Select committee: Energy Security and Net Zero Committee

Recommendation 22

2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos Published 7 Jul 2025 Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
Recommendation (the committee's words)
At this early stage, we have yet to see sufficient evidence of NESO’s ambitions for societal engagement and public consultation being put into practice in the development of the SSEP and the CSNP. In the autumn, we expect to hear further details of: (i) NESO’s consultation strategy; and (ii) how the societal forums and stakeholder working groups have been contributing to the development of these plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 62)

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.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error