Published

7 months ago

June 30, 2025

Alice Rush

Jonathan Brearley became chief executive of the UK’s energy regulator Ofgem in 2020.

Since then, he has seen the organisation through the Covid-19 pandemic, the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis.

In January, it was announced that Brearley will continue in the role until 2030, the target date for the UK’s electricity system to run on clean power.

This gives him an important position in overseeing the country’s electricity and gas networks, as well as the energy markets, retailers and consumer prices during a period of huge transition.

Carbon Brief sat down with Brearley to discuss the energy network, “zonal” pricing, the Spanish blackout and what is next for protecting customers from high energy prices.

On the next decade: “If you fast forward to 10 years’ time…our energy is going to come from lots of different places.”
On electricity network rollout: “We should have built the network faster.”
On Ofgem’s scope: “If I think back to…2020, I don’t think I’d have imagined how fast we would change the things that we do.”
On price control frameworks: “If we get that right, if we get that infrastructure on time, then that takes the country to a much more stable and secure place.”
On zonal pricing: “There are benefits, economic benefits, from single pricing, but it brings uncertainty…[I]t’s a balanced judgment. It’s not just a slam dunk.”
On the clean-power 2030 goal: “The interaction between zonal and clean power is this question of cost of capital and uncertainty.”
On protecting customers: “We are trying to have a stable system…one that allows us to manage this international volatility that, quite frankly, no government or regulator can control.”
On the Spanish blackout: “I think we’ll all have to be vigilant.”

On zero-carbon power: “The job for all of us is to be really careful about the security of supply.”
On “rebalancing” energy-bill policy costs: “We’ll all have to be mindful of the distributional consequences of any change.”
On equity in the transition: “There’s a really big challenge for all of us, [around] how are we going to get some of this kit into people’s homes.”
On energy bills: “There’s greater awareness and I think greater importance in people’s lives.”
On misinformation: “We see part of our job as being that sort of authoritative voice.”
On the role of gas: “It’s about diversifying [the energy system] so that, were a shock to hit, we would be in a much more attenuated place.”
On wind “constraint” costs: “The best way to avoid constraint costs is to have the network to transport the electricity, ”
On customers and the energy transition: “There is a really interesting discussion we should have publicly, about how customers are going to see this change.”

Carbon Brief: How do you think the UK’s energy system will look in a decade and what will it mean for consumers?

Jonathan Brearley: So, I might answer that by just stepping back and thinking about how it’s already changed, and therefore how it might change in the future.

If you go back to 10 years ago when we started this low-carbon transition journey really, it was all about growing energy at the back end. So different forms of power generation, in particular, and to be honest, my life, your life, everyone’s life, has not really changed much in the way we use energy. Most of us still heat our homes using the same kind of heaters, usually gas heaters. We still use electricity in the same way we did, frankly, in the 70s and 80s.

But if you fast forward to 10 years’ time – and you’re beginning to see this already, actually increasingly – our energy is going to come from lots of different places. So it’s going to come, for example, from solar panels, which we may have on our roofs. We may be using our cars both for sourcing their fuel from electricity, but also being used to help us manage our own energy within our homes.

So I think this is all going to become very real and very visible for families and for businesses.

I think the question for me is, how do we make sure that that transition is a positive one, and how can we make sure that people get the benefits of that? And I think the benefits could be really big.

CB: Sort of implicit in what you just said is a bit of the fact that we thought a lot about the generation, we thought about the renewables, but the networks for something that feels like it’s only really become a focus in the last couple of years.

Do you think that we should have paid more attention to that sooner? Or do you think lots of people were, but it just wasn’t getting the sort of media attention that renewables were?

JB: So I think, without a doubt – and I’ve said this many times with hindsight – we should have built the network faster. You know, it’s clear that we now need to build fast to meet the ambition of renewables that we have.

Now, some of that is about how those ambitions change over time. But quite frankly, we’ve got a huge task now to get our networks in place. And you know, in a system where the place we generate is going to change, the type of generation we have is going to change, we need the network to match. And that’s really what Ofgem’s focus has been for a number of years now, to try and get that going. And quite frankly, I think it is going quite fast.

CB: Do you think that Ofgem’s scope and focus have changed an awful lot, in even just the last five years or since the energy crisis?

JB: Hugely. I mean, I think it’s changed hugely. Even if I think back to when I was CEO in 2020, I don’t think I’d have imagined how fast we would change the things that we do.

So take that network’s kind of piece. Even in 2020, we were still running price controls pretty much in the way we’ve run them before, [whereas] right now, our network regulation is starting from the understanding that pace is important. The speed at which we move, the speed at which we get investment in the system, is the best way we are going to protect customers.

So with something we called ASTI, the accelerated strategic transmission investment program. We have a whole programme now focused on making sure that, as far as possible, our kind of regulation of the money doesn’t get in front of project development.

Now, quite frankly, we’re about to come out with RIIO, our price control settlement. I think what we will say to the industry, to ourselves, to industry and to government, is, “look, there’s a massive challenge now. We’re making this money available, but we have to deliver, and that means making sure we get that network on time so that this new system we’re building works for the whole country.”

CB: How’s RIIO going to change from previous price framework periods?

JB: Well, I think there are two elements for me. First of all, we have to make sure that we invest in the system that we have. So all infrastructure regulators, in my opinion, need to learn the lessons from the last 10 years to make sure that the system we have maintains high [level of] security of supply and delivers high-quality services to customers.

