EP. 273 - From the C-Suite: What Next for Britain’s Energy Transition

This April Aurora Energy Researches Flagship Spring Forum returns to London for its 12th year. On 29th April 2026, join over 450 senior energy leaders for a full day of insight, debate and high-level networking. Here's CEO Keynotes from Global Energy and Finance Leaders, explored geopolitics, system resilience and investment strategy, and experienced live debates, breakout sessions and a recording of Aurora's Energy Unplugged podcast. As the energy transition enters a decisive phase, be part of the conversation shaping what comes next. Head to auroraer.com/events to book your pass and use the code podcast20 that podcast20 for an exclusive 20% discount. As part of a special series of episodes, energy unplugged will be bringing you exclusive content from Aurora Energy Researches November Energy Transition Summit. Kicking off our day was our panel taking stock of what's next for the energy transition, addressing the state of the energy transition in GB and its role in helping or hindering economic growth. This panel was led by Camilla Paladino, Debti Head of Lex Financial Times, featuring Jonathan Brilly, CEO of Offgem, Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power and Dame Dawn Childs, CEO of Pure Data Center's Group. Hello everybody, so I thought we could go back to the anonymous poll at the beginning about whether the energy transition is on track and have a non-anonymous answering session here. Short answers and then we can go into the reasons why yes and why no. Would you like to start us off please? I think the question was, is 2030 possible? I think the short answer is pretty aligned with, I think, where the sort of significant minority where yes it is, but there is a huge amount of work to do. We've said this, Niso have said this, there are big risks around this program and any of those risks could lead to a delay. The important thing for me is less about simply obsessing about the target, it's about the direction we're going in and that's what's most important and I fully support the fact that we are collectively moving to a system that is much more stable and quite frankly protects all of us against the risk that we saw emerge in 2022 and 2023. What do you think, Keith? Yeah, there's possible similar answer to Jonathan, lots needs to happen, lots needs to be done, lots of action needs to be taken, but I also, I can't get overly obsessive about 2030 as a date, you know, if the UK achieves it by 2035 that would still be fantastic. I think it's about the trajectory and it's about the growth and it's about the investment and keeping us pushing in that direction. And so I think it's feasible, but I think there are a few tricks we're missing, so that there's some work to be done particularly around the large energy user piece and how they can enable and help the transition and I would say that as a data center provider, I guess, but that's because I have an understanding of what the possibilities could be. Yes, absolutely, but exactly, so that takes me, what do we think the biggest bottlenecks are, would you like to start us off now? I think there's a real speed issue, which some is driven by regulation, some is driven by procurement and supply chain and requirements around procurement, and some is driven by lack of workforce, so there are lots of competing industries all looking for the same people to do the work, so I think there are a few areas that we need to really hone in on to enable the transition, so I think there are some bottlenecks that we need to move through. Yes, Jonathan. So, I think first we should think about how this system is being used and the needs we have of it, and you're welcome here talking about data centers because that's a rapidly changing area, and it's an area where there's great uncertainty, so I go to conference A where we've got this much needed and conference B where we've got this much needed, and we're going to have to find our way through this alongside the transition because I passionately believe that at the end of the day the system is there to support the country, and so we need to make sure we understand what the country needs, that's thing one. In terms of blockers, I mean, I think they're fairly familiar, we all continue to worry about the planning regime, I believe Keith might tell me differently that we are beginning to unlock the supply chain with some of the measures that we've taken, but my principal worry now, particularly around the areas where off-gem is most involved, which is around network regulation, is actually the day today, how are we going to keep these projects moving, and I am very conscious that the way off-gem regulates and the way we work together is going to be need to be different to make us, to allow us to move at pace, and what I'd really like to create is the kind of conditions and atmosphere that allow network companies to be very clear with us when they're facing problems and for us to work through those together. Please. So Luke, there's the obvious conversation about planning, but I guess it's a bit of a God for second conversation, so let's just work in the basis of the planning system delivers, okay? The critical things then are your supply chain and workforce, and I think actually to be fair to Jonathan and the team off-gem have done a huge amount to help that, particularly in supply chain. So early construction funding, early engagement, the supply chain, allowing to start investing ahead of time, that has actually helped massively. So I think if you look at it from the point of view of getting access to all of the equipment we need to build out the network, then actually I think things are progressing really, really well. The other critical thing to now is to me is investor conference, keeping investor conference, okay, for the UK. I think back at the start of this government when the healthy investor summit, one of the things that was a very clear, clear message to the government