Cheaper electricity is Britain’s route to growth and net-zero
4 min read
Cheaper bills must lead Britain’s energy debate. Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Bill Esterson, reiterates energy security and electrification are the route to growth and net-zero
Economy, security and environment. We must be unapologetic that our priorities lie in that order.
Increasingly electrification has replaced energy transition as the objective because it’s cheaper, more efficient and more secure to rely on electricity rather than imports of oil and gas. Decarbonisation as climate action will follow as an objective, but it increasingly does not lead this debate.
The priority for policymakers should be cutting bills for the British public. Energy security is our path to doing so. If we succeed, the carbon reductions our climate needs will follow. As Net Zero Week 2026 starts this week, a 13 per cent increase in the energy price cap has arrived. Higher energy costs is unwelcome news for families and businesses already under pressure. But this reality is helping forge a new consensus.
Not so long ago, news like this would have prompted a familiar argument: that climate action and net-zero policies were making energy more expensive. Instead, it has prompted a new argument, championed by my party’s former prime minister, Tony Blair, in his article about the future of our country. You may have to whisper it in some quarters, but Blair is right about at least one thing. Electrification.
In my constituency, electrification has already demonstrated huge benefits. The Merseyrail network now run battery-operated units without the need for infrastructure. They use about 20 per cent less energy than the old fleet, and up to 80 per cent less than diesel units. Across rail, electrification is roughly 50 per cent cheaper to run and maintain.
The central challenge facing Britain is not how to reach net-zero, but how to make energy, particularly electricity, cheaper.
Decarbonisation depends on electrifying transport, heating and industry. But electrification will only succeed if electricity is affordable. Businesses will invest if it improves competitiveness. Households will switch if it lowers bills. UK consumers pay the highest electricity prices in Europe, and industry struggles to compete as a result, while millions of people are in energy poverty.
So, it’s right that our priorities are in the right order. We should not pursue the policies of clean power because of ideological zealotry, but as obligations to the British people, who urgently need cheaper energy bills.
This is not an environmental argument. It’s one of economy and security. Once we have achieved greater security in our energy supply and broken the historic link between the price of electricity and gas, then we will be able to bring bills down over the long term.
The modernisation of our energy infrastructure is the path the government must follow, with a conviction and drive many are yet to see.
But what does that mean to those who see their energy bills increasing year upon year?
It means bills coming down. It means new jobs in every corner of the country. It means building the infrastructure that will power generations to come. A demonstration that government still has the vision, the ideas and the long-term strategy to make a difference to people’s lives. Delivering what should be our only priority, bringing down energy bills.
The select committee visited Canada and learnt that Prime Minister Mark Carney has adopted a pragmatic approach to enable the country to benefit from cheaper energy as a priority. His Build Canada Strong strategy has much to commend it, with an energy policy that focuses on the delivery of what Canadians need in an uncertain international situation.
Over the past year, my committee has examined public attitudes towards the energy transition. People want lower bills, stronger growth, cleaner air and greater energy security. Increasingly, they recognise these goals point in the same direction.
New polling reinforces this picture. Asked about Britain’s future energy needs, people place greater emphasis on competitiveness, jobs and reducing pollution than on the visual impact of new infrastructure. The public understands energy infrastructure is a means to an end: a stronger and more resilient economy.
Of course, oil and gas will remain part of our energy mix for some time. The question is not whether they have a role, but what the right balance is between fossil fuels and renewables, and how domestic production can support energy security, jobs, communities and the energy transition.
Britain will not achieve lower bills without cheaper electricity. Nor will it achieve stronger growth, greater competitiveness or lasting energy security. It’s the pragmatic approach, as seen in Canada, with recognition of the proper role of oil and gas that will secure our energy future.
Our mission, cheaper bills. Energy security as our means. Net-zero follows; it does not lead this debate.