But also, we are sort of embarking on this big build program to make sure that we are ready to take on all of this new generation.

Now, if we get that right, if we get that infrastructure on time, then that takes the country to a much more stable and secure place, which is something that I think in today’s world that customers will value extremely, hugely.

CB: With talking about the networks and how much is changing, you previously said you would support a shift to zonal pricing. Given how fraught the debate is, could you give me some of the core reasons behind backing such a shift?

JB: So look, I’ve shared my personal view on this and, quite frankly, that’s a Jonathan Brearley view, not a view of the whole organisation. And the reason I say that is because this is a really balanced argument.

So the problem we will all have is how to make sure we can run this new system as efficiently as possible. So, how do we minimise payments to generators to switch off because we simply can’t move their power around? And how do we make sure that the operation of our batteries, our interconnectors and our generators all fit together?

There are basically two options. There’s zonal pricing, which I prefer, because I think when you get there – even though it’s a long journey – this adapts more organically and more easily.

But there is a path you take where you adapt the national system that we have. You probably have to change your transmission charging and probably have to do more planning of infrastructure that could take you to somewhere near the same place.

Now I know the secretary of state is balancing those two things together. The argument is fairly simple in my mind: there are benefits, economic benefits, from single pricing, but it brings uncertainty. The question is, does that uncertainty drive up the cost of capital so much that it actually outweighs the benefits that you might get? And that’s what he’ll be grappling with.

Either way, we’ll support him in that delivery. I’ve given my view, but it’s a balanced judgment. It’s not just a slam dunk.

CB: You mentioned within that, that zonal pricing is a long journey. Do you think that the timeframe within which it could be implemented could potentially jeopardise [the government’s target of] clean power by 2030?

JB: So I think the interaction between zonal and clean power is this question of cost of capital and uncertainty. That’s the same trade-off I’ve just laid out and that’s where I think will be on the secretary of state’s mind when he makes that decision.

CB: In the shorter term, we’ve already touched on how things have changed since the energy price crisis and that being driven by surging gas prices in particular.

How much can Ofgem do to protect customers and consumers from similar situations in the future, given that gas still has such a role in setting wholesale market prices?

JB: Well, look, I mean I think that’s our mission. We’ve all got to learn collectively from the last few years. When you distill it back – all the regulatory detail, all of the conversations about how we manage technically – we found ourselves in a situation where this country’s energy needs were, in the vast majority, being provided by an international gas market that we don’t control.

Now, we saw the impact when we had to withdraw from Russia as a major supplier and we saw the price spikes we saw in 2022-24. What all of us want to do is build a system where we never face that kind of situation again.

So the thing about building the infrastructure we’re talking about, both through networks and through the upcoming auctions for offshore wind and onshore wind, is that we will have a system that is much more stable.

So there’s some very early analysis that we’re doing that I don’t have sort of full figures for, that asks the question, “Well, imagine we had a gas crisis in 2030 when this is all built”. And the early indications from that analysis are actually [that] we would be a lot better off as a country.

The main thing we are trying to do is have a stable system, a system that’s more within our domestic control, not totally within our domestic control, but one that allows us to manage this international volatility that, quite frankly, no government or regulator can control.

CB: Talking about international volatility, we’ve had the report this week from the Spanish government into the causes of the blackout. Then we’ve also had [grid operator] Redeia sort of pushing back against certain elements of it.

What is Ofgem taking from that situation, to learn about how it could manage potentially similar situations in the UK?

JB: Well, I think it’s still early days. We’re still digesting the report and we will make sure that we, the system operator and the network companies and indeed, the generators learn from what happened in Spain.

I guess, stepping back from the specifics, there are some reasons to take comfort. I think we have thought a lot about things like system inertia and some of the problems you might get when you see thermal generation declining, but I think we’ll all have to be vigilant. This is a big change and we’ll have to make sure the system works in all scenarios.

And look, the thing about incidents such as what happened in Spain is that they are great ways for us to make sure our system is more resilient. But there’s nothing I’ve seen from the reports yet that makes me think that there’s something we’re absolutely missing in the UK. But as I say, early days and much more work to do to get through that.

CB: With Britain being an islanded grid, it strikes me as being very different from the one in Spain.

Are there any particular countries that Ofgem can look at, sort of learn lessons from, or do you always sort of have to take a step back and go, but we are an island, we don’t have the level of interconnection that other places do, and we do need to be slightly more independent because of that.

JB: Well, that’s an interesting question. I suppose that as we look at our interconnection program, we’re going to build out up to roughly around 18 gigawatts (GW) of interconnection. So I don’t think we are going to be an island in 10 years’ time, coming back to sort of where we started.

There is always a question, if you are more separate from another market, as to how you manage, particularly looking back at the gas crisis. If you look at our gas market and how we connect to Europe, and what we might need from them. But I don’t think we’re so different that we can’t take lessons from European countries either.

And actually, I think when you look at Spain, Portugal and their interaction with France, one of the things I hear is a question that’s being asked is, should you have more interconnection for Spain, because, actually, there weren’t many outlets to begin to share some of these sorts of factors that play.

CB: That’s interesting, because I think lots of the focus has just been on how Spain was interconnected with Portugal, and that was almost a problem for Portugal.

JB: Well, that’s right, but if you look at the two of them together and how they connect to the rest of Europe, I don’t know the numbers, but I would imagine it’s a million miles away from where we are.

