尽管有关于对电网实行公共控制的言论，但首相并未威胁要将任何事物国有化。
Despite talk of public control over the electricity grid, the prime minister is not threatening to nationalise anything.
照片：Cosmo Condina/Stock Connection/Rex Features 尼尔斯·普拉特利 (Nils Pratley) 随着安迪·伯恩ham (Andy Burnham) 推出“大不列颠电网”（GBG）作为公共部门的挑战者，与拥有并运营电网的三家私营企业展开竞争，股价是否为之一震？并非完全如此。在伦敦上市的两家公司——国家电网和SSE——下跌了约0.5%，与整体市场走势一致。
Photograph: Cosmo Condina/Stock Connection/Rex Features Nils Pratley id share prices shudder as Andy Burnham unveiled Great British Grid (GBG) as a public sector challenger to the trio of private sector firms that own and operate the electricity grid? Not exactly. National Grid and SSE, the two listed in London, were down by about 0.5%, in line with the wider market.
这种温和的反应看起来是合乎情理的。尽管有关于加强对电网公共控制的各种言论，但首相并未威胁要将任何资产国有化或接管任何现有资产。正如能源部公告的细节明确指出的那样：“‘大不列颠电网’将是对负责英国能源系统的现有机构的补充，而不是替代，现有网络运营商的作用保持不变。”相反，GBG的主要作用将是为未来的输电项目组织竞争性投标。
That mild reaction looks correct. For all the talk of greater public control over the electricity grid, the prime minister is not threatening to nationalise anything or take control of any existing assets. As the detail of the energy department’s announcement made clear: “Great British Grid will complement, rather than replace, the existing institutions responsible for Britain’s energy system and the role of existing network operators remains unchanged.”Instead, GBG’s main role will be to put together competing bids for future transmission projects.
因此，举例来说，国家电网未来可能不再自动获得建设电缆和高压输电塔以将东安格利亚的海上风电输送到伦敦的项目，而是必须击败一个由GBG牵头的财团提出的报价，该财团很可能会与私营建筑公司和金融机构合作。
So, for example, rather than National Grid automatically getting the gig to build cables and pylons to bring offshore wind power from East Anglia to London, in future it could have to beat an offer from a consortium including GBG, probably in partnership with private sector construction firms and financiers.
然而，这种前景不太可能让现任董事会感到惊慌，因为委婉地说，GBG不会带着巨额的国家资金横空出世并将所有人远远抛在身后。伯恩汉姆表示，GBG将是“大不列颠能源”（GBE）的一个“分支”，并且至少在最初阶段，必须动用其资金池。
That prospect, however, is unlikely to alarm incumbent boardrooms because, to put it mildly, GBG will not arrive with terrifying sums of state money to blow everybody out of the water. GBG, said Burnham, will be “a branch” of Great British Energy (GBE) and, initially at least, will have to access its funding pot.
这笔资金共计83亿英镑，用于本届议会期间的相关项目；其中一部分资金已经被用于支持小型模块化核反应堆的研发。目前可能只剩下约40亿英镑了。如果GBG公司能获得其中的一半资金，那么他们将拥有20亿英镑的资本。作为参考：2026至2031年的电网升级计划总共需要投入约700亿英镑。那么，GBG公司在这项计划中到底能发挥多大的作用呢？
That funding was £8.3bn for this parliament – and a chunk has already been raided to back small modular nuclear reactors There is probably about £4bn left. If GBG gets half, we’re talking about £2bn of capital. For context, the grid upgrade in the 2026-31 cycle adds up to an investment programme of about £70bn, with much Is GBG worth doing at all, then?
事实上，他们的作用确实不容忽视。咨询公司Stonehaven的亚当·贝尔（Adam Bell），同时也是前能源部门官员，指出了一个关键点：“自20世纪90年代以来，政府首次能够全面掌握电网建设的各项成本数据，这些数据将有助于提升私营电网公司的运营效率。”换句话说，在一个垄断企业往往比负责制定财务回报标准的监管机构（Ofgem）拥有更多信息、从而占据优势的世界里，政府如果能够参与新项目的竞争，无疑会带来积极影响。
Well, yes, it is. Adam Bell of consultants Stonehaven, and a former official in the energy department, identified the key point: “For the first time since the 1990s, the state will have perfect information about network costs that it can use to drive performance across privately held networks.”In other words, just having a state-backed horse in the race for new projects could yield benefits in a world in which a standard complaint is that the monopoly network companies have an advantage over the regulator, Ofgem, which sets financial returns, in terms of knowing more about real construction costs.
