NET ZERO
Is grid capacity the key barrier to NHS Net Zero?
As Trusts accelerate electrification of heat and wider decarbonisation, electricity demand across hospital sites is beginning to outpace available grid capacity. What was once seen as a technical issue is now acting as a real blocker to retrofit programmes, new clinical facilities, and EV rollout. Trusts cannot simply wait for grid reinforcement; instead, as Craig Anderson, technical director and decarbonisation consultant at WSP explains, they are having to rethink how energy is planned and delivered from the outset, using a mix of demand reduction, smarter phasing, and on-site solutions.
The NHS knows the direction of travel for decarbonisation. The challenge is increasingly whether the infrastructure around its estate can keep pace. As Trusts look to move away from fossil-fuel heating, support electric vehicle infrastructure, expand clinical capacity, and modernise ageing buildings, many are finding that the next phase of Net Zero is not just about choosing the right technology – it is about whether there is enough electrical capacity to deliver it. That makes grid capacity one of the most important
practical questions facing NHS estates teams. What was once considered a technical or utility issue is now becoming a strategic delivery risk, shaping what can be delivered, when it can be delivered, and at what cost. For organisations working towards the NHS Carbon Footprint target of Net Zero by 2040 and the wider Carbon Footprint Plus target by 2045, the ability to secure and manage electrical capacity will be central to progress.
Local energy centres may improve resilience.
The emerging constraint – where pressure is building The demand profile of NHS estates is changing quickly. Heat decarbonisation is a major driver, particularly where Trusts are looking to replace gas boilers with heat pumps or other electric heating technologies. At the same time, many sites are expanding or reconfiguring clinical facilities, investing in diagnostic capacity, modernising buildings, and planning for greater use of electric vehicles across fleets, staff travel, and visitor infrastructure. Each of these changes may be sensible in isolation, but collectively they can create a step change in electricity
demand. In practice, this means estates teams are increasingly finding that the capacity available at a site is not sufficient to support the preferred decarbonisation pathway. In some cases, the gap can be significant, with major additional import capacity required before schemes can proceed as originally planned. Connection timescales are also becoming a more
prominent issue. Across the wider UK energy system, connection delays and constrained network capacity are already affecting organisations looking to electrify heat, transport, and operations. For NHS estates, where projects often need to align with clinical priorities, funding windows, backlog maintenance programmes, and long- term carbon targets, these delays can have a material impact on delivery. The implication is that grid capacity can no longer be considered late in design development or treated as a matter for the connection application alone. It is now a core project risk, not an engineering afterthought, and is influencing fundamental decisions around site viability, phasing, capital planning, and programme risk. A scheme that appears technically viable from a building services perspective may still face major delivery challenges if the electrical infrastructure required to support it is unavailable, unaffordable, or subject to a long lead time. This can create difficult commercial choices. Projects
that have already secured planning consent or funding may need to be delayed, redesigned, or re-sequenced if the assumed grid capacity is not available. In other cases, estates teams may need to decide whether to prioritise certain loads, defer parts of a decarbonisation programme, or invest in enabling infrastructure before the full benefits of a scheme can be realised. The commercial impact can be significant. If grid constraints are identified late, Trusts may face abortive design work, revised business cases, delayed procurement, or additional enabling works that were not allowed for in the original capital plan. Operationally, the consequences can be equally material, particularly where energy upgrades are linked to live clinical environments, backlog maintenance, or the replacement of critical plant. A capacity issue that appears narrow at first can quickly become a programme issue, a funding issue and a risk to wider estate transformation.
Why waiting for reinforcement is not an option Historically, the response to insufficient capacity was often relatively linear: identify the need, apply for an upgraded connection, wait for reinforcement, and then connect. That
76 Health Estate Journal October 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188
