Midlands and south Wales to the rest of the country. Now the last coal-fired plant has been shut down and offshore wind in the North Sea will generate far more of Britain’s electricity, along with solar farms in the sunnier south of England. Already, wind farms are forced to switch off because of a lack of transmitters to move electricity to where it could be used. Given that demand will rise as gas boilers and petrol cars are phased out, the grid also needs more capacity overall. The UK also wants to be able to export electricity to mainland Europe. As a result, National Grid has put forward 14 proposals that make up its Great Grid Upgrade.

Some of these are indeed just upgrades, and one is an undersea link. Others involve building entirely new stretches of line and new substations. The biggest and most controversial is a 184-kilometre line between Norwich and Tilbury in East Anglia. The route does not pass through a national park, so almost all of it will be above ground. Many people living nearby are furious.

“Say No!” urges the pressure group Pylons East Anglia (PEA). “Go offshore subsea instead… National Grid will submit its ‘development consent order’ (an enormous planning application) to the Planning Inspectorate.  We’ll need a team of lawyers and advisers (heritage, archaeology, landscape etc) to present technical arguments.  Can you help? Please donate… It’s time to put a value on the environment, our rural views, and the house price reductions that we are all so worried about.”

Their case for an offshore grid, which PEA says would cost £2 billion less than the pylons, rests largely on a 2020 report that National Grid describes as ‘high level’ and which it says has been ‘comprehensively superseded by subsequent assessments’. Failing that, PEA would also like to bury the cables underground, but that would be far more expensive —about four and a half times more costly, according to an Institution of Engineering and Technology report. It would also create more environmental disturbance than the pylons. All these extra costs would be added to bills.

But arguments about cost and the need for cheaper electricity seem to have no sway with people who simply do not want to look at pylons. In Lincolnshire, which elected a Reform mayor in May, the council says it will use “all our local powers” to stop a new line of pylons. It complains about ‘net zero dumping’.

Money talks

So what might persuade the anti-pylon campaigners? According to research commissioned by the Department for Net Zero last year, money off energy bills is the benefit people are most likely to accept in exchange for hosting pylons and substations. The government is duly offering households that live within 500 metres of new or upgraded infrastructure up to £250 off their bills each year for a decade. Developers will also be expected to fund community projects like sports centres, worth up to £200,000 per kilometre.

Handing out a non-means-tested discount to everyone who lives near a new power line is clearly iniquitous. Some will hardly notice the saving. It will certainly not begin to compensate people who have difficulty selling their homes because they are now very close to a pylon. And as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, areas that need new energy infrastructure tend to be wealthier than the average. But they are also older, which means they are less likely to realise the benefits of cheaper energy in the medium- and long-term and might be more persuaded by a handout now. Most importantly, the alternatives – such as case-by-case compensation awards, with the potential for endless appeals – are probably worse.

The furore over the Winter Fuel Payment is a cautionary tale. The government tried to take away this annual handout from all but the poorest pensioners last year. It happens to be worth about the same as the pylon discount. The move was deeply unpopular and has been largely reversed. One-size-fits-all handouts are not progressive, but they are easily understood and simpler to administer. “It will largely pay for itself at the system level,” says Stuart Dossett, the senior policy advisor at Green Alliance, a think tank.

The aim is to get the pylons up as soon as possible and not to let the planning become bogged down by campaigners – even if it means spending more money initially. At a Resolution Foundation event last year, the Climate Change Committee’s James Richardson argued that early subsidies can be helpful even if they disproportionately benefit the well-off. He cited Tesla cars: only the rich could afford them, but they eventually popularised electric vehicles and the charging network they require. In the same way, getting new transmission lines on stream more quickly will bring forward savings on everyone’s bills.

“We wait to see how [the bill rebate] plays out as new projects come on,” says Dossett. “There is detailed guidance about how National Grid should be engaging with local communities. I’m quietly confident that will decrease the opposition. It is fair for people involved in these projects to have their voices heard, but we do need to electrify so much of the economy.”

Annabel Rice, Green Alliance’s senior political advisor, suggests National Grid could do a bit more to consult on the design of pylons. It also needs to engage with ‘trusted figures in local communities’ who can encourage dialogue. Both would make people feel they had more of a stake in the new lines.

Get used to it

But cash is not the only way the government is trying to ensure the pylons are built. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently going through Parliament is designed to speed up planning decisions, reducing the number of legal challenges and taking some decisions away from planning committees altogether. It will make challenging the Great Grid Upgrade much harder for campaigners.

The thrust of the new bill is that new energy infrastructure is vital, and nothing will be allowed to halt it. But that message has not yet reached the public. Previous big infrastructure projects, like the High Speed 2 railway, have been heavily curtailed and delayed by local opposition. The Conservative government spent many billions on burying some of the line underground to try to placate wealthy voters in the Chilterns. Campaigners learnt that protest works. The government now has to impress on them that, this time, it won’t – and that will come as an unpleasant shock.

The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union.

This articles was first published on eu.boell.org.