Britain’s electricity difficulties are often discussed as a shortage of generation. The account of Harker substation in The Telegraph reveals another problem. Electricity can be available where it is generated, yet unavailable where it is needed.

Scottish wind farms can produce more electricity than the connections south can safely carry. When that happens, some generators must reduce their output. Other generators, including gas-fired stations nearer the demand, are paid to increase theirs.

Consumers meet the cost of managing this mismatch. Government figures show that payments to gas generators to replace curtailed generation reached £910 million in 2024/25. Those payments represented about two-thirds of total constraint costs that year. The expense therefore extends well beyond compensation paid to wind farms.

The result is an uncomfortable contradiction. Britain has invested in equipment to capture renewable energy, but cannot always use the electricity it could produce. Meanwhile, households and businesses pay for replacement power.

The Cost of the Whole System

Wind is free. Delivering reliable electricity from it requires turbines, foundations, cables, substations, maintenance and arrangements for matching supply with demand.

The useful economic measure is therefore the cost of dependable electricity reaching the consumer. The generating cost alone cannot tell us whether the complete system is affordable.

The Harker story illustrates the consequences of expanding one part of a system faster than the supporting parts. A new wind farm adds generating capacity. It does not automatically add the transmission capacity needed to carry its output.

The article identifies the “Connect and Manage” policy as an important cause of this imbalance. Its underlying assumption was that generation could connect before wider reinforcement was complete, with the network catching up afterwards. Where that reinforcement lagged, the cost of managing congestion continued.

However, it would be misleading to suggest that nothing has been done. National Grid reports that an overhead line upgrade between Harker and the Scottish border has been completed. The wider difficulty is ensuring that improvements across the network keep pace with the generation they must serve.

Affordability in a Shrinking Economy

For localism, the significance reaches beyond a particular substation.

A national electricity system depends upon substantial investment, skilled labour, materials and continuing maintenance. These are real commitments of resources. Borrowing can bring expenditure forward, but it cannot remove those commitments.

If economic growth weakens or gives way to sustained shrinkage, the burden becomes harder to carry. Households have less spare income. Businesses face tighter margins. Public services must meet higher operating costs from constrained budgets.

Some grid reinforcement will remain essential. It can also save money by reducing congestion and the need for replacement generation. The question is which investments deliver the greatest improvement in reliable supply for the resources available.

Counting turbines or announcing investment totals is insufficient. What matters is whether people can obtain the electricity they need at a price they can afford.

The Case for Using More Energy Locally

One response is to bring some electricity use closer to its source.

Where suitable local demand exists, electricity that would otherwise be constrained could serve useful work nearby. Flexible activities might include heating water, charging batteries or operating equipment at times of plentiful supply.

The Government’s own plans recognise this principle. A proposed service would encourage flexible electricity demand to locate in constrained areas and increase consumption when requested, making better use of renewable generation.

From a localist perspective, this raises a practical question. Could more of that useful demand support local food production, workshops, repair businesses and other essential activities?

Such opportunities require careful assessment. A business cannot depend upon cheap surplus electricity unless its equipment, working hours and finances suit an irregular supply. Nor should electricity be consumed merely to avoid switching a turbine off. The activity must meet a worthwhile need.

Local generation also needs supporting infrastructure. Solar panels, batteries and small wind installations have costs and limitations. Producing electricity nearby does not, by itself, guarantee supply through a still winter evening.

Localism therefore supports a combination: a dependable national network for shared needs, alongside local generation, sensible storage and flexible use where these are practical.

Reducing the Burden

There is another response which receives less attention: reducing the energy required to provide a decent life.

Insulation, durable goods, repair and shorter journeys can reduce demand while preserving useful services. Local production can sometimes reduce the transport and infrastructure needed to supply essentials.

This does not mean asking people to endure cold homes or inadequate care. It means judging energy use by the human benefit it provides.

Harker offers a warning about planning through targets for separate parts of an economy. Generating capacity, transmission capacity and consumer demand must work together. Otherwise, apparent progress in one place creates additional costs elsewhere.

For localism, the lesson is clear. The future electricity system must be judged by the dependable service it provides, the resources it requires and its affordability. More equipment is useful only when it forms part of a system that works.