28th June 2026
Until recently, electricity demand in developed countries was relatively stable. Utilities built networks to serve homes, offices and factories, and costs were shared across all users.
That model is beginning to break down.
The New Super Users
AI data centres and Bitcoin mining operations are unlike traditional businesses.
A single AI data centre can require 100-500 megawatts of power, while the largest "AI gigafactories" being proposed may eventually require more than one gigawatt—similar to the electricity demand of a medium-sized city.
Bitcoin mining is also exceptionally energy intensive because thousands of specialised computers operate continuously.
Unlike most businesses, these facilities run 24 hours a day, creating a constant demand for electricity.
The Infrastructure Problem
It isn't simply a question of generating more electricity.
Governments and electricity companies also need to invest in:
new power stations
high-voltage transmission lines
local substations
grid balancing equipment
battery storage
backup generation
planning and environmental work
These investments can cost billions of pounds.
If those costs are spread across all consumers, every household and business could see higher electricity bills.
Who Should Pay?
There are three broad approaches.
Option 1 – Everyone Pays
This is largely how electricity networks have traditionally operated.
Infrastructure costs are spread across every customer.
The argument is that everyone benefits from a stronger electricity grid.
However, many people question whether a pensioner in Caithness or a small engineering business should help fund infrastructure primarily serving multinational technology companies.
Option 2 – Heavy Users Pay
This follows the "polluter pays" principle.
If a company creates the need for £2 billion of new infrastructure, it contributes most—or all—of the cost.
That might include:
dedicated transmission lines
new substations
local grid upgrades
part of any additional generation capacity
Many economists argue this sends the correct market signals.
If electricity is genuinely valuable enough to justify the investment, companies will still build.
If not, perhaps the project was never economically sound.
Option 3 – Shared Investment
Perhaps the most practical approach lies somewhere in the middle.
Governments may pay for improvements that benefit the wider economy.
Companies would pay for infrastructure built specifically because of their own projects.
That mirrors the way many industrial developments already contribute to roads, drainage and other public infrastructure through planning agreements.
The Counter Argument
Technology companies would argue they already contribute enormously.
Large data centres:
create construction jobs
generate business rates and taxes
stimulate local suppliers
attract other investment
support AI innovation that could increase national productivity
Governments fear that imposing excessive infrastructure charges could simply encourage companies to build elsewhere.
After all, AI investment is becoming highly competitive internationally.
Countries are competing aggressively to attract these facilities.
But Is This Different?
There is one important difference.
Many traditional factories create hundreds or even thousands of permanent jobs.
Modern AI data centres often employ relatively few people once operational.
A £5 billion manufacturing plant might employ several thousand workers.
A similarly expensive AI data centre could operate with only a few hundred permanent staff.
That changes the economic calculation.
If local communities bear higher electricity prices while receiving relatively few jobs, political opposition is likely to grow.
Scotland Could Face This Debate
Scotland has ambitions to become a major location for AI data centres.
It has:
renewable electricity
available land
a cool climate reducing cooling costs
good international fibre connections
political support for digital investment
Yet Scotland already has some of Europe's highest electricity network charges.
If several very large data centres require significant upgrades to the transmission network, someone will ultimately pay.
That question has not yet been fully answered.
Learning from the Past
Britain has experienced similar debates before.
Households have contributed towards:
renewable energy subsidies
offshore wind connections
nuclear decommissioning costs
smart meter programmes
Some argue these investments benefited everyone.
Others believe ordinary consumers ended up paying for policies that primarily benefited particular industries.
The AI revolution risks reopening exactly the same argument.
A New Economic Principle?
Perhaps governments should adopt a simple rule:
Those who create extraordinary demand should contribute proportionately to the extraordinary infrastructure required to serve them.
That would not discourage investment.
Nor would it unfairly burden ordinary consumers.
Instead, it would ensure that projects proceed because they make genuine economic sense—not because part of their costs have quietly been transferred to millions of electricity bill payers.
The Bigger Question
Artificial intelligence promises enormous benefits.
It could transform healthcare, science, education and business.
Few would argue against investing in that future.
But investment should also be fair.
If households are expected to pay ever higher electricity bills so that some of the world's largest corporations can build increasingly power-hungry data centres, governments will need to explain why.
The challenge is not whether Britain should embrace AI.
It almost certainly should.
The real question is who pays for the electrical revolution that AI requires?
AI and data centre expansion.
Scotland's electricity generation and transmission capacity.
Highland's potential role in hosting new energy-intensive industries.
The principle that those creating new demand should bear the cost of expanding the infrastructure, rather than automatically socialising those costs across all consumers.
If the north of Scotland attracts large data centres because of its renewable energy resources, local people will reasonably ask: "Will our electricity bills rise, or will these companies pay the true cost of the grid upgrades they require?"
That is likely to become an increasingly important policy question over the coming years.