The blackout has become less a crisis, more a minor inconvenience
In the ongoing struggle to balance affordability with reliability, the head of Britain's largest energy supplier has raised an uncomfortable question: how much inconvenience are ordinary households willing to accept in exchange for lower bills? Speaking on the anniversary of a blackout that killed six people across Spain and Portugal, Greg Jackson of Octopus Energy suggested that some consumers might prefer occasional power cuts to the relentless climb of electricity costs — a provocation that cuts to the heart of how modern societies value the invisible infrastructure that sustains them.
- UK household energy bills are approaching £2,000 a year, with grid upgrade costs alone having nearly doubled since 2021, leaving millions of families stretched to their limits.
- A CEO's suggestion that blackouts could be an acceptable trade-off for 25% cheaper electricity landed like a live wire — made all the more jarring by being floated on the anniversary of an outage that left people unable to breathe without power.
- The tension splits along a fault line: Octopus Energy argues that smart technology and renewables can make expensive grid upgrades unnecessary, while the National Energy System Operator insists the infrastructure investment cannot be avoided.
- Spain's catastrophic blackout — once cited as proof that renewables destabilize grids — has been attributed to multiple interacting causes, complicating the narrative that cheaper, flexible energy systems are inherently riskier.
- The debate is converging on a question households will ultimately answer with their bills: whether the price of a perfectly reliable grid is one a stretched public is still willing to pay.
Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy, used an industry conference to float a deliberately unsettling idea: that some households might rationally choose occasional blackouts over the electricity bills they face today. The timing was striking — he spoke on the anniversary of Europe's worst recent power outage, a collapse across Spain and Portugal that killed at least six people, including two who could not operate medical breathing equipment when the lights went out.
Jackson framed his remarks as a thought experiment rather than a policy proposal. In Spain, where Octopus operates, he argued many consumers would accept 'the odd blackout' for electricity 25% cheaper than current rates. His reasoning leaned on technology: home batteries, he suggested, have become affordable enough that a brief outage is now an inconvenience rather than a crisis — even, he implied, for those with medical needs.
But the deeper argument was about spending. Jackson warned that the UK risks locking in billions of pounds of grid investment that may prove unnecessary as new technologies mature. The numbers give his concern weight: network upgrade costs passed on to households have risen from £254 annually in 2021 to £457 today, pushing average dual-fuel bills toward £2,000 a year, while total household energy debt has surpassed £4.5 billion.
Fintan Slye, head of the National Energy System Operator, pushed back — acknowledging that households must adapt how they use electricity, but insisting that core grid investment remains unavoidable to move power from where it is generated to where people live. Investigators into Spain's blackout, meanwhile, found that multiple interacting factors caused the collapse, not renewables alone.
What the exchange laid bare is a tension that will shape energy policy for years: the cost of keeping the lights on perfectly versus the cost of bills that are already breaking household budgets. The answer will not be purely technical — it will reflect what kind of trade-offs a society is prepared to make, and who bears the consequences when the calculation goes wrong.
Greg Jackson, who runs Octopus Energy, Britain's largest energy supplier, stood before an industry conference and made a provocative suggestion: some households might actually prefer occasional blackouts to the rising electricity bills they face today. He was speaking on the anniversary of Europe's worst power outage in recent memory—a collapse that had swept across Spain and Portugal a year earlier, leaving tens of millions without trains, traffic lights, ATMs, or internet. At least six people died in that outage, including two who could not operate medical breathing equipment when the power failed.
Jackson's argument was framed as a thought experiment about trade-offs. In Spain, where Octopus Energy operates a growing business, he suggested that many consumers would accept "the odd blackout" if it meant electricity costs 25 percent lower than what they currently pay. He was careful to say he was not advocating for blackouts—but the implication was clear: the cost of maintaining a perfectly reliable grid might be higher than some people are willing to bear.
His reasoning rested on a technological assumption: that home batteries, which Octopus Energy sells, have become cheap enough and capable enough that a brief power cut would be merely inconvenient rather than catastrophic. A laptop battery lasts a couple of hours. Even people who rely on electricity for medical equipment, Jackson suggested, could now afford backup power. The blackout, in his view, had become less of a crisis and more of a minor disruption in an age of portable devices.
But Jackson's real concern was not blackouts themselves. It was the cost of preventing them. He argued that the UK was about to make expensive grid investments that might prove unnecessary as new technologies emerged. Octopus Energy has been vocal in warning against what it sees as wasteful spending on network upgrades. The company's position is that countries embracing cheap renewables and building in flexibility—like Spain—see lower energy prices and less exposure to price spikes. The UK, by contrast, risks "hardwiring in high costs with tens of billions of grid and network spending, without enough transparency on whether all of it is really needed."
The numbers tell part of the story. Grid upgrade costs, which households pay through their energy bills, have climbed from about £254 a year in summer 2021 to £457 today. Average dual fuel bills are expected to reach nearly £2,000 a year by July. Households are already struggling under record debt loads exceeding £4.5 billion. The rise is partly due to gas prices spiking because of Middle East conflict, but the cost of upgrading power lines and networks is a significant driver.
Yet Jackson's comments drew a sharp counterpoint from Fintan Slye, chief executive of the National Energy System Operator, which manages Britain's electricity supply. Slye acknowledged that there would need to be a "step-change" in how households use electricity—but he stopped short of endorsing blackouts. He insisted that significant grid investments remain essential to transmit electricity from where it is generated to where people live. The official investigation into Spain's blackout, moreover, had concluded that "multiple interacting factors" involving both conventional power plants and renewables caused the collapse—not renewables alone, as some critics had claimed.
What Jackson's remarks exposed was a fundamental tension in energy policy: the cost of reliability versus the cost of bills. Octopus Energy's position is that flexibility and smart technology can reduce both. The grid operator's position is that some infrastructure spending cannot be avoided. For households already stretched thin by energy costs, the debate feels abstract. But the outcome will determine whether their bills continue to climb or whether they might, someday, accept a darker home in exchange for a lighter wallet.
Notable Quotes
Countries that have embraced cheap renewables and built in flexibility are seeing dramatically lower energy prices and far less exposure to spikes, while the UK risks hardwiring in high costs with tens of billions of grid spending.— Octopus Energy spokesperson
Significant investments in the power grid are still needed to enable electricity to be transmitted from where it is generated to where people are located.— Fintan Slye, CEO of the National Energy System Operator
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Jackson says households would accept blackouts for lower bills, is he reading the room or creating permission for something utilities want anyway?
He's doing both, I think. The data on Spanish prices is real—they do pay less. But he's also softening the ground for an argument: that perfect reliability is expensive, and maybe we shouldn't pay for it.
But people died in that Spanish blackout. Medical equipment stopped working. How does he square that circle?
He doesn't, really. He just asserts that home batteries are cheap enough now to solve it. That's a bet, not a fact. And it assumes everyone can afford a battery.
So this is about cost-shifting, not cost-cutting?
Partly. If you move the burden of backup power from the grid to individual households, the grid's bills go down. But the total cost to society might not change—it just moves to people's homes.
What does the grid operator actually need that Jackson is arguing against?
Transmission lines, mostly. The UK is moving toward renewable energy, which is often generated far from where people live. You need infrastructure to move that power. Jackson thinks some of it is overkill; the grid operator says it's essential.
And we won't know who's right until?
Until we either build it and see if it was necessary, or don't build it and see if the lights stay on. Either way, someone pays.