那么，更激烈的市场竞争能为消费者和企业带来哪些好处呢？毕竟，这些项目的最终费用还是由消费者和企业通过电费来承担的。虽然很难准确预测具体收益，但哪怕只有十几亿英镑的投入，也是值得的。
What gains could greater competition produce for consumers and businesses, who ultimately pay for these projects via their bills? Who knows, but even the odd billion or two is clearly worth having.
需要指出的是，对于输电项目实施竞争性招标的做法其实并不新鲜。所谓的“Cato机制”（即通过竞争方式选定输电运营商）早在2023年就已在保守党执政期间被纳入相关能源法规中。真正具有创新性的地方在于，GBG公司将通过其新成立的子公司参与这一竞争过程。
Note, though, that the concept of competitive tendering for transmission projects is not new. The so-called Cato (Competitively Appointed Transmission Owner) regime was established in an energy act in 2023 under the Tories. The only truly novel bit is that GBE, via its new “branch”, will join in.
作为对GBE（英国国家能源公司）优先事项的重置，这看起来很明智。以尽可能低的成本升级电网，对消费者而言，显然比该机构目前在学校和医院屋顶安装太阳能电池板的日常工作更具国家重要性，后者虽利于部长拍照造势，却无法推动经济实质性变化。落后于计划的电网项目，以及接入积压问题，正如国家审计署所指出的，将带来巨大的额外成本。
As a re-set of GBE’s priorities, that looks sensible. The upgrade of the electricity grid, at the lowest possible cost to consumers, is plainly of more national importance than the body’s current day job of installing solar panels on the roofs of schools and hospitals, which is good for ministerial photoshoots but does not move the economic dial. The behind-schedule grid programme, and the logjam in connections, threatens heavy extra costs, as the National Audit Office has pointed out But Burnham and the energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, should note Bell’s advice about what sort of outfit GBG should be: dynamic, unbound by public sector procurement rules, and not like part of the civil service.
但伯纳姆和能源大臣米娅·法恩布勒应注意贝尔关于GBG（英国电网公司）应成为什么样组织的建议：充满活力、不受公共部门采购规则束缚、不像文职体系的一部分。“如果它要受制于那些让国家机器大多毫无用处的窒息性程序，它将只不过是一个浪费公帑的骗局，”他说。让我们拭目以待。
“If it is subject to the same suffocating procedures that render much of the state essentially useless, it will be nothing more than a boondoggle,” he says. Let’s see.
伯纳姆的另一项电网宣布也很有趣：改革允许公司自行建设接入设施以连接电网，而非等待网络公司来做。是的，这很明智，且似乎在爱尔兰已见成效。AI数据中心和工业项目可能会略早落地。但这一切都无法改变大局层面的批评——行业和游说团体反复强调，能源基础设施必须更快通过规划体系。
Burnham’s other grid announcement was also interesting: reforms to allow companies to build their connections to hook up to the grid, rather than waiting for the network companies to do so. Yes, that’s sensible, and seems to have had results in Ireland. AI datacentres and industrial projects may happen slightly sooner. None of which, though, changes the big-picture criticism, repeated by industry and lobby groups endlessly, that energy infrastructure must get through the planning system faster.
错误在于将这些举措归类为“公共控制”。GBG最终可能成为少数项目的共同所有者，但绝大部分电网仍将掌握在目前的“三巨头”手中。而在接入方面，国家的角色更像是促进者。这值得做，但“控制”要素大致仍将停留在今天的位置——即现行的监管框架之下。
The mistake is to file these initiatives under “public control”. GBG may end up being a co-owner of a few projects but the vast majority of the grid will remain in the hands of the current triumvirate. And, on connections, the role of the state looks more like one of facilitator. That’s worth doing but the “control” element will sit roughly where it does today – with the current regulatory setup.