CB: With Britain expected to have periods of zero-carbon electricity generation for the first time this year, what are the biggest challenges Ofgem is facing in facilitating this transition?

JB: Well, I think it’s a really positive step. Now, let’s be clear, we will all be vigilant. And I imagine Fintan [Slye] and the system operator will be super vigilant, to make sure they understand how the system will work and how they’ll manage some of the changes that a zero-carbon system brings.

But it’s a great step forward and I think as we gradually get into this, the job for all of us is to be really careful about the security of supply, to remember that that is always the customer’s number one concern, and to begin to learn the lessons.

The thing for me is this great change that Ed Miliband is instituting through 2030, the new generation, the new network. For me, it’s all now about the efficiency of that. Making sure that’s efficient, economic and delivers what customers need.

Now the other thing, I think from the gas crisis is, although there are still tensions between the trilemma – I think we can’t pretend the trilemma has completely gone away – they are much lower than when I started 10 years ago, where we had a real sort of trade off between very high cost renewables and very low cost thermal.

So I think there’s a lot of work for us to do, but look, I’m glad we’ve made that step, and I hope it continues to do so.

CB: Do you think there needs to be work to rebalance the levies on electricity bills to sort of continue to tackle some of these core imbalances in the cost to consumers?

JB: So another trilemma is levies on electricity, what you might put on gas and what a taxpayer might take. You know, as a regulator without a fiscal mandate, of course I would love the taxpayer to take more of the burden, but I don’t face the challenges that the chancellor faces.

I think there is always going to be a question in the current system as to how, if you want people to take up electricity as their option for heating and for transport, how you make that economic, particularly through heating. But the thing we’ll all have to be mindful of is the distributional consequences of any change.

So what we think broadly is actually what you’ve got to do is step back and think about those customers that are really struggling. So, if you have low-income customers that are finding it hard in today’s market as is, how are you going to protect them through any transition?

And I think that goes beyond the question about levies actually. I think systemically, we need to do more for affordability, to give ourselves flexibility, to make changes like that that might make the system more efficient.

CB: Do you think the energy industry as a whole is doing enough to ensure that everyone is brought along with the transition? That everyone gets the benefits of being able to charge an EV at home and stuff like that, even if it requires quite a big upfront cost. Are we doing enough overall?

JB: So the thing I want to recognise is that, particularly for suppliers, but actually across the industry, people have worked really hard to protect vulnerable customers. You know, we’ve had things to work through, like prepayment meters, but most companies now have really focused on trying to make sure they understand customers in difficult financial circumstances, for example.

Now there’s always more we can do, and as a regulator, we’re always going to be pushing to make that response better. So [things like a] quick response to people in debt, making sure that you get them onto an affordable repayment plan and you work hard with those families to get them back in a more stable position.

I’m really pleased with the government’s announcement today [19 June 2025] that there’s more people going to get the “warm home discount”, and we’re going to play our part in that. We’re going to introduce debt relief initiatives that tackle the stock of debt that’s been left over since the crisis. So things are beginning to move.

In the short term, I think that as we make this transition, there’s a really big challenge for all of us, which you’ve highlighted, which is how are we going to get some of this kit into people’s homes, for people that aren’t able to finance that themselves? So I’m looking to the “warm homes plan”. I was pleased to see that was money allocated in the spending review [for the warm homes plan], where we will actually be [able to] support some of the most vulnerable customers to benefit from this.

And look, there’s a myth out there that I think we should challenge, that poorer or lower-income households and vulnerable customers don’t want to engage with this market.

I mean, interestingly, I’ve talked to a lot to [EV] charging companies for example, and they’ll point out to me, they’ll point out to me that a lot of EV users are people who’ve got those through disability payments and are engaging in a more flexible market and are seeing those benefits.

So the more of that we can create, the better I think it will spread the benefits of the change.

CB: It’s interesting. Why do you think there is less awareness that people who are considered sort of lower income aren’t as engaged?

JB: So there is some evidence, actually. So some of the consumer work we’ve done does say that, in general, if you have vulnerabilities, you might engage less with things like switching. But I think we’ve got to be imaginative about this. And if you have policy and policy funding, then there must be a much better way to get people involved.

Like I say, when you see people getting electric vehicles, for example, through personal independence allocations, things like that, then you can see people do engage. So there’s plenty of scope there to do more.

CB: Do you think there’s a greater awareness of what goes into energy bills than there was five years ago or before the energy crisis? And does that change how consumers then interact with you and what they call for from Ofgem?

JB: Well, I’ll tell you one thing that I’ve done now for three or four years, which is, I’ve phoned customers up individually. And so my teams find me someone – they do pre-warn them – and I phone them up and ask very general questions.

So I don’t go in there with a series of specifics, I just say, “how do you feel about your energy company? How would you feel about your energy provision? And what would you change?”

And I guess that the change that I am noticing, for understandable reasons, is that it’s much more front of mind than it’s ever been before.

So I think back to sort of when I started in Ofgem in 2015, I told people what I did, there was sort of moderate interest, put it that way. Now, everybody has an opinion about what should happen and the way we should configure the system.

So I think there’s, there’s greater awareness, and I think greater importance in people’s lives. You know, people have seen the impact of high prices, and most people have the question, well, how do I help myself get out of that?

CB: From Ofgem’s point of view, are there any specific areas where you think there’s mis- or disinformation that’s particularly harming your work, particularly in the media?

