The UK’s Labour Government is trying to clear away the barriers to building new energy infrastructure so it can meet its key manifesto pledge to provide ‘Clean Power’ by 2030.
It has followed its predecessor government in trying to smooth the way for building new nuclear units with a revised planning framework appropriate to SMRs as well as large gigawatt-scale reactors (discussed below). It has also taken broader action to address related problems that affect new nuclear alongside the entire electricity industry: the need to expand the electricity network to accommodate new power generation and the ability to make electrical connections to the network.
Companies which want to build new power plants have been facing delays of a decade or more in connecting to the network, damaging their business case and slowing the transition to low-carbon power. This particular problem is acute for small modular reactor (SMR) construction. A traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear station is able to accommodate a delay of decade or more waiting to connect, because the process runs in parallel with on-site construction. But the business model for SMRs sees them built in numbers and at speed – even in some cases delivered to the site as a complete unit – and the ability to export power quickly is fundamental to an early return on investment.
Removing the grid connection barrier
Solving the problem of speeding up new connections is two-fold, requiring action both to allow for a faster electrical connection and, where new lines are needed, to speed up development consent.
The former requires a change in the electricity industry rulebook (described as industry codes), and eventually a go-ahead from electricity regulator Ofgem. The latter requires a faster planning and development consent procedure, which is now being progressed via new legislation by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Why do industry codes have to change? GB’s connections regime, like many others, strictly adheres to a ‘first come, first served’ principle. In the past, each new plant was billed for the cost of expanding or upsizing the network when it was required. That was an appropriate model when the electricity system was ‘top down’ and comprised relatively few large, centrally located power plants with capacities of typically of the order of 1000 MW. They were connected to the transmission network, were firmly planned by large companies, and took several years to build.
That model has changed dramatically this century. Now, thousands of assets enter the connections process, including wind, solar and battery farms and gas engine arrays, at various voltage levels. Unfortunately, the ‘first come first served’ framework had no penalty for non-delivery and encouraged speculative applications that might not have planning permission, investors or offtakers in place. There may even be more than one proposal for multiple variants of a project. When speculative projects failed to proceed, they became ‘blockers’ for more viable projects that had joined the end of the ‘queue’. Connection dates more than a decade in the future prompted a rush from developers, who wanted to secure an early place. SMR projects would have to join this queue and take their chance on whether their grid connection offer could be delivered by the time the plant was operable.
Now the rules are changing to a framework of ‘first ready, first served’, by which projects will have to show that they have a serious prospect of going ahead by passing ‘gates’ (or checkpoints). The first ‘gate’ calls for a competent project, but the second requires projects to have at least land rights secured and a schedule to apply for planning permission, at which point it will be given a place in the queue determined by its readiness. That requires significant investment from the developer and is intended to deter speculative applications.
The finer points are still under consultation and the rule-change process has to be completed. By the time SMR applications are ready to seek a connection it is likely developers will have to face a higher upfront cost – but that should be balanced by a shorter queue and faster connections for well-founded projects.
Removing the network barrier
The UK’s slow and cumbersome process for granting development consent is a concern for all companies building new power plants. But it is equally a barrier to plans to expand the electricity network, which will have to be completed to meet the needs of fleets of new renewable and storage projects, as well as any possible SMRs.
On 11 March 2025, however, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) published draft legislation that is intended to speed up construction of new transmission lines, freeing capacity for new power plants to connect.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill would enable households to be granted electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 ($3230) over 10 years, if they are within 500m of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It also formalises the funding typically given to support facilities for communities who host new lines.
The government hopes this will mean communities are more ready to accept large transmission lines required to transport power from large offshore wind farms, as well as potentially from large new nuclear plants (Hinkley Point C, now under construction, required a new 57km transmission line). The funding applies to high voltage transmission lines which connect to so-called ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (see below). But the draft Bill also requires planning authorities to have regard to strategic plans for electricity networks when considering whether to grant consent. That refers to a new Regional Energy System Planner (RESP), part of the UK’s new National Energy System Operator. RESP’s remit will be to set out ‘whole system’ strategic energy plans for each GB region. This should mean that local planning authorities work with a presumption in favour of expanded networks, linking high-use areas such as industrial clusters where SMRs may be installed.
