Submitted by Bill Fernie
1st October 2026
First this is probably the longest article we have published - I think the extra length is justified here because the ownership structure is complicated and the article is educational as much as it is topical - Bill Fernie
When most of us switch on a .light, put the kettle on or charge a phone, we probably imagine that the electricity is coming through something called "the National Grid".
It is an understandable assumption.
But technically it is wrong.
There is no single company called the National Grid that owns Britain's electricity network from one end of the country to the other. The system is divided between different transmission and distribution companies, with a separate publicly owned organisation responsible for operating and planning the system and another organisation, Ofgem, responsible for economic regulation.
And now the Government has announced yet another organisation, called Great British Grid.
Understanding who owns what may sound like an exercise in corporate organisation charts. In reality, it matters because Britain is about to spend enormous sums expanding its electricity infrastructure, while consumers and businesses will ultimately bear much of the cost.
For people in Scotland, and particularly in Caithness, it matters even more because the company that owns the high-voltage transmission network in the north of Scotland is not National Grid plc.
It is SSEN Transmission.
So who owns SSEN? And who owns National Grid?
The answers reveal a surprisingly complicated system.
There isn't one British electricity grid owner
The first distinction to make is between transmission and distribution.
Transmission is the high-voltage "motorway" system. It carries large quantities of electricity over long distances through major overhead lines, underground cables and large substations.
Distribution is the lower-voltage network that takes electricity from the transmission system and delivers it to homes, businesses and other customers.
Ofgem identifies three electricity transmission owners in Great Britain.
National Grid Electricity Transmission owns the transmission network in England and Wales.
SP Transmission owns the transmission network in central and southern Scotland.
Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission, trading as SSEN Transmission, owns the transmission network in northern Scotland and the Scottish islands. (Ofgem)
That last point is particularly important for Caithness.
When people see pylons, substations and high-voltage infrastructure around Caithness, much of the transmission network they are looking at belongs to SSEN Transmission, not National Grid.
SSEN says its network covers more than a quarter of the UK's land area and is responsible for maintaining and investing in the transmission system across northern Scotland and the Scottish islands. (SSEN Transmission)
So who owns SSEN Transmission?
This is where the story gets interesting.
SSEN Transmission is 75% owned by SSE plc and 25% owned by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board.
That 25% stake was sold by SSE in November 2022. SSEN itself confirms the current 75/25 ownership structure. (SSEN Transmission)
So the ownership chain for much of northern Scotland's high-voltage network is:
SSEN Transmission → 75% SSE plc + 25% Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board.
This is not the same thing as the Scottish Government owning the network.
Nor is it the same thing as the UK Government owning it.
It is a privately owned, regulated transmission business.
There is another layer, however, because SSE plc itself is a public company whose shares are owned by investors.
SSE's 2026 annual report records the major shareholders that had formally notified holdings by 27 May 2026. Among those were BlackRock with a total interest of 8.20%, The Capital Group Companies with 5.07%, Invesco with 4.69%, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec with 3.98%, Barclays with 5.22% when shares and financial instruments are combined, and Norges Bank with 3.15%. These interests can change over time as investors buy and sell shares. (SSE Annual Report 2026)
So when we say that SSEN Transmission is privately owned, that does not mean that one individual sits behind the whole thing with a chequebook.
It means that the transmission company sits within a corporate structure ultimately connected to a large listed company whose shares are held by a range of institutional and other investors.
And there is another investor in SSEN itself.
The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board owns 25% of SSEN Transmission. It is a major Canadian pension investor representing the retirement savings of members of Ontario's teachers' pension scheme.
That means that a portion of the economic interest in northern Scotland's electricity transmission infrastructure ultimately sits with an overseas pension investor.
None of this is unusual in modern infrastructure. Large pension funds and investment institutions frequently invest in regulated utilities because the assets are long-term and the revenues are regulated.
But it does illustrate why the phrase "the National Grid" can be misleading.
What about National Grid itself?
National Grid plc is a completely different business.
It is a publicly listed, shareholder-owned company whose shares are traded on the stock market. It is one of the world's major energy infrastructure businesses and operates in both Britain and the United States.
Its British electricity transmission subsidiary, National Grid Electricity Transmission, owns and operates the transmission network in England and Wales.
But National Grid plc does not own Scotland's transmission network.
It is also important to remember that the shareholders of National Grid plc are not necessarily the people who appear on the end of an electricity bill.
They own shares in the company.
That company owns particular regulated infrastructure businesses.
Those businesses operate within a framework set by Ofgem.
And the cost of operating and expanding the regulated network is ultimately recovered through the regulated charging system.
National Grid's annual report shows how widely the company's ownership is spread. At 31 March 2025, its disclosed holders of at least 3% of voting rights included BlackRock at 7.55%, Bank of America Corporation at 5.89% and The Capital Group Companies at 4.99%. (National Grid Annual Report)
Again, these are not all the shareholders. They are the substantial holdings that had to be disclosed under the relevant rules.
There are many other institutional investors and individual shareholders.
The important point is therefore not that BlackRock or another investment company somehow "owns Britain's electricity grid".