was, and I think it was best put by Larry Fink, which was, set the table and leave everything. Don't fiddle, okay? And there's a risk just now, I think, that this government is, and actually the sector is getting involved in conversations about fiddling with the mechanisms, okay? And if you look at just over the last four or five months, we've fiddled with the CFD auctions. We've changed the timeline, we've changed the qualification criteria, we're changing the way the auction works, we're changing the way the budget works. You know, there are things going on to snow around, you know, what ends up in a customer's bill, what happens to customer costs, what happens to customer debt, etc, etc. And there's just a slight risk to snow of policy being jumping about all over the place and changes being made to it, without sitting down and thinking about what does that do to invest their confidence? And when you're about to embark on, whether it's 50 billion, 60 billion, 70 billion of investment into the system, to deliver clean power by whatever date, you need to be really, really, really careful, okay? You know, another one, another example is there's a conversation ongoing to snow about changing the indexation methodology for rocks. Now, some people are looking at it and go, well, there you go, they've been in existence for ages, that's fine. But when you're doing that, and at the same time, you're saying to people, believe us, a CFD should be okay for 20 years, not just 15. I'm now thinking, an investor is now thinking, well, what in the last five years of that CFD, are you going to change the mechanism? Are you going to change the settlement? These are really, really, they sound to some people like small changes, but they're really, really important to investors and really, really important to investor confidence. So, that's the thing right now, I think this government and working with the industry and the regulator really needs to focus on is, how do you keep that confidence and keep that money flowing to the UK? Yes, because this point feeds into a broader point about public support and affordability. So, you know, there is some fiddling, but the fiddling, I think, is also in response to, you know, a changing circumstance. What do you think, Jonathan? Well, I mean, I come back to something I said in the speech an earlier that we all need to remember at the end of the day, this energy system is here to serve its customers, whether they're industrial customers or they're domestic customers. And we have to recognise what the sector and all its customers have been through over the last few years. So, I completely recognise and support and I think, you know, we're discussing our price control outcomes that we need investment, but that investment needs to be value for money and that investment needs to demonstrate progress to the group of people we serve. I think the thing I've always said since I came into offgem is, ultimately, everything we do is at the confidence of the customers and the country that we serve. And if we don't get that balanced right and if customers feel their money is not being well-used, that's when it becomes hard to make progress in any area and that's when, as Keith knows, fiddling becomes stratospheric. Can I pick up on the charity and confidence point? And I think it plays into the data center question as well. So, something that I think has invigorated the potential pipeline of data center requests is the lack of clarity that is given. So, if I give a specific example, we had a connection with question in pure data centres for our site in London and originally it came back and it said that we were going to have our connection, so 150 megawatts total, the last 50 was coming in 2026. And then we get a note saying, or by the way, that the reinforcement work has changed, so now that's going to be 2037. And I already had a hyperscale customer baked on for that data centre, which of course I then had to figure out how to dig up half of London to get power from another substation to me, a significant cost completely undermines the business case. So, having that lack of clarity, I think creates the fizziness and creates this ridiculous queue that I know you're now addressing, but you have everybody thinking, oh my goodness, it's going to be so far away, I need to put my submission in now, because whatever I'm told in terms of my power connection is a fiction until I physically actually have it built and they've switched it on. So, that lack of confidence and clarity, I think it is a key point. So, a lot of the demand that you're seeing is fictitious, and we have a term which, if you've been to lots of the data centre conferences, you may or may not have heard, which is Braggelots. So, basically, people are going, I'm going to build a one gigawatt AI factory over there, and the reality is they might only have a connection offer of 10 megawatts, but they might have the land, or maybe a view of the land, for a bigger scale facility. So, the reality, back to the zombie projects, kind of Braggelots, which I know you're very familiar with from the generation side queue, the reality of those connection demands is very diminimous, and because of the power pricing and the planning challenges in the UK and some of the copyright laws, I think the potential for proper AI gigafactories, other than sovereign requirements, which are backed up by government, it's not a thing, they will not be built here, they'll be built in the states, they'll be built in Norway. So, whatever you're seeing, a lot of it will be fictitious and will be zombie projects. So, the reality of the data centre demand in the UK will actually just be the organic growth of the cloud, and a little bit of AI inferencing that we are not going to see large scale gigafactories being built here, unless it's a sovereign requirement. So, I'll ask you more about that and how we can maybe change that if it's possible to change that, but I wanted to take that back to you, and so