Campaign 9
Power Britain: Clean, Secure, Affordable
Hold government accountable for whether the energy transition actually delivers lower emissions, secure supply and affordable energy.
Net zero is one of the largest long-term transformations being attempted by government. It affects electricity generation, heating, transport, industry, infrastructure, household bills and investment.
Britain on Purpose does not think the useful argument is simply: Net zero: yes or no?
There are better questions. Are emissions falling? Is our energy becoming more secure? Is it affordable? Are we building the infrastructure on time? Those things can be measured.
The campaign in 30 seconds
- —Government commitment: The UK has a legally binding net-zero target for 2050. The Clean Power 2030 plan aims for clean sources to produce at least 95% of Great Britain's electricity generation in a typical weather year by 2030.
- —The opportunity: A cleaner domestic energy system could reduce emissions and exposure to volatile global fossil-fuel markets.
- —The challenge: The transition requires major investment in generation, networks, storage and flexibility.
- —Success looks like: A lower-carbon system that remains reliable and offers reasonable value for households, businesses and taxpayers.
Measure progress honestly
Government already publishes official Clean Power 2030 metrics covering the share of electricity generation from clean sources, the share of demand met by clean sources, and the carbon intensity of electricity generation. That is a good starting point.
Britain on Purpose wants the economic and security measures alongside them.
The Clean, Secure and Affordable Energy Scorecard
Track:
Security matters as much as carbon
The Government's Clean Power 2030 plan explicitly anticipates retaining unabated gas capacity for periods when it is needed, while targeting at least 95% clean generation in a typical weather year. That distinction matters.
A lower-carbon electricity system that cannot reliably meet demand would not be successful. Neither would a reliable system whose costs became economically unsustainable.
Clean. Secure. Affordable. Measure all three.
Follow the costs as well as the carbon
Whenever government announces a major energy programme, the public should be able to see:
- —What will it cost?
- —Who pays?
- —What will be built?
- —When will it operate?
- —What emissions reduction is expected?
- —What effect should it have on bills or security?
- —What actually happened?
Give credit for progress
The UK's emissions are already substantially below 1990 levels. The Climate Change Committee's 2026 progress assessment reports provisional 2025 emissions at around 50% below 1990 levels. At the same time, only 15 of the 31 delivery indicators it assessed were on track, while six were off track or significantly off track.
That is exactly the kind of mixed picture Britain on Purpose should communicate. Not: everything is working. Not: everything is failing. But: here is what is working, here is what isn't, here is what needs to change.
What we are asking government to do
Publish one clear Clean, Secure and Affordable Energy Scorecard:
- 01Emissions → Clean Power → Security → Bills → Infrastructure → Investment → Latest Result → Next Action
- 02Previous forecasts and targets should remain visible.
What would change our mind
- —We should support policies that demonstrably reduce emissions while maintaining reliability and delivering reasonable economic value.
- —We should question policies where costs materially exceed expected benefits, delivery assumptions prove unrealistic or better technological routes become available.
- —Net zero should be a destination, not an excuse to stop measuring the journey.
Policy in Practice
Energy policy has unusually visible trade-offs. A policy can reduce emissions while increasing a particular cost. Another policy may lower near-term costs while increasing exposure to international energy markets or making climate targets harder to meet.
Track:
Ask:
- —What did the policy cost?
- —What emissions did it avoid?
- —What infrastructure did it create?
- —What happened to bills?
- —Did it improve or reduce energy security?
- —Were costs anticipated accurately?
Compare the alternatives
We apply the same test to every party: is the proposal costed, independently verified, and does it define how success will be measured?
Current Government
Clean Power 2030 aims for clean sources to provide at least 95% of Great Britain's electricity generation in a typical weather year by 2030, while retaining gas capacity for system reliability.
Expected benefit
More domestic low-carbon generation could reduce emissions, support new industries and reduce exposure to volatile global fossil-fuel prices.
Potential trade-off
Delivery requires major investment in generation, grids, storage and flexibility — estimated by the plan at around £40 billion a year from 2025 to 2030. Financing choices will affect consumers, taxpayers and investors.
Conservatives
The Conservative Cheap Power Plan proposes repealing the Climate Change Act, removing the carbon tax, abolishing VAT on household energy for three years and expanding North Sea production.
Expected benefit
Tax reductions could lower bills in the short term, while greater domestic fossil-fuel production could support supply and employment.
Potential trade-off
VAT cuts reduce revenue. Removing carbon pricing and climate requirements would increase emissions risk and alter investment incentives, while UK oil and gas prices remain linked to global markets.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats support clean-energy expansion and insulation alongside an Essential Energy Guarantee discounting half of typical household consumption. They estimate average savings of £100 a year.
Expected benefit
Targeted support could reduce fuel poverty, while insulation can lower energy demand and bills over time.
Potential trade-off
Bill discounts require continuing funding, and large-scale insulation, grid and renewable programmes require substantial upfront spending and delivery capacity.
Reform UK
Reform proposes removing policy costs from energy bills, transferring existing renewable-subsidy costs to the Treasury, ending the current net-zero framework and expanding domestic energy production. It claims an immediate £250 annual household saving.
Expected benefit
Household bills could fall in the short term, and additional domestic supply could improve energy resilience.
Potential trade-off
Moving policy costs to the Treasury shifts them to taxpayers rather than eliminating them. Greater fossil-fuel use could raise emissions and does not remove exposure to global fuel prices.
Green Party
The Greens propose faster renewable deployment, major insulation investment, no new fossil-fuel extraction and moving remaining electricity-policy costs into general taxation.
Expected benefit
Efficiency and renewable power could reduce emissions, fuel demand and long-term exposure to fossil-fuel prices.
Potential trade-off
The programme requires large upfront investment and rapid infrastructure delivery. Restricting new fossil-fuel extraction increases the importance of storage, grids, interconnection and other reliable low-carbon capacity.
Where there is common ground
All five approaches accept that energy bills are too high for many households and that Britain needs a more secure domestic energy supply. The disagreement is mainly about how fast to decarbonise, how much to rely on fossil fuels in the transition and who should bear the costs.
Britain on Purpose: The Test
Emissions → Bills → Business Costs → Taxpayer Cost → Domestic Supply → Imports → Reliability → Infrastructure. Cut the carbon. Keep the lights on. Show us the bill.
Cut the carbon. Keep the lights on. Show us the bill.