AI Growth Zones or Corporate Power Zones?
How the UK’s National Grid Risks Being Exploited for Private AI Profit –The UK is quietly rewiring its electricity system in a way that risks transferring public value into private hands—under the banner of “AI Growth.”
At the heart of this issue lies a deceptively simple question that government has so far failed to answer transparently:
How much do big corporations actually pay for electricity for their data centres?
At what rate have they negotiated?
And to what extent is this already subsidised by the public?
What we do know should worry anyone concerned with fairness, energy security, and democratic control of critical infrastructure.
The Hidden Privilege of Data Centres
Data centres—especially those powering large-scale AI—do not run on intermittent, experimental energy supplies. They require continuous, frequency-stable electricity, overwhelmingly delivered via the national grid and still heavily dependent on fossil fuel generation to guarantee reliability.
These facilities are not simply another “industrial user.” They are among the largest single electricity consumers in the country, often demanding hundreds of megawatts—equivalent to small cities.
Yet instead of paying a premium for this stability, they appear to be receiving preferential treatment.
AI Growth Zones: Public Grid, Private Gain
Under the government’s AI Growth Zones policy, data centres located in Scotland and the north of England are being offered explicit electricity discounts justified by so-called “constraint costs.”
Constraint costs arise when renewable generation—particularly wind—exceeds the grid’s capacity to transmit power elsewhere. The government argues that placing data centres near these generation sites will “soak up” excess electricity and lower overall system costs.
On this basis, the policy states:
Where data centres in AI Growth Zones facilitate these savings, they will receive a commensurate discount on electricity costs.
For a single 500 MW data centre, this discount can reach:
-
£24/MWh in Scotland
-
£16/MWh in Cumbria
-
£14/MWh in the North East
These are not trivial sums. They represent tens of millions of pounds per year in reduced energy costs for individual corporate facilities.
Who Really Benefits?
Here is the uncomfortable question policymakers are avoiding:
If data centres receive cheaper, more stable grid electricity, who absorbs the risk and cost of variability?
Is it:
-
Local businesses?
-
Households?
-
Public services already struggling with high energy bills?
There is a real danger that AI Growth Zones create a two-tier electricity system:
-
Premium, stable grid power at discounted rates for global tech corporations
-
More volatile, renewable-heavy supply for everyone else—with no equivalent financial benefit
In effect, the public underwrites:
-
The grid infrastructure
-
The fossil-fuel backup generation
-
The balancing costs
-
And now, even the price discounts
…while private companies monetise AI models, data extraction, and automation at scale.
Subsidy by Another Name
Let us be clear:
If a corporation receives discounted electricity prices because public infrastructure cannot yet handle renewable transmission efficiently, that is a subsidy.
It is a subsidy paid not through transparent taxation or parliamentary debate, but through:
-
Opaque pricing mechanisms
-
Regional grid imbalances
-
And policy language that frames corporate consumption as a public good
The claim that this “reduces overall system costs” may be technically true in a narrow accounting sense—but it ignores the broader political economy:
-
Who controls the AI?
-
Who owns the profits?
-
Who bears the long-term energy risk?
The Democratic Deficit
Nowhere in this policy is there:
-
A guarantee of lower household bills
-
A requirement for public ownership or revenue sharing
-
A commitment to reinvest savings into grid resilience or local communities
Instead, we are asked to trust that what is good for hyperscale data centres is good for the country.
History suggests otherwise.
A National Grid, Not a Corporate Utility
The National Grid exists to serve the public interest—not to function as a loss-leader for multinational AI corporations.
If AI is truly a strategic national priority, then:
-
Its energy costs should be transparent
-
Its benefits should be shared
-
And its infrastructure demands should not deepen inequality between regions, sectors, or citizens
Without firm safeguards, AI Growth Zones risk becoming Corporate Power Zones—where public electricity systems quietly subsidise private technological empires, while ordinary people are left with higher bills, less stability, and no voice in the bargain.
The question is no longer whether AI will reshape society.
The question is who pays for it—and who profits.
John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). He is a seasoned science writer, retired teacher and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.