there's an issue with certainty, I suppose, and Keith was pointing out sort of certainty in terms of the way the rules are set, and how long they last for, and Dame Dawn was talking about the certainty in terms of connecting to the grid. What do you think can be done to improve that? Well, I think two things I'd say, you know, in terms of our, let's focus on our network regulation and what off-gem does. We try to create that stable platform, I think we do. So, we are the only AAA rated regime, I think, in the world. So, we do have a regime that I know that investors appreciate, and we value that, because we know that drives value in terms of the cost of capital, ultimately, we allocate towards networks. So, we are conscious of that, we are conscious of working closely across the industry to make sure that's maintained. I do think, though, that we all, as I say, need to acknowledge the needs of all our customers, and I come on to connections in a moment, and sometimes that does mean you need to adapt, and if I'd learnt anything in the last sort of 10 years of this role plus my previous role, it's actually the conversation that happens between the regulator and the industry that allows us to be able to adapt together, rather than, I think, where everyone gets uncomfortable, which is slightly more short-term and jagged changes than aren't anticipated. So, the heart, I think, of investor confidence is making sure that you have the right relationship. From both the companies and the regulator to work through it. They're coming on to data centres, it does come back to this point that we need to build this system for the customers that are out there. Now, I actually completely agree that there is much more we need to do on that demand queue, that really, frankly, it's hard for us to know, you know, I can probably tell you a zombie-win project from a real-win project, right? I know enough now to know roughly what you need to have in place. I think we're all learning about data centre demand, but I think we're facing similar issues. We are seeing projects, as you say, that at the moment, are paper projects doing the same thing that paper generation projects would do, which is getting in the ways of others that can develop. So, there's much more to do there, and we are working with the network companies on just how we get the incentives right, so that you begin to rely on the date much more than I think you can at the moment. But then, thirdly, I do think there's a big conversation, and I don't think data centres would be the end of it, which is how is our demand going to change in the future? And if I want to ask you if the data centre sector, there's a lot going on right now. We need to fix that. I completely agree. But Niso are embarking on a plan for the 2030s and 2040s. There's a big strategic question for us, which is, how do we prepare for this new world? And I'd love to see more industrial demand in that conversation, so we can think hard, not just about, you know, what do we need in the short term, but where do we start building out genuine centres of excellence, and how do we make that happen? Yes, that's a great question. Yeah, and it's absolutely happy to help. I think the challenge is the speed challenge with the sort of thoughtful and potentially slow progress in terms of how the grid is expanded, and how you plan for the future requirements. If I talk to my customers, so likes of Microsoft Google Amazon, their planning horizon is two years, and their expectation of me is months to make what's not years. So whilst there's a strategic long-term view you could take with organic growth, I think the reality and the speed of the data centre sector is just so much faster than that, that it makes those conversations quite difficult. That said, if there were the right incentives and liaisons in place, then you might be able to get a longer plan put together, which would enable some of the organic growth in the areas where it's required. So for those that don't know, and why would you cloud regions are put together in availability zones, so they have three data centres in close enough proximity to each other to fail over for resilience, and generally they tend to be close to large metros of people, because none of you like the buffering, right? The first thing you do is go and check your internet speed. If your data centres in Scotland and you're down in Cornwall, that's going to be terrible, right? So there's a certain distance restriction for those cloud-based availability zones, and that will be true for AI-infrancing and also for cloud and data storage. So those requirements, they are physical requirements, so the locations or the locations, so that expansion will be needed over time, only by innovation in terms of speed of latency, will you be able to then host things up in Scotland where there isn't a mass population of bed London? So I think the longer-term views and figuring out how you might be able to have more flexibility in data centre location, that's a challenge. What we need to figure out is how we unlock the capacity. By data centres helping, every single data centre, particularly for the hyperscalers, has as much power in stand by generation, just sat there, hardly used, maybe used two or three days a year, just waiting, and if we could figure out a way for that power to be used for flexible grid services, by changing some of the regulatory mechanisms, changing some of the policy around that to allow the meter to be in a slightly different place, perhaps, then we might be able to unlock that, and that's literally gigawatts of power in the right locations just sat there waiting. So I think there are some shorter-term conversations we have. Wait, wait, wait, you get to, it's the same thing and there's lots of people saying there's political differentials around what we're trying to do and what we should be doing, but fundamentally, if you look at what this country needs, this country needs economic growth. And it doesn't matter