It does not.
It owns shares in a company which owns certain electricity infrastructure.
That distinction is surprisingly important.
Then who actually runs the electricity system?
Now we come to NESO – the National Energy System Operator.
This is perhaps the easiest organisation to confuse with National Grid.
NESO was created in October 2024 when the Government acquired the Electricity System Operator from National Grid and transferred it into public ownership. (NESO)
NESO does not own the pylons.
It does not own SSEN's substations.
It does not own National Grid Electricity Transmission's network.
Its job is to operate, coordinate and plan the system.
It balances electricity supply and demand, manages the electricity system and provides strategic planning and advice.
That means we have a rather unusual arrangement.
The wires and pylons can be privately owned.
The organisation that operates and plans the system is publicly owned.
And Ofgem regulates the network companies.
So the person asking "Who owns the grid?" is actually asking several different questions without necessarily realising it.
Who owns the physical assets?
Who operates the system?
Who regulates the companies?
Who supplies electricity to customers?
And who pays for investment?
Those are all different questions.
Where does Ofgem fit in?
Ofgem is the independent energy regulator.
It does not own the grid either.
Its job includes regulating the network companies, setting the framework within which they operate and determining how much revenue they can recover for building, operating and maintaining the regulated network. (Ofgem)
This is particularly important for SSEN Transmission.
SSEN itself states that it is closely regulated by Ofgem and that Ofgem determines how much money it can invest, what return it can make on that investment and how the costs are recovered from those using the transmission system. Those users include generation developers and electricity consumers.
So it would be wrong to imagine that the shareholders of SSE can simply decide that SSEN should charge households or electricity generators whatever it likes.
The network is effectively a regulated monopoly.
The Government therefore does not need to own every pylon to exercise considerable influence over how the system develops.
But it does have to decide whether the regulatory and ownership model is capable of delivering the enormous expansion now required.
And that brings us to Andy Burnham's Great British Grid.
What exactly is the Great British Grid?
The Government announced Great British Grid on 29 September 2026 as a new publicly owned body within Great British Energy.
Its purpose is to invest in electricity-network infrastructure and work alongside existing network operators.
The Government says Britain needs to expand and modernise the grid at an unprecedented pace because electricity demand is expected to rise, new clean generation needs to be connected and businesses are facing long waits for connections. (GOV.UK)
There is a particularly important detail here.
Great British Grid is not the nationalisation of the existing electricity grid.
The Government is explicitly saying that the existing network operators will remain.
Ofgem remains the regulator.
NESO remains responsible for operating, planning and coordinating the electricity system.
Great British Grid is intended to add public investment and competition to the network-building process rather than simply take over the existing transmission companies. (GOV.UK)
That is a much more limited proposition than the phrase "public ownership of the grid" might suggest.
So what will Great British Grid actually do?
The Government wants Great British Grid to be able to invest alongside private investors in network infrastructure and compete for transmission projects.
It also wants to speed up the process by which new businesses and energy projects connect to the electricity system.
Another proposed reform is to expand self-build connections.
At present, a business or energy project can be caught in the queue waiting for network infrastructure to be provided.
Under the proposed approach, developers and businesses would be able, where appropriate, to build their own connection rather than wait for the network company to do all the work.
The Government says similar reforms in Ireland have reduced connection times by up to 11 months. (GOV.UK)
The Government is also proposing greater use of competitive tendering for transmission projects, meaning organisations such as Great British Grid could compete to deliver new infrastructure.
That is intended to increase competition and, in the Government's view, improve value for consumers.
Whether it actually achieves those objectives is something that will have to be demonstrated.
Why is the Government doing this now?
Because Britain is heading into a very different electricity age.
Electric vehicles, heat pumps, industrial electrification, data centres, artificial intelligence and new manufacturing are all expected to increase electricity demand.
Meanwhile, Scotland has been building large quantities of renewable generation.
This creates an unusual problem.
Scotland can have enormous amounts of electricity generation available but not always have enough transmission capacity to move it to where demand is greatest.
That is one reason wind farms are sometimes instructed to reduce their output.
The apparent contradiction is obvious.
Britain needs more electricity.
Scotland produces more renewable electricity.
Yet, at particular times, some wind generation has to be switched down because the electricity cannot be moved through the network in the way required.
This is not necessarily evidence that the wind turbines should never have been built.
It is evidence of a system in which generation, transmission and demand have not always expanded at the same speed.
And this is where Great British Grid, SSEN and Scotland's future industrial development begin to intersect.
Why it matters to Caithness
For Caithness, the ownership question is not theoretical.
The transmission network in the north of Scotland is owned by SSEN Transmission.
SSEN has an enormous investment programme under way because the north of Scotland is becoming one of Britain's most important areas for new electricity generation.
SSE says it invested £3.6 billion across the group during 2025/26 and has a five-year investment plan worth £33 billion to 2030, with a primary focus on strengthening and expanding electricity networks in the north of Scotland. (SSE)
SSEN describes its transmission investment programme as one of the biggest investment programmes in the north of Scotland for generations.
