Select committee: Energy Security and Net Zero Committee
Conclusion 1
2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos
Published 7 Jul 2025
Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
Energy Security and Net Zero Committee National planning for energy infrastructure All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We find it immensely frustrating that the Government chose to act in a way which appeared to acquiesce to our requests for additional time to consider its draft National Policy Statements on Energy but only after we had compressed our schedule and carried out two oral evidence sessions on the same day. Obviously, had we been afforded the courtesy of notification of the arrangements in advance, we could, and would, have waited until the end of the public consultation period before commencing using the information arising from that process to inform our oral evidence sessions and create the added value, by test and challenge, that the process was designed to encourage. In the event, the additional time, while it allowed a less rushed consideration of the evidence before us, did not provide significant opportunity to broaden, or deepen, the scrutiny we could bring to bear as it came too late for us to change the questions that we were able to put to our witnesses. (Conclusion, Paragraph 6)
From: Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, 2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos (HC 868), 7 July 2025
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 19 November 2025 (deadline 7 September 2025).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government's response says it will provide sufficient time for committee scrutiny of future NPS updates, but it "cannot commit" to a minimum review period, and it sets out amendments and positions on the Committee's wider recommendations.
- On scrutiny timing, the government "notes" the Committee's concerns and says it will "ensure early liaison with Committee" in future NPS reviews, but cannot commit to a minimum review period.
- On Critical National Priority infrastructure, it has amended EN-1, replacing "material reduction" with "significant reduction" and adding that exceptional circumstances may "warrant a small reduction in generation capacity and function".
- On the Centralised Strategic Network Plan, it agrees to remove the term "strategic solution" but will maintain "indicative routes" and "strategic parameters".
- On distribution infrastructure, it has consulted on removing 132kV wooden poles from the NSIP regime and "will respond in due course"; any threshold change would need secondary legislation.