at one level whether that economic growth comes through manufacturing, through data centres, through AI, through life sciences, whatever, we need economic growth. The only way this country is going to get economic growth is if it has an electricity system fit for purpose, okay? Right. If you wanted to be critical, you could say we should have started this 10 years ago, right? We are where we are. We need to build the grid really, really quickly, and the focus has to be in delivering that grid and building a grid system that's fit for the 24th century. If you get a grid system fit for the 24th century, it will drive and allow economic growth to come through the UK and not allow whether it's data centres, AI, technology or whatever. So you need to focus on building and delivering that grid, okay? And that's why the investment is so critical, it's why the clarity, I don't generally talk about certainty, you can't have, if you have certainty, you won't make any money, there's no risk, okay? And you make money from risk. So you need clarity of purpose and clarity of mechanisms and you need to get that grid built, we need to electrify the economy, we need more generation built because we need to meet the demand because you drive the economic growth, demand will go up and demand will follow that. So we need to invest in the generation at the same time is building out the grid. If you look at what countries like China did, whilst we and lots of Europe were focused on decarbonisation for very, very good reasons and I'm not criticising it, okay? China was focused on electrification, focused on growing the economy. Now they're starting to decarbonise their economy now, you know, they are installing solar panels like it's going out of fashion. Why? They might not be doing it because they want to decarbonise the world, they're doing it because they're electrifying their economy, they're building huge amounts of generation to meet demand and encourage growth and that's what we need to be doing in the UK is building that to meet demand and encourage further investment and encourage further growth. On the customer side of it, Jonathan's absolutely right, there's a massive issue around affordability, okay? But however many years ago was we made a decision in this country that everything this sector does ends up in a customer's bill, absolutely everything ends up in a customer's bill, the government don't pay for any of it, okay? So there are choices that can be made policy choices and there's lots of media speculation about some of these being made as to whether do you take VAT off the bill? Do you take something like warm home discount off the bill? Do you take some of the equal costs off the bill and put them through general taxation? Still has to be paid for, but you can take it off an electricity bill. What you also need to remember because people go on about the cost of electricity in the UK compared to other countries, right? You take the average dual fuel bill, the 1,700 pounds. 700 of it is paying for fuel. 1,000 are other costs and of the 760% of it is gas. The electricity cost is quite low. It's all the other stuff we put on top of the bill that goes to the consumer and so if you want to really quickly address costs to consumers, take the stuff off the bill and put it through taxation. Now that's not an easy thing for a government to do. It's not a simple thing. You look at the fiscal challenges this government has, but if you want a quick solution without interrupting anything and that's what you would do and that's what you would go and look at as well as looking at the efficiency of everything we do. But when you're in a country that needs 60 billion pounds of investment, don't tell me you're surprised that that costs money. Sorry, and then to the last bit, which is if you build out that grid properly, you start to rip costs off the system as well and there's just, there's an alignment issue, a timing issue. But if you build that grid, all of the studies show you you will take 5, 6, 7 billion pounds of constraint costs out of the system. I was going to say, I think that there's a capability for large energy users, particularly data centers to help with that. So if I look at another asset we're building in Dublin, for example, we're building our own microgrid, so I'm building a 15 megawatt, we'll be by a gas generation plant there, which will then get connected to the latest stage. So if in that sort of the future, you were talking about 2030, 2040, you know, grid, if we're looking at the spatial energy plan, if we think about these potential microgrids and how they might get connected back in at a later date, so rather than waiting for the grid to be built to allow us to then connect, if we think more, you know, holistically about it and allow us to create microgrids to provide flexibility in grid services to bring down the constraint costs and all those good pieces, which will flow back to consumers' bills, that enables us to get our speed to market better and it enables the grid to grow in the future in a very governed way. We'll absolutely comply with all the grid code and all those pieces because we do that already in other jurisdictions. What do you think to understand, this is a familiar argument, whether the data center argument, whether it should somehow, whether the detour, as it were, is a one way to do it. I would really welcome that discussion. I think that gets us away from this sense of we've got this rigid demand and we've got to build stuff to make it happen and everyone just has to wait and so the other day I was talking to an innovation foundation from the US based in New York. I think somehow built out of the power cuts in New York, but anyway, a well-funded foundation who are looking at that very question. They want to have pilots across the world of where data centers are a full flexibility contributor. I welcome that conversation from data center, I welcome that conversation from all industrial users. We start thinking