Removing the site limitation barrier
The process for being awarded development consent for new nuclear reactors in the UK has long been regarded as a major barrier to new-build.
Action had to be taken on the procedure for applying for development consent after the experience of the Sizewell B PWR in Suffolk, which took the record for the longest public inquiry ever carried out in the UK. After preliminary hearings in 1982, a full scale public inquiry began in January 1983 and did not end until March 1985. The resulting report, recommending approval, was published in January 1986 and it was finally granted consent by the then Secretary of State for Energy on 12 March 1987. Among the issues discussed at the public inquiry were the choice to use nuclear power and the reactor design (advocates of the UK’s Advanced Gas Reactor argued that the AGR design should be used instead of a PWR).
The experience of the Sizewell B inquiry was a major contributor to planning reform in the UK, as were other applications where major infrastructure was delayed by a local application for associated infrastructure (in one example the London Array offshore wind farm was held up because consent was initially refused for the onshore substation). Now, so-called ‘nationally significant’ development consents are handled – with associated infrastructure – by a dedicated organisation that makes its recommendations to the Secretary of State for a decision. The decisions are taken with regard to a suite of National Planning Policy Statements (NPPS) that set out the need for specific types of infrastructure and choices that have been made following public consultation (for example policies in favour of low-carbon power, including nuclear).
NPPSs are expected to be updated on a regular basis but revisions of those regarding energy had been delayed and were out of date. But now the government has finalised an overarching planning statement for energy, and it is revising the planning statement for nuclear power (the seventh revision, dubbed EN-7).
The previous version, EN-6, was completed in 2011, when nuclear development was expected to be based on a relatively small number of gigawatt-scale projects. As a result, EN-6 tried to forestall debate over whether a proposed nuclear site was appropriate by designating potential sites in advance. It invited nominations for potential sites and in April 2009 asked for public comment. Site assessments were made and there were two consultations between 2009 and 2011. The outcome of this extensive process was that eight sites that had already hosted nuclear stations were designated as potential future sites. They were Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell, Wylfa and Heysham.
The Scottish Government had already decided it would not support new-build nuclear (and planning is devolved in most cases to Scotland and Wales), so operating Scottish sites at Torness and Hunterston, as well as smaller Scottish sites at Dounreay and Chapelcross, did not make the list. Also not on the final list were past nuclear station sites (such as Berkeley in Gloucestershire) and defence or fuel-cycle-related sites, such as Winfrith near the south coast (which had been the site of several research reactors).
The process of selecting sites in advance was intended to smooth the way for new units, but its effect was to sterilise all but the chosen sites. That was less important in a development process for a few large reactors, but it has become problematic over time, as the government has now pinned its hopes on small modular reactors (SMRs), which it intends will be built out in numbers on industrial and commercial sites close to major power users, as well as existing nuclear sites. Although the Secretary of State had an option to give consent to an additional site, any developer would have to justify not using one on the EN-6 list.
Opening up to new nuclear
A proposed revised National Policy Statement for nuclear (EN-7) retains the EN-6 list, noting that these sites have land area and potentially sufficient transmission capacity (although that was not the case at Hinkley Point, see above). But EN-7 is designed to support nuclear infrastructure development on a more diverse range of sites, reflecting the emerging diversity in nuclear technologies, which may be smaller than existing sites or be closer to locations of high energy demand. As a result the government says the draft has “a strategic approach to planning to help navigate the changing nuclear landscape in the UK” since EN-6 was designated in 2011.
This means bringing nuclear “into line with other energy infrastructure and provide applicants with robust criteria for site selection” rather than designating sites in advance. It also removes another EN-6 barrier which set a 2025 deadline for new plant to start up, if one was awarded consent. Hinkley Point C, which was granted development consent in 2013 with a planned start date of 2025, is now expected to start up in 2029.
