Britain is at an energy crossroads. We have the engineering, finance and policy experience to lead the global transition – from Contracts for Difference (CfDs) to carbon pricing and offshore wind – yet investors and households alike are asking for proof that the next stage will be delivered with clarity and credibility. Backing Britain: Designing a World-class Investment Ecosystem for Energy captures a frank, Chatham House Rule discussion in the House of Commons chaired by Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, Bill Esterson MP. The message is clear: ambition is not enough; delivery must be disciplined, transparent and rooted in trusted market signals.
“Investment doesn’t follow ambition – it follows clarity.”
– Gordon Bennett, Managing Director, Utility Markets and Global Head of Environmental Markets, ICE
Markets that people can trust
The first theme is confidence. The report argues that stable, principles-based market design is the quickest route to scale, not a distraction from it. Britain’s energy and environmental futures markets – anchored by Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in London – provide real-time, “observable, verifiable prices” that let developers hedge risk and lenders price projects with confidence. When the system is volatile, liquidity beats precision: futures are a form of proxy insurance that enable action at speed. Liquidity of financial markets to price and transfer risk needs to be recognised as a central pillar of the Reformed National Pricing package.
In the recent gas crisis, the UK resisted blunt price caps that could have scrambled signals; instead, we let prices do their job while protecting consumers through the retail channel. Conversely, Carbon Price Support (2013) is cited as a smart, targeted intervention that strengthened incentives without undermining the market’s core function. The guiding test is simple: intervene only to improve market function – not to override it.
This lens puts the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA) centre stage. REMA may be technical, but it is the bellwether for whether investors believe Britain will anchor liquidity, hedging and bankable contracts. Further delay risks sapping momentum; haste without clarity risks confusion. As one participant put it: “Futures markets don’t cause volatility – they allow us to survive it.”
Affordability and cost honesty
Public consent lives or dies on bills. The report calls for candour: you cannot promise cheaper bills now while simultaneously making major system investments without saying who pays and when. Retailers are “getting minced between political expectations and actual system costs”, and that squeeze breeds fragility unless policymakers align messages with reality.
The gas debate underscores the point. The risk is not price alone but volatility; hedging and CfDs can buffer shocks, but the state cannot – and should not – act as a permanent insurer. The public will back Net Zero if the benefits are tangible: warmer homes, resilient local grids, and a sense that costs are fairly shared across time and customer groups. “If people don’t feel better off by the end of this transition, we’ve failed.”
Energy in context: Land, nature and Europe
Energy is not an island. Contributors argued for a whole-system view that links energy to land use, biodiversity, food security and housing. Britain still lacks a coherent national land-use framework and a spatial energy plan – remarkable gaps when the transition “takes land” and land is already under pressure. Strategic planning would reduce conflict, clarify trade-offs and accelerate delivery. Smart, flexible systems are the connective tissue here: demand response and smart tariffs cut costs only when households actually experience the savings.
Interdependence with Europe is another reality. We “swim in the same pool” on prices and carbon; alignment on carbon markets and crisis tools lowers risk premia and makes bills more manageable over time.
Mission-led government – with delivery discipline
The report welcomes energy’s elevation as a national “mission” and credits ministerial focus with unblocking long-standing barriers – the radar constraint on offshore wind is a positive example. Institutions such as Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund can crowd in capital if they avoid duplicating private capabilities or politicising decisions. The state should be an enabler and multiplier, not the system’s CFO.
“You can’t wish delivery into existence – you need systems that track, correct and learn.”
That means published roadmaps, transparent milestones and course-correction when evidence changes – all communicated in a way that sustains public legitimacy.
Four tests for the Autumn
The debate resolves into four practical tests that ministers, Parliament and industry can rally around:
1. Implement REMA – cleanly and predictably: Deliver the Reformed National Pricing package with an investor-grade delivery plan which recognizes the key role of liquidity in financial markets to price and transfer risk, clear transition arrangements, and a timetable lenders can price. Set out how wholesale reforms interact with CfDs (including AR7 and beyond), balancing reform and constraint-cost reduction, and align regulatory roles across DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO so signals remain boringly predictable.
2. Cost transparency and consumer fairness: Level with voters about near-term costs and long-term savings and show the route to bill stability. Review standing charges and the allocation of policy costs; confirm whether Ofgem’s remit is right for a decarbonising, increasingly flexible system; and publish a short, plain-English “cost transparency statement” each fiscal event so expectations match arithmetic – especially for vulnerable customers.
3. Spatial planning to shovel-ready: Move from process to product: publish the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP) timeline and first public iteration and finalise the Land Use Framework for England with a clear read-across to the NPPF. Tie SSEP to the Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP) so anticipatory grid investment proceeds at pace; resource the Planning Inspectorate; and fast-track consenting for projects demonstrably consistent with the plan – reducing risk and delay while improving community engagement and benefits.
4. Mission delivery and visible accountability: Equip Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to crowd in private capital – with published mandates, risk appetite and a pipeline that maps projects to regions, skills and supply chains. Establish a public delivery scorecard (milestones, spend, connections cleared, constraint costs falling) with quarterly updates to Parliament, and name a single senior owner for cross-government delivery so decisions stick through reshuffles.
The prize – and the risk
Britain’s advantage is real: deep markets, respected institutions and a track record of turning policy into assets in the water and steel in the ground. But credibility is a wasting asset if signals are blurred or if affordability claims outrun arithmetic. Investors do not need perfection; they need clarity. Citizens do not expect miracles; they want fairness, competence and visible progress. The report’s refrain is trust – in markets to allocate, in government to steward, and in the public to support change when treated like adults. The prize is huge, but so is the risk of a lost decade if we drift.
The report is free for members of Curia’s Research Groups, as well as the public sector and registered charities.
For more information on Curia memberships, contact Ben.McDermott@chamberuk.com