about how this system and its customers best fit together. I think we miss a trick actually. I think we talk a lot about flexibility. We talk about time-of-use tariffs for households and that is really important and I am genuinely optimistic that we are going to make that a reality. I know off-gives a bang on about that for a very long time, but I do believe now is the time we're beginning to see that happen, but we shouldn't forget industrial users. I guess it comes back to what I was saying in the speech. We are in a world where we need to be more strategic in our planning. We are in a world as Keith says where we need the infrastructure to catch up and develop the system that people need, but we're going to have to work together. So the more conversations we can have about how we fit these things together, the better. I look at my experience of talking to data center developers. I think compared to other parts of our economy that need large demand is they're really up for that conversation. How do we make this work on both sides? I think part of the challenge, because Jonathan and I were in a room together a few days ago and this was part of the conversation, which is we've had a system and it worked well for years and years and years where people apply to be in a queue and you went up the queue and you got your space in the queue and you got a connection. And the challenge we've got is in the world we're in now where there are capacity constraints and we need to build in the infrastructure, etc. There needs to be a process of prioritisation, exactly. And there's a debate about whose job is that? Who gets to make that decision? And you know, there's a part of that is an economic decision for the greater good of the UK. What's more important to connect and which order? And that's part of the debate that needs to be resolved over the coming months, which is how do you do that and how do you prioritise that, so that I think you can give whether it be a data centre or a manufacturing plant greater certainty about here's where you're going to be in the queue, here's how we're going to prioritise in the queue and here's how we're going to build out the grid to make that possible. And is that enough? We would strongly support that. I think the only thing I think where we would hesitate is some of those decisions are big political trade-offs, you know, data centre, hydrogen plant, housing estate. These are things that probably need somebody else other than the tentacrap. And then I think there are elements where you can have the two co-existing, so if we go back to the microgrid and data centres perspective, if you also then think about the heat reuse, actually that sits really well with housing developments. So if you created the over capacity in the microgrid to help with the housing and then also the heat network, oh my goodness, that's such a win-win. Well, and just look, I mean, one of the things that we are developing slowly is this idea of regional system planning for that reason. So you start getting local leaders who are thinking about rising housing demands, a million and a half new homes and having that integrated with our energy system. And how does it work? So if you have a system that sort of that works more on a bottom-up basis as well with like the microgrids and new gas fire generation, I think is what we're talking about. How does it then convert into a clean hoe? So here's the plan. I'm not guaranteeing it would be this smooth. I mean, the idea was we have national energy system operator. They are principally doing the planning for generation indeed for gas demand across the country. But what they can't do at a national level is then begin to make some of those regional trade-offs. So the idea we have we are implementing is that you bring together local mayors, for example, local local authority leaders who begin to lay out much more clearly and much more collaboratively with the industry, what they think the system need is. So where are the industrial parts going to be? What's going to happen in T-side? What needs to happen in T-side, for example, in the future? And that allows the DNOs and others to begin to integrate their plans in a way that aligns with that. So it's just about being a bit more forward-thinking, a bit more considered so that we're not always in this rush. I mean, the point I was trying to make early about, think about 2030s and 2040s comes back to almost what Keith was saying, which is, you know, we absolutely are committed to fixing today's problem, but all of us need to extend our horizon a bit so that we answer the question of, do we need to build capacity in a particular place to give you guys what you need in the future? And I think if we do that, we will have a system that ultimately is able to manage the scale of change that we're going through. Because the big thing for me now is the pace at which technology is moving means that we're going to have to adapt as we go. And that's going to have to be done nationally, but also regionally at the same time. And is there going to be an impact on builds as we do that? Do you think the sort of the piecemeal approach? So I think, look, we know we need investment, we know that investment, you know, Keith is right, that ultimately the networks are paid for through the bill. Now as Keith said, there are offsetting costs that come through the system and they come through over time. I guess my point on builds is this, you know, we just need to find a way collectively to be more transparent about what's happening over time. And that's why I sort of mentioned in my speech, we're keen to begin to share our analysis and begin to contribute to that debate. And more bottom up process, you would hope better meets customers demands, reduces waste and ultimately delivers a more efficient system. I understand. And before I take us through, we've got about 10 minutes left and I want to understand how many questions there might be in the room. So could I just have a show of