JB: So, you know, there is [currently] a much wider debate now about net-zero, and I think that is a shift. So right the way back when we developed the Climate Change Act in 2006/7, we had a House of Commons that I think had five dissenting votes out of the whole House – something like that, certainly less than 10. [Five Conservative MPs voted against the bill.]

So we are seeing a much more vigorous debate about what we should do. Now my view is we should also welcome that we all need to test our plans and test what we’re doing, but I think we have to be careful to ground that, as far as possible, in the analysis.

What we do, when we talk about the impact of what we do, we try and ground that as best we can within the economics we have within this building and the things that we see outside of there. I think that’s hard when the debate becomes more emotional, but that is, we see part of our job as being that sort of authoritative voice, basing things as far as we can on the evidence that we see.

CB: Do you think it would be useful if there was a clearer presentation of things like curtailment costs in the media?

JB: So the system operator does do work on sharing the curtailment costs, so they do and will share their analysis around this. I think the question is, how those might change over time, and being clear on the range of possibilities there.

The problem we have – and look, I’ve been around this very long time, is that projections are just projections. So I was looking back at some projections on constraint costs from 10 years ago, and put it this way, they were way out.

You know, I also always talk about my time in the department in the early sort of 2010s we thought the idea that solar was going to take off in the UK to be completely mad, because it was six times the market price and we have no sun in Britain. That was a kind of general statement. And both of those things have turned out to be wrong.

So one of the things I think we’re all going to have to get used to is understanding that the range of possibilities is still quite wide, and it’s how you have the debate within that, how you talk about how you manage risks.

The thing that we focus on as a result of that is to say, “look, let’s have a look at our portfolio of energy”. As I say, it’s majority gas. What we’re doing, I think, through the infrastructure bill that we’re putting in place, is really moving to a place that’s more stable.

There’s not going to be no gas in 2030, there’s plenty of gas in both our heating system and indeed, there’ll still be gas in our electricity system. But it’s about diversifying that so that were a shock to hit, we would be in a much more attenuated place. And I think that’s better for all customers.

CB: So I know I asked you what the UK energy system will look like in the next 10 years, but what’s on Ofgem’s plate for the near future? What’s next for you? What’s your biggest focus?

JB: Well, our big thing in the next couple of weeks will be RIIO. Now that is on network price control.

To be open, when I first came into Ofgem in 2016, that was a large part of my job. I came as networks director at that point, or networks partner, I think it was called.

And what we’re going to see, I think again, is the regulator moving fast to unlock the investment we need to build this system. So we’ve worked very hard for the companies, now we are always, unashamedly going to challenge them on the amount of money they need and the returns that they get, but equally, we are thoughtful about the pace at which we need to put this infrastructure in place.

As I say, coming out of this will have an impact on customers’ bills, because we have to fund the infrastructure that we are paying for. But we do think that is offset, really, by two things.

First of all, a reduction in those constraint costs, because the best way to avoid constraint costs is to have the network to transport the electricity, but also to get out of this volatility, so to be away from a place where we are as vulnerable as we were in 2022. So that’s what’s on our mind in terms of the conclusions that we’ll come out with.

But it’s a big challenge. The challenge is to us, to industry, to government. Now, what do we need to do? We need to unlock the money as those projects progress. The government needs to make sure that planning permission is there, that we have nothing in terms of the sort of wider regulatory landscape that gets in the way. And the network companies need to deliver, [as] we are giving them a vast amount of money on behalf of customers. This would be fantastic for customers if those projects get in the ground, but if they’re delayed, then I think customers have a right to be asking the question why.

CB: Is there anything else you like to add? Anything you think more people should talk about that no one ever asks you about?

JB: Oh, that’s a very good question. What should people talk about that they don’t ask about? I’ll tell you what we should talk about is – almost going back to the first question – I think there is a really interesting discussion we should have publicly, about how customers are going to see this change.

You know, how is it going to look and feel? Where regulators are terrible is in thinking about the shape of services. You know, how do you design something that people really want? You’ve got some great companies out there doing it. A lot of the retailers are now getting involved in this conversation. You’ve got a lot of small startups.

But I do think, once we continue the debate about the investment that we need, the next question is, “well, how does this work for people?” So I’m really excited by things like the government’s “warm homes plan”, because I think that is a really good way to get a conversation about what infrastructure do we need, how do we best use it, and how do we change all of our lives for the better?

The interview was conducted by Molly Lempriere at Ofgem’s head office in Canary Wharf, London, on 19 June 2025.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley

Greenhouse Gases

Permitting reform: A major key to cutting climate pollution

Published

2 days ago

January 31, 2026

Alice Rush

Permitting reform: A major key to cutting climate pollution

By Dana Nuccitelli, CCL Research Coordinator

Permitting reform has emerged as the biggest and most important clean energy and climate policy area in the 119th Congress (2025-2026).

To make sure every CCL volunteer understands the opportunities and challenges ahead, CCL Vice President of Government Affairs Jennifer Tyler and I recently provided two trainings about the basics of permitting reform and understanding the permitting reform landscape.

These first introductory trainings set the stage for the rest of an ongoing series, which will delve into the details of several key permitting reform topics that CCL is engaging on. Read on for a recap of the first two trainings and a preview of coming attractions.

Permitting reform basics

Before diving into the permitting reform deep end, we need to first understand the fundamentals of the topic: what is “permitting”? What problems are we trying to solve with permitting reform? Why is it a key climate solution?