The Caithness-Moray link was an important part of that transformation, creating a major connection between the north of Scotland and the rest of Great Britain's transmission network.
Further investment is now planned as renewable generation continues to grow.
That raises an interesting economic question.
Should Caithness simply become a place where enormous quantities of electricity are generated and then transported elsewhere?
Or could some of the industries of the future be attracted to Caithness precisely because electricity is available?
That is becoming a more realistic question because some electricity-intensive companies are beginning to think differently about their relationship with the power system.
Large data centres, for example, are seeking long-term contracts and increasingly examining whether they can secure dedicated sources of electricity.
The more electricity-intensive an industry becomes, the more important reliable power becomes in its location decision.
That potentially changes the traditional economic-development model.
Instead of saying:
"Here is an industrial site. Can somebody provide enough electricity?"
we could increasingly see:
"Here is a reliable supply of electricity. What industry should we locate beside it?"
Could public and private investment work together?
That will be one of the big tests of the Great British Grid proposal.
Britain is going to need enormous amounts of investment.
The private sector already provides much of it.
SSE is investing billions.
National Grid is investing billions.
SP Energy Networks is investing billions.
Pension funds and other institutional investors are willing to put long-term money into regulated infrastructure.
So the question is not simply whether private companies can build electricity networks.
Clearly they can and already do.
The question is whether additional public investment and competition can make the system faster, better coordinated and more responsive to the country's future needs.
The Government believes it can.
Critics will inevitably ask whether establishing another organisation will make the system more complicated rather than simpler.
There is also the question of cost.
Public investment is still investment. The money has to come from somewhere.
If taxpayers provide capital, there is an opportunity cost.
If consumers ultimately finance network investment through regulated charges, bills can still be affected.
If private investors provide the money, they expect a return.
There is no magic source of free electricity infrastructure.
The real question is whether the investment creates enough additional economic value and system efficiency to justify the cost.
And what about shareholders?
There is another part of this story that is often missed.
The major transmission companies have shareholders.
National Grid plc has shareholders.
SSE plc has shareholders.
SSEN Transmission itself is 75% owned by SSE and 25% by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.
That is not necessarily sinister or unusual. Infrastructure businesses require huge amounts of capital and long-term investors are often precisely the people prepared to provide it.
But it does mean that Britain's electricity infrastructure is not simply an asset belonging to the state.
It is also an investment asset.
Companies and pension funds put money into it.
They expect a return.
Ofgem regulates the framework that determines what network companies can recover.
The Government sets wider energy policy.
NESO plans and operates the system.
And ultimately businesses and consumers pay for electricity and contribute, directly or indirectly, to the costs of the network.
That is the reality behind the pylons.
A new electricity map for Britain?
Perhaps the most important change of all is that the old mental map of Britain's electricity system is becoming obsolete.
Historically, Britain built large power stations close to centres of industrial demand and then built networks around them.
The future may look very different.
Wind farms are often located where the wind resource is strongest.
Offshore wind is being developed around Scotland's coasts.
New nuclear projects may be located in areas with suitable land, infrastructure and access to cooling water.
Batteries will increasingly be located where they can help balance the system.
Data centres and other electricity-intensive industries may start looking for places with access to reliable, large-scale power.
And the grid has to connect all of it.
This is why the ownership question has suddenly become much more than a piece of corporate trivia.
If Great British Grid succeeds, Britain could be moving towards a model in which public and private organisations build electricity infrastructure side by side.
If it doesn't, the country will still face the same fundamental problem: it needs more electricity infrastructure, and it needs it faster.
For Scotland, there is an additional issue.
The country has a huge renewable electricity resource.
For Caithness, in particular, there is a combination of wind, nuclear history, future energy development, major transmission investment and land that could become economically significant.
But exporting all the electricity and importing many of the economic benefits is not the only possible model.
There is another possibility.
Perhaps the north could increasingly become a place where electricity generation and electricity consumption are located much closer together.
That could mean data centres.
It could mean advanced manufacturing.
It could mean storage.
It could mean new industrial processes that have yet to become commercially important.
It could even mean forms of energy-intensive industry that have not yet been invented.
None of this guarantees jobs or economic growth. Nor should every proposed electricity-intensive development automatically be welcomed.
But it suggests that the debate about electricity infrastructure needs to become more sophisticated.
It is not simply a question of whether Scotland has enough wind turbines.
It is not simply a question of whether the Government should own the grid.
And it is certainly not simply a question of who owns National Grid plc.
The real question is whether Britain can build an electricity system in which the people who generate the power, the people who transmit it, the businesses that consume it, the investors who finance the infrastructure, the regulator who sets the rules and the Government that sets policy are all working towards the same objective.
For readers in Caithness, there is perhaps an even simpler question.
We have spent decades watching electricity generated in the far north being transported elsewhere.
As the electricity system undergoes its biggest transformation for generations, perhaps it is time to ask:
Could Caithness become not just a place that produces Britain's electricity, but a place that benefits economically from using much more of it here?
To answer that, however, we first need to understand something most of us have never had much reason to think about.
Who actually owns the wires?