hands? So I know one, two, why do we get started in that case? And then we can pick out the points. There may be a microphone in the room, please. Could you lift your hands and yes, maybe start here. And could you introduce yourself, please? No, well, yes, we can hear you. One idea I've heard about in the context of the build the build discussion recently is the idea that potentially network charges could be backdated towards the end of the period. So that you will be paying less net, so so so paying less of the network charges at the beginning. So you don't get that big 100 pound hit next next April. But perhaps you can have more of that hit later in the later in the price control period when we start to potentially hopefully see the benefits of lower wholesale electricity prices. I'm just wondering if the panel could sort of discuss the pros and cons of that and whether that's a good idea. Thank you. So I mean, I can't preempt our decision which is very soon sort of coming up, but I guess what I would say is two things. It's naturally in a price control actually, that as we get closer to kind of final decision day, we have a more robust conversation with companies about genuinely how fast can you build? So I wouldn't be surprised if that conversation begins to say, well, actually, some of these costs might appear later in the price control, but clearly without PMTN thing we're going to do. The question of whether you actually delay costs is one we have to think hard about the consumer interest and just make sure that you are fairly trading off-cost today versus cost tomorrow. But all of that's to come in a couple of weeks. Indeed it is. There are some in-built conflicts in terms of whatever everybody wants. On the one hand, we're all saying go faster, deliver clean power by 2030. That tells you don't slow down investment in the grid or back end investment in the grid. You've got challenges of supply chanking, you get all the bits and all of the people in time, therefore actually do you want a bit more time to build all of the grid. You've got a what you want to do about getting rid of the constraints costs off the system, the faster you build the grid, the faster you get rid of the constraint costs, therefore go faster, not slower. You've then got all the technicalities built into the settlement around, is the settlement over the five year period financeable and does it hit credit ratings and credit ratios? If you start playing about with the revenue profile or the TOTEX profile, you change all of those metrics as well. God bless Jonathan and his team. They need to come to the answer. It's phenomenally complicated and there are lots of conflicts. There is no simple easy answer to doing that. So that's why we need AI for the next price control. Yes, please. We might not get through everybody. I'll ask you for quick answers and do just shout if you can't get to the mic. Hello, I hope you have an energy intensive users group. I don't have the question for you because you mentioned transparency to have a more honest conversation about bills. Now when we were in government, government published a so-called price in bill impact report. Are you thinking of doing something similar? I would really encourage that. Well, a really helpful look. I don't have a firm answer to that. We are still debating what we either regulated might do and of course that's a conversation with the government. I guess the point I would make is I think that did give us transparency when we had those projections and you could debate the answer. You could argue with the modelling, but at least there was a sort of centre of gravity for people to talk around. Please. Would you just like to stand and I don't know how we're going to get a microphone to you? Ben Willis, Ida Bluey. There's a lot of talk about things needing to change, but what from the institutional side of things, the market framework, things, side of things, needs to change and how do we make those changes in a timely manner such that they can deliver what's needed in time? There's three things. I mean, you have to remember that we have three big public institutions now, and so is obviously new to that. We have three big public institutions working together. I've said a number of times what I think needs to happen to off-gem. I mean, funnily enough, we just had our 25th anniversary. We had a sort of week where we looked back on all the things we've done in our own history. We were set up in 2000. The market was completely different and if I'd unfairly describe what's happened to our framework since then, usually every time there's an energy bill, we get an extra have regard to duty on the back of it. So we know the legal framework around us needs to change. Second thing we know is that this sector is not just about what comes through the plug and the pipe into your home, but we have a number of different markets and different players, so the situation is more complex and we need to be set up to be able to deal with that. Thirdly, we think we need sort of specific powers that help us best manage risk for customers and some of those things we saw play out in the crisis. But there's a more general problem, which is you have a system planner. You have some key decisions now being made by the Secretary of State that just weren't made in that way five years ago, and you have a regulator whose job it is to be able to make sure that we deliver that at least cost to customers. And I think we need clarity between those frameworks. So for example, one thing we're interested in exploring with government is how we make sure that once we have that strategic plan, the regulator's job, and I've said this before, is always to step back a bit and make sure that technically we deliver against that plan efficiently. So my main point is look between us, Nesau and government, we just need to make sure those roles are clear. Great. We do that without red tape, without getting bogged down. Sorry. How do we do that without getting