In short, a permit is a legal authorization issued by a government agency (federal and/or state and/or local) that allows a specific activity or project to proceed under certain defined conditions. The permitting process ensures that public health, safety, and the environment are protected during the construction and operation of the project.

But the permitting process can take a long time, and in some cases it’s taking so long that it’s unduly slowing down the clean energy transition. “Permitting reform” seeks to make the process more efficient while still ensuring that public health, safety, and the environment are protected.

There are a lot of factors involved in the permitting reform process, including environmental laws, limitations on lawsuits, and measures to expedite the building of electrical transmission lines that are key for expanding the capacity of America’s aging electrical grid in order to allow us to connect more clean energy and meet our energy affordability and security and climate needs.

But if we can succeed in passing a good, comprehensive permitting reform package through Congress, it could unlock enough climate pollution reductions to offset what we lost from this year’s rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy investments. Permitting reform is the big climate policy in the current session of Congress.

Watch the Full Training Here

Understanding the permitting reform landscape

In the second training of this series, we sought to understand the players and the politics in the permitting reform space, learn about the challenges involved, and explore CCL’s framework and approach for weighing in on this policy topic.

Permitting reform has split some traditional alliances along two differing theories about how to best address climate change. Some groups with a theory of change relying on using permitting and lawsuits to slow and stop fossil fuel infrastructure are least likely to be supportive of a permitting reform effort. Groups like CCL that recognize the importance of quickly building lots of clean, affordable energy infrastructure are more supportive of permitting reform measures.

The subject has created some strange bedfellows, because clean energy and fossil fuel companies and organizations all want efficient permitting for their projects, and hence all tend to support permitting reform. For CCL, the key question is whether a comprehensive permitting reform package will be a net benefit to clean energy or the climate — and that’s what we’re working toward.

The two major political parties also have different priorities when it comes to permitting reform. Republicans tend to view it through a lens of reducing government red tape, ensuring that laws and regulations are only used for their intended purpose, and achieving energy affordability and security. Democrats prioritize building clean energy faster to slow climate change, addressing energy affordability, and protecting legacy environmental laws and community engagement.

Watch the Full Training Here

As we discussed in the training, there are a number of key concepts that will require compromise from both sides of the aisle in order to reach a durable bipartisan permitting reform agreement. We’ll delve into the details of these in these upcoming trainings:

The Challenge of Energy Affordability and Security

First, with support from CCL’s Electrification Action Team, on February 5 I’ll examine what’s behind rising electricity rates and energy insecurity in the U.S. and how we can solve these problems. Electrification is a key climate solution in the transition to clean energy sources. But electricity rates are rising fast and face surging demand from artificial intelligence data centers. Permitting reform can play a key role in addressing these challenges.

Transmission Reform and Key Messages

Insufficient electrical transmission capacity is acting as a bottleneck slowing down the deployment of new clean energy sources in the U.S. Reforming cumbersome transmission permitting processes could unlock billions of tons of avoided climate pollution while improving America’s energy security and affordability. In this training on March 5, Jenn and I will dive into the details of the key clean energy and climate solution that is transmission reform, and the key messages to use when lobbying our members of Congress.

Build Faster and Key Messages

Clean energy projects often encounter long, complex permitting steps that slow construction and raise costs. Practical permitting reforms can help ensure that good projects move forward faster while upholding environmental and community protections. In this training on March 19, Jenn and I will examine permitting reforms to build energy infrastructure faster, some associated tensions and compromises that they may involve, and key messages for congressional offices.

Fair Permitting Certainty

Presidents from both political parties have taken steps to interfere with the permitting of certain types of energy infrastructure that they oppose. These executive actions create uncertainty that inhibits the development of new energy sources in the United States. For this reason, ensuring fair permitting certainty is a key aspect of permitting reform that enjoys bipartisan support. In this training on April 2, Jenn and I will discuss how Congress can ensure certainty in a permitting reform package, and key messages for congressional offices.

Community Engagement and Key Messages

It’s important for energy project developers to engage local communities in order to address any local concerns and adverse impacts that may arise from new infrastructure projects. But it’s also important to strike a careful balance such that community input can be heard and addressed in a timely manner without excessively slowing new clean energy project timelines. In this training on May 7, Jenn and I will examine how community engagement may be addressed in the permitting reform process, and key messages for congressional offices.

We look forward to nerding out with you in these upcoming advanced and important permitting reform trainings!

Want to take action now? Use our online action tool to call Congress and encourage them to work together on comprehensive permitting reform.

The post Permitting reform: A major key to cutting climate pollution appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Permitting reform: A major key to cutting climate pollution

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas

Published

3 days ago

January 30, 2026

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Fire and ice

OZ HEAT: The ongoing heatwave in Australia reached record-high temperatures of almost 50C earlier this week, while authorities “urged caution as three forest fires burned out of control”, reported the Associated Press. Bloomberg said the Australian Open tennis tournament “rescheduled matches and activated extreme-heat protocols”. The Guardian reported that “the climate crisis has increased the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves and bushfires”.

WINTER STORM: Meanwhile, a severe winter storm swept across the south and east of the US and parts of Canada, causing “mass power outages and the cancellation of thousands of flights”, reported the Financial Times. More than 870,000 people across the country were without power and at least seven people died, according to BBC News.

