Households near new pylons to get hundreds off energy bills

People living near new pylons in Great Britain will get hundreds of pounds off their bills, as part of government plans to boost energy infrastructure.

Households within 500m of new or upgraded pylons will get discounts of up to £2,500 over 10 years, equivalent to £250 a year.

The government said such incentives could help reduce opposition and delays to new projects, which are needed to deliver more clean energy.

However, rural campaign groups said it was “impossible to put a price on the loss of a landscape”.

A government-commissioned report found hundreds of miles of new pylons will be needed to meet its clean energy targets.

But new infrastructure proposals have sparked fierce opposition from residents in parts of the country like Norfolk and Suffolk, with campaigners arguing they will destroy the countryside.

The bill discounts are expected to be in place from 2026.

The idea forms part of the government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is due to be published this week.

The legislation aims to speed up the building of new homes and infrastructure by cutting red tape and simplifying the planning process, and the government has put the changes at the heart of its push for economic growth.

Alongside money off bills, the government will publish new guidance on how developers should provide benefits to communities hosting transmission infrastructure, by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes or leisure facilities.

The government said this would mean communities could get £200,000 worth of funding per km of overhead electricity cable in their area, and £530,000 per substation.

The government is also looking at how communities near onshore wind farms and other energy infrastructure can receive benefits.

The plans were welcomed by RenewableUK, which represents the sector.

The group’s head of policy, James Robottom, said bill discounts would “help to enable the roll-out of much-needed new grid infrastructure at a faster pace, so that we can make the most of the vast amounts of clean power we’re producing”.

However, Jackie Copley, campaign lead at CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “Investing in local green spaces or improving community infrastructure would be a better way to spend this money.

“Paying individuals comes with many problems, including questions of fairness, likely legal challenges, and the fact that it’s impossible to put a price on the loss of a landscape.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said: “It is no longer a question of whether we build the new infrastructure we need but a question of how and this must be done in lockstep with local communities.

“This government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill will slash energy bills for local people living near new projects, so they benefit as we drive forward in our mission to achieve a more prosperous and energy secure future for the next generation.”

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the plans would also “benefit the whole country by ensuring we build the clean power system we need”.

The idea of giving people living near new pylons money off their energy bills was also proposed under the previous Conservative government.

A government survey in 2024 suggested 78% of people would find an energy infrastructure project more acceptable if they were offered discounts on their bills.

Some energy companies already offer bill discounts to customers who live near infrastructure like wind turbines, while grants are also available for local communities affected.

Meanwhile, the government has also announced the number of bodies which get a say in planning decisions could be cut.

Officials will consult on removing Sport England, the Theatres Trust and the Garden History Society from the list of “statutory consultees”, who are legally required to provide advice on decisions.

The government said in some cases organisations were slowing down building, giving the example of a housing development in Bradford which was delayed because the application was thought to have not adequately considered the speed of cricket balls from a nearby club.