bogged down? Well, I think we sort of are already. I mean, I do think that the work that Nesau did on the 2030 plan, the ASTI work that we've put in through the network regulation, are an example of how our organisations are adapting. But we do need to think it through and we just need to keep an eye on it. It's more about implementation for me than big grand design. I think if you look across, I think the whole value chain of the sector, largely the mechanisms and frameworks that are in place for the generation sector are okay. They've been doing what they're meant to be doing. They've been encouraging investment. You can argue about the mix of the investment and different people of different views, but there are frameworks in there to encourage investment in generation, okay? I question some of the changes that have been made to the CFD system, but let's leave that for a sec. In the network investment for transmission and distribution level, mechanism works fine terms of now, early construction funding, bringing forward investment. All the companies are bringing forward their investment programs. The plan is there. We all roughly know what we're trying to do. The difficult sections, the retail sector, okay? Because right now, I would define that as not to being sustainable the way it works this now. And that's where the challenges are, is how do you make that bit of the leg sustainable as well? When you have part of the sector, whether it's four and a half or five billion pounds of debt, that is not a sustainable position, okay? I'll poke at the sector as well. When you have companies selling a product at 150 quid below the cap, that is also not sustainable. And people need to look at that and the companies need to look at that. If you're selling a product at 150 pounds below a 1,700 pound price cap, yeah, the price cap is designed to give you a two and a half percent margin, that's 50 quid. You're losing a hundred pounds. Either you're losing a hundred pounds or this man can't add, okay? So there's stuff around the structure of the retail sector and how we deal with it and the debt issues and challenges, but there's also behavioral issues that need to fix them resolved in that sector as well. Thank you. Okay, can we have raised hands again so I know what I'm up against? Yes, well, please just go ahead, we're never going to get through to everybody, sir. Sorry, Steve Edwards, Blue Manager, building on your point, Keith, about the disparity between the cost of the wholesale and the tariffs incurred at the domestic level. Jonathan, do you think you need to, if we're going to electrify heating, that's a bigger load than we're talking about with data centers. Do you need to apply a different tariff structure to air source heat pumps or other electrified heating than you do to the rest of the household to make that work? So I think whatever happens, if we are going to go down a transition that is dominated by electrical heating and I think the government still have to give a clear view, but there's obviously a lot of momentum behind that, then electricity costs do need to be competitive with what you get from a gas boiler. Now, how you do that, whether that's through tackling the whole bill or whether that's through a sort of heat pump specific tariff is probably a matter of a government, but I think we all need to bear in mind and it comes back to this point, I've been making for most of this session. Look, we need energy system that works for its customers. If you don't have a heating system that is good value for money that works well, it's not going to get the traction it needs to deliver the change we need. There is an inbuilt challenge in there as well around where the policy costs lie and the price of electricity and the price of gas. So there is a debate and an argument that would say lump more of those costs on gas, make gas, it's true price which is even more expensive and then you send an economic signal to people to switch to heat pumps. That is, that sounds phenomenally simple, but it's incredibly complicated and it has some big, big implications on people and affordability. So a lot of work needs to be done before you go and do stuff like that and make changes like that and I think it needs to be thought through carefully. I still think, you know, there's a question about how do you roll out EV charge points, heat pumps, solar panels and there is a bit about do you actually do some of that through distribution companies, do you take that cost and spread over 30, 40 years, do you do it on mass? So we're going to have to run around the country doing what's called unlooping, most of you probably won't even know you're living a house that's looped where your connections shared with your neighbour. Okay, and we're going to go round the country unlooping houses all over the place. When you're doing that in a street as a distribution company, should you be making an offer to everybody at the same time to get an EV charge or a heat pump and solar panels and the roof? Great. So we're getting to the end of the session, but before I let my panelists go, I thought I'd ask you one question, like I sort of take away question, what's the thing that most urgently needs doing? If we're going to accelerate, keep public support, keep affordability in mind, the one single thing that needs doing. From my perspective, in enabling the build out of microgrids and that future plan piece because that will have the positive impact on bills and I think the regulatory landscape needs to change a bit to enable that to happen. Microgrids absolutely Keith, stay calm, allow through and Jonathan. So I mean, I think we are in a different place to what we've been in the last few years in terms of the situation of customers, but that still needs to improve and I just, in a sense, support what Keith is saying, there's all work for us to do on the retail market to make it work for everyone. Great. Well, thank you very much to my panelists. Thank you all for listening.