COLD QUESTIONED: As the storm approached, climate-sceptic US president Donald Trump took to social media to ask facetiously: “Whatever happened to global warming???”, according to the Associated Press. There is currently significant debate among scientists about whether human-caused climate change is driving record cold extremes, as Carbon Brief has previously explained.

Around the world

US EXIT: The US has formally left the Paris Agreement for the second time, one year after Trump announced the intention to exit, according to the Guardian. The New York Times reported that the US is “the only country in the world to abandon the international commitment to slow global warming”.
WEAK PROPOSAL: Trump officials have delayed the repeal of the “endangerment finding” – a legal opinion that underpins federal climate rules in the US – due to “concerns the proposal is too weak to withstand a court challenge”, according to the Washington Post.
DISCRIMINATION: A court in the Hague has ruled that the Dutch government “discriminated against people in one of its most vulnerable territories” by not helping them to adapt to climate change, reported the Guardian. The court ordered the Dutch government to set binding targets within 18 months to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, according to the Associated Press.
WIND PACT: 10 European countries have agreed a “landmark pact” to “accelerate the rollout of offshore windfarms in the 2030s and build a power grid in the North Sea”, according to the Guardian.
TRADE DEAL: India and the EU have agreed on the “mother of all trade deals”, which will save up to €4bn in import duty, reported the Hindustan Times. Reuters quoted EU officials saying that the landmark trade deal “will not trigger any changes” to the bloc’s carbon border adjustment mechanism.
‘TWO-TIER SYSTEM’: COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago believes that global cooperation should move to a “two-speed system, where new coalitions lead fast, practical action alongside the slower, consensus-based decision-making of the UN process”, according to a letter published on Tuesday, reported Climate Home News.

$2.3tn

The amount invested in “green tech” globally in 2025, marking a new record high, according to Bloomberg.

Latest climate research

Including carbon emissions from permafrost thaw and fires reduces the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C by 25% | Communications Earth & Environment
The global population exposed to extreme heat conditions is projected to nearly double if temperatures reach 2C | Nature Sustainability
Polar bears in Svalbard – the fastest-warming region on Earth – are in better condition than they were a generation ago, as melting sea ice makes seal pups easier to reach | Scientific Reports

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

EV sales just overtook petrol cars in EU for the first time. Chart shows monthly new passenger card registrations in the EU.

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) overtook standard petrol cars in the EU for the first time in December 2025, according to new figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) and covered by Carbon Brief. Registrations of “pure” battery EVs reached 217,898 – up 51% year-on-year from December 2024. Meanwhile, sales of standard petrol cars in the bloc fell 19% year-on-year, from 267,834 in December 2024 to 216,492 in December 2025, according to the analysis.

Spotlight

Looking at climate visuals

Carbon Brief’s Ayesha Tandon recently chaired a panel discussion at the launch of a new book focused on the impact of images used by the media to depict climate change.

When asked to describe an image that represents climate change, many people think of polar bears on melting ice or devastating droughts.

But do these common images – often repeated in the media – risk making climate change feel like a far-away problem from people in the global north? And could they perpetuate harmful stereotypes?

These are some of the questions addressed in a new book by Prof Saffron O’Neill, who researches the visual communication of climate change at the University of Exeter.

“The Visual Life of Climate Change” examines the impact of common images used to depict climate change – and how the use of different visuals might help to effect change.

At a launch event for her book in London, a panel of experts – moderated by Carbon Brief’s Ayesha Tandon – discussed some of the takeaways from the book and the “dos and don’ts” of climate imagery.

Power of an image

“This book is about what kind of work images are doing in the world, who has the power and whose voices are being marginalised,” O’Neill told the gathering of journalists and scientists assembled at the Frontline Club in central London for the launch event.

O’Neill opened by presenting a series of climate imagery case studies from her book. This included several examples of images that could be viewed as “disempowering”.

For example, to visualise climate change in small island nations, such as Tuvalu or Fiji, O’Neill said that photographers often “fly in” to capture images of “small children being vulnerable”. She lamented that this narrative “misses the stories about countries like Tuvalu that are really international leaders in climate policy”.

Similarly, images of power-plant smoke stacks, often used in online climate media articles, almost always omit the people that live alongside them, “breathing their pollution”, she said.

Ayesha Tandon with panellists at London’s Frontline Club. Credit: Carbon Brief

During the panel discussion that followed, panellist Dr James Painter – a research associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and senior teaching associate at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute – highlighted his work on heatwave imagery in the media.

Painter said that “the UK was egregious for its ‘fun in the sun’ imagery” during dangerous heatwaves.

He highlighted a series of images in the Daily Mail in July 2019 depicting people enjoying themselves on beaches or in fountains during an intense heatwave – even as the text of the piece spoke to the negative health impacts of the heatwave.

In contrast, he said his analysis of Indian media revealed “not one single image of ‘fun in the sun’”.

Meanwhile, climate journalist Katherine Dunn asked: “Are we still using and abusing the polar bear?”. O’Neill suggested that polar bear images “are distant in time and space to many people”, but can still be “super engaging” to others – for example, younger audiences.

Panellist Dr Rebecca Swift – senior vice president of creative at Getty images – identified AI-generated images as “the biggest threat that we, in this space, are all having to fight against now”. She expressed concern that we may need to “prove” that images are “actually real”.

However, she argued that AI will not “win” because, “in the end, authentic images, real stories and real people are what we react to”.

