Labour was elected on a pledge to ‘Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower’ – and there can be no doubt that the Government has set about this mission with significant purpose and no small amount of delivery over its first ten months. However, with opposition parties and the media ramping up net zero skepticism, and major controversies lying in wait, whether this early progress – and the ambition that underpins it – will result in an electoral pay off remains to be seen.

The Labour government’s ambitions in the energy sector are considerable. In particular, the target to hit clean power by 2030 is one of the most radical in the Government’s agenda, requiring massive investment and significant policy change to deliver.

The production of a plan to reach the 2030 target – informed by advice from the National Energy Systems Operator (NESO) – was an impressive early deliverable from its first six months in power, alongside the accompanying NESO-led process to ‘strategically align’ the grid connections queue in support of the regional technology ambitions that the plan sets out.

The government has also set in motion a vast array of other policy changes, including the Warm Homes Plan, substantive devolution, sweeping planning reforms, and the establishment of GB Energy (albeit with uncertain scope and possibly diminishing capital – all eyes on the Spending Review).

However, relatively speaking, this has been the easy bit. Delivering on this agenda whilst maintaining public support is the challenge that lies ahead – particularly with so much new energy infrastructure being required around the country. With Reform calling to scrap net zero as one of its totemic policies, Kemi Badenoch rowing back on the 2050 target, and the re-election of Donald Trump both a symptom and a cause of a fraying global climate consensus, this will not be easy.

In that context, former leader Tony Blair calling for a ‘reset’ on net zero is unhelpful, even if, in reality, his Institute’s recent report is not hugely critical of Labour’s agenda (rather focusing on CCS and frontier nuclear as typically Blairite techno-optimist solutions to the current global paradigm). However, as welcome as advances in direct air carbon capture and nuclear fusion would certainly be, technology is not the limiting factor to the energy transition. We have most of the tools we need. What Blair does correctly diagnose is that it is a net zero backlash (to which he may have invertedly contributed) that represents the real risk to climate progress.

It is also a risk to the Labour government.  Ed Miliband’s pitch to the electorate is based on three core claims; that net zero will reduce bills, that it will deliver jobs, and that it will increase energy security. He is almost certainly right on each – but the question is one of extent and timing.

Electrification will, long term and with the right reforms, be cheaper than our current system. Yet the NESO advice on the short-term financial benefits of clean power were far more measured (CP30 can be delivered without increasing costs) than the £300 annual saving by 2030 that has been promised as recently as February this year. This creates political risk.

Likewise, the promises on jobs. The energy transition will produce jobs – transitioning oil and gas workers and training up the workforce to become network engineers and energy efficiency retrofitters, is a hugely important task – but requires skills that the UK doesn’t currently have enough of. This makes 650,000 jobs a tough yardstick to aim at within five years.

The argument on energy security and reducing the reliance on gas is stronger now even than a year ago, hence leading Labour’s current messaging, though it is also true that the transition to renewables relies heavily on China – something that not only China hawks in the opposition but even its own MPs such as Alex Sobel are reminding them.

The challenge that Labour faces is that it is undertaking a noble mission, one that demonstrates genuine global leadership and should pay off for the UK long term, but not necessarily within the next four years. Skilled communications and evidence of tangible outcomes will therefore be key, even if not all milestones are met.

In this fraught environment, it is fascinating that the major imminent controversy is inherited; whether and to what extent to implement locational pricing – one of the most bitterly debated topics the sector has seen in years, and one which many investors fear could derail the 2030 target and create acrimonious regional divides. At this stage, key figures in the Government remain divided too – but Reform, the Greens, the Lib Dems and many of the unions have come out against. Labour may need to be wary of providing their opponents with another stick.

[This article features in PLMR’s new report – ‘Adapting to the new normal’]