EN-7 aims to take a ‘unified’ approach for all types and sizes of reactor, which DESNZ says will give developers more flexibility on deciding the right technology for their project. It will also allow for some flexibility in how to deploy units at a site, recognising that SMR projects may have several units. Applicants will be able to apply for a single Development Consent Order providing for development in phases, or a Development Consent Order for each separate phase of development. It may extend to plants supplying heat rather that electricity, which may be important for industrial customers who want to use a low-carbon source of high quality heat.
Developers have to assume on-site storage for radioactive waste and spent fuel and are told to consider sites for future expansion to accommodate future upgrades, expansion or changes in technology.
Site approval will be a criteria-based approach and DESNZ says, “This greater flexibility, reflecting the diverse needs of emerging nuclear technologies, also enables the potential to identify and develop new suitable sites over the long term.” Criteria will include safety, security and managing environmental and other impacts to host locations and communities.
The new draft distinguishes between two types of criteria that have to be met for a project to be granted development consent. One is criteria where the applicant may have more than one option to satisfy EN-7 requirements, such as flood protection or retaining biodiversity.
For some criteria there is only one way that an applicant may demonstrate they meet the standards set out in EN-7. DESNZ’s example is population density, where the proposed development must meet the requirements of the Semi-Urban Population Density Criterion.
This criterion, which manages the potential risk to populated areas from nuclear infrastructure by limiting how close to densely populated areas it can be developed, has been in place since the UK’s second generation of nuclear plants was built, sited closer to major population centres than the ‘remote’ first generation. It was reiterated in 2018 in a guide published by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. It requires that there is no single 30° sector around the site in which the population density exceeds 5000 people per square kilometre and the population density all around the site is substantially less than this.
In a consultation on EN-7 some respondents, mostly from industry, suggested reviewing or removing the criterion, because they believed new nuclear technologies could be safely located closer to densely populated areas. In addition, the criterion tends to exclude sites that have several towns within distances of a few tens of miles, which is typical of traditional industrial regions in the UK and may limit potential sites for applications of SMRs. DESNZ wants to open up industrial sites for SMRs, including data centres, which are typically sited close to residential or commercial areas, for various reasons. That introduces a delicate balancing act, made explicit in DESNZ’s discussion of military sites. It says sites must be chosen that allow the Secretary of State for Defence “to be satisfied that the proposed infrastructure would not unacceptably affect defence interests, whilst allowing nuclear infrastructure where they may benefit from proximity to military sites”.
In the consultation, DESNZ said there was little evidence that the criterion would prevent deployment of technology “in economically efficient locations,” and it would be prudent to continue to use the criterion for new technologies such as SMRs, given that there was “limited evidence available to demonstrate that novel nuclear fission technologies present a significantly different risk to existing nuclear fission technologies.
It left open the option to modify the criterion, “Once more operational experience and further underpinning evidence around advanced nuclear technologies is available” but left unaddressed the question of whether the criterion would present a barrier for new sites and therefore make it harder to find the necessary operational experience.
Overall, the UK’s governing bodies have worked to remove some of the barriers to nuclear as well as other types of low-carbon power. One indication of whether the changes are successful will be that applications for SMRs start to enter the process. The true indication will be that they start to connect.
On 17 March the UK government a policy paper setting out its plans to make the regulatory landscape more efficient and predictable, as part of the ‘growth’ agenda. Among the proposed actions the government plans to streamline environmental regulators’ participation in the development consent process. If taken ahead, a single lead regulator will be appointed for major projects in which multiple regulators have an interest, to make decisions on their behalf. The aim is to reduce layers of regulation and create a single front door for major projects.
As an initial step, the Secretary of State for the Environment will use his powers of direction to instruct Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the Marine Management Organisation to work alongside the designated Lead Regulator, in collaboration with MHCLG, in carrying out their functions for these major projects in a timely manner.
This model will be tested through a series of projects, which could start proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing and Heathrow expansion. The government is asking industry to come forward with suggestions of additional projects which meet the steering criteria where they want to trial this new approach. Is the nuclear industry ready?