When asked if we expect too much from images, O’Neill argued “we can never pin down a social change to one image, but what we can say is that images both shape and reflect the societies that we live in”. She added:

“I don’t think we can ask photos to do the work that we need to do as a society, but they certainly both shape and show us where the future may lie.”

Watch, read, listen

UNSTOPPABLE WILDFIRES: “Funding cuts, conspiracy theories and ‘powder keg’ pine plantations” are making Patagonia’s wildfires “almost impossible to stop”, said the Guardian.

AUDIO SURVEY: Sverige Radio has published “the world’s, probably, longest audio survey” – a six-hour podcast featuring more than 200 people sharing their questions around climate change.

UNDERSTAND CBAM: European thinktank Bruegel released a podcast “all about” the EU’s carbon adjustment border mechanism, which came into force on 1 January.

Coming up

1 February: Costa Rican general election
3 February: UN Environment Programme Adaptation Fund Climate Innovation Accelerator report launch, Online
2-8 February: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 12th plenary, Manchester, UK

Pick of the jobs

Climate Central, climate data scientist | Salary: $85,000-$92,000. Location: Remote (US)
UN office to the African Union, environmental affairs officer | Salary: Unknown. Location: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Google Deepmind, research scientist in biosphere models | Salary: Unknown. Location: Zurich, Switzerland

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post DeBriefed 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas

Greenhouse Gases

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Published

3 days ago

January 30, 2026

Alice Rush

Electric heat pumps are set to play a key role in the UK’s climate strategy, as well as cutting the nation’s reliance on imported fossil fuels.

Heat pumps took centre-stage in the UK government’s recent “warm homes plan”, which said that they could also help cut household energy bills by “hundreds of pounds” a year.

Similarly, innovation agency Nesta estimates that typical households could cut their annual energy bills nearly £300 a year, by switching from a gas boiler to a heat pump.

Yet there has been widespread media coverage in the Times, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and elsewhere of a report claiming that heat pumps are “more expensive” to run.

The report is from the Green Britain Foundation set up by Dale Vince, owner of energy firm Ecotricity, who campaigns against heat pumps and invests in “green gas” as an alternative.

One expert tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report is based on “flimsy data”, while another says that it “combines a series of worst-case assumptions to present an unduly pessimistic picture”.

This factcheck explains how heat pumps can cut bills, what the latest data shows about potential savings and how this information was left out of the report from Vince’s foundation.

How heat pumps can cut bills

Heat pumps use electricity to move heat – most commonly from outside air – to the inside of a building, in a process that is similar to the way that a fridge keeps its contents cold.

This means that they are highly efficient, adding three or four units of heat to the house for each unit of electricity used. In contrast, a gas boiler will always supply less than one unit of heat from each unit of gas that it burns, because some of the energy is lost during combustion.

This means that heat pumps can keep buildings warm while using three, four or even five times less energy than a gas boiler. This cuts fossil-fuel imports, reducing demand for gas by at least two-fifths, even in the unlikely scenario that all of the electricity they need is gas-fired.

Simon Evans on BlueSky (@drsimevans.carbonbrief.org): "Going slow on heat pumps could mean UK consumers having to pay an extra £3bn for imported gas 2026-2030, says Energy UK Says UK govt foot-dragging is "increasing costs for energy customers & hampering future system planning"

Since UK electricity supplies are now the cleanest they have ever been, heat pumps also cut the carbon emissions associated with staying warm by around 85%, relative to a gas boiler.

Heat pumps are, therefore, the “central” technology for cutting carbon emissions from buildings.

While heat pumps cost more to install than gas boilers, the UK government’s recent “warm homes plan” says that they can help cut energy bills by “hundreds of pounds” per year.

Similarly, Nesta published analysis showing that a typical home could cut its annual energy bill by £280, if it replaces a gas boiler with a heat pump, as shown in the figure below.

Nesta and the government plan say that significantly larger savings are possible if heat pumps are combined with other clean-energy technologies, such as solar and batteries.

Chart showing that clean electric tech could save households £1,000 a year, compared to gas boilers — Annual energy bill savings (£) for a typical household from April 2026, by using different clean-energy technologies in comparison with a gas boiler. Source: Nesta analysis, using data from Ofgem, the Centre for Net Zero and an Octopus Energy tariff.

Both the government and Nesta’s estimates of bill savings from switching to a heat pump rely on relatively conservative assumptions.

Specifically, the government assumes that a heat pump will deliver 2.8 units of heat for each unit of electricity, on average. This is known as the “seasonal coefficient of performance” (SCoP).

This figure is taken from the government-backed “electrification of heat” trial, which ran during 2020-2022 and showed that heat pumps are suitable for all building types in the UK.

(The Green Britain Foundation report and Vince’s quotes in related coverage repeat a number of heat pump myths, such as the idea that they do not perform well in older properties and require high levels of insulation.)

Nesta assumes a slightly higher SCoP of 3.0, says Madeleine Gabriel, the organisation’s director of sustainable future. (See below for more on what the latest data says about SCoP in recent installations.)

Both the government and Nesta assume that a home with a heat pump would disconnect from the gas grid, meaning that it would no longer need to pay the daily “standing charge” for gas. This currently amounts to a saving of around £130 per year.

Finally, they both consider the impact of a home with a heat pump using a “smart tariff”, where the price of electricity varies according to the time of day.

Such tariffs are now widely available from a variety of energy suppliers and many have been designed specifically for homes that have a heat pump.

Such tariffs significantly reduce the average price for a unit of electricity. Government survey data suggests that around half of heat-pump owners already use such tariffs.

This is important because on the standard rates under the price cap set by energy regulator Ofgem, each unit of electricity costs more than four times as much as a unit of gas.

The ratio between electricity and gas prices is a key determinant of the size and potential for running-cost savings with a heat pump. Countries with a lower electricity-to-gas price ratio consistently see much higher rates of heat-pump adoption.

(Decisions taken by the UK government in its 2025 budget mean that the electricity-to-gas ratio will fall from April, but current forecasts suggest it will remain above four-to-one.)

In contrast, Vince’s report assumes that gas boilers are 90% efficient, whereas data from real homes suggests 85% is more typical. It also assumes that homes with heat pumps remain on the gas grid, paying the standing charge, as well as using only a standard electricity tariff.

Prof Jan Rosenow, energy programme leader at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report uses “worst-case assumptions”. He says:

“This report cherry-picks assumptions to reach a predetermined conclusion. Most notably, it assumes a gas boiler efficiency of 90%, which is significantly higher than real-world performance…Taken together, the analysis combines a series of worst-case assumptions to present an unduly pessimistic picture.”

Similarly, Gabriel tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report is based on “flimsy data”. She explains:

“Dale Vince has drawn some very strong conclusions about heat pumps from quite flimsy data. Like Dale, we’d also like to see electricity prices come down relative to gas, but we estimate that, from April, even a moderately efficient heat pump on a standard tariff will be cheaper to run than a gas boiler. Paired with a time-of-use tariff, a heat pump could save £280 versus a boiler and adding solar panels and a battery could triple those savings.”

What the latest data shows about bill savings

The efficiency of heat-pump installations is another key factor in the potential bill savings they can deliver and, here, both the government and Vince’s report take a conservative approach.

They rely on the “electrification of heat” trial data to use an efficiency (SCoP) of 2.8 for heat pumps. However, Rosenow says that recent evidence shows that “substantially higher efficiencies are routinely available”, as shown in the figure below.

Detailed, real-time data on hundreds of heat pump systems around the UK is available via the website Heat Pump Monitor, where the average efficiency – a SCoP of 3.9 – is much higher.

Charts showing that recent heat-pump installations tend to be far more efficient — Number of installations by heat pump efficiency, in the electrification of heat trial (left) and on the website Heat Pump Monitor (right). An efficiency of three means that each unit of electricity delivers three units of heat, on average, across a year. Source: Heat Pump Monitor.

Homes with such efficient heat-pump installations would see even larger bill savings than suggested by the government and Nesta estimates.

Academic research suggests that there are simple and easy-to-implement reasons why these systems achieve much higher efficiency levels than in the electrification of heat trial.

Specifically, it shows that many of the systems in the trial have poor software settings, which means they do not operate as efficiently as their heat pump hardware is capable of doing.

The research suggests that heat pump installations in the UK have been getting more and more efficient over time, as engineers become increasingly familiar with the technology.

It indicates that recently installed heat pumps are 64% more efficient than those in early trials.

Jan Rosenow on BlueSky (@janrosenow.bsky.social): "Well-installed heat pumps installed in the UK today achieve on average a 64% higher efficiency than those during the early trials 15 years ago. It is testament to the brilliant installers and to the technology getting better. More in our recent paper"

Notably, the Green Britain Foundation report only refers to the trial data from the electrification of heat study carried out in 2020-22 and the even earlier “renewable heat premium package” (RHPP). This makes a huge difference to the estimated running costs of a heat pump.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that a typical household could cut its annual energy bills by nearly £200 with a heat pump – even on a standard electricity tariff – if the system has a SCoP of 3.9.

The savings would be even larger on a smart heat-pump tariff.

In contrast, based on the oldest efficiency figures mentioned in the Green Britain Foundation report, a heat pump could increase annual household bills by as much as £200 on a standard tariff.

To support its conclusions, the report also includes the results of a survey of 1,001 heat pump owners, which, among other things, is at odds with government survey data. The report says “66% of respondents report that their homes are more expensive to heat than the previous system”.

There are several reasons to treat these findings with caution. The survey was carried out in July 2025 and some 45% of the heat pumps involved were installed between 2021-23.

This is a period during which energy prices surged as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crisis. Energy bills remain elevated as a result of high gas prices.

The wording of the survey question asks if homes are “more or less expensive to heat than with your previous system” – but makes no mention of these price rises.

The question does not ask homeowners if their bills are higher today, with a heat pump, than they would have been with the household’s previous heating system.

If respondents interpreted the question as asking whether their bills have gone up or down since their heat pump was installed, then their answers will be confounded by the rise in prices overall.

There are a number of other seemingly contradictory aspects of the survey that raise questions about its findings and the strong conclusions in the media coverage of the report.

For example, while only 15% of respondents say it is cheaper to heat their home with a heat pump, 49% say that one of the top three advantages of the system is saving money on energy bills.

In addition, 57% of respondents say they still have a boiler, even though 67% say they received government subsidies for their heat-pump installation. It is a requirement of the government’s boiler upgrade scheme (BUS) grants that homeowners completely remove their boiler.

The government’s own survey of BUS recipients finds that only 13% of respondents say their bills have gone up, whereas 37% say their bills have gone down, another 13% say they have stayed the same and 8% thought that it was too early to say.