Energy Security and Net Zero Committee

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee interrogated UK energy resilience with a focus on subsea infrastructure, maritime jurisdiction, and cyber security. Witnesses argued for governance enhancements (e.g., designating offshore energy installations as critical national infrastructure), better private–public information sharing, and practical steps like an ambulance-service-style ‘resilience’ framework for interconnectors, plus a national repair-crew reserve. Regulators described current risk-management architecture (NESO/Ofgem/NCSC) and emphasised exercising, cross-sector mapping, international cooperation, and funding levels under RIIO-3. There was strong emphasis on deterrence, fast escalation, and the link between energy security and national defence.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee scrutinised the achievability of the 24 GW nuclear target, the progression of Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and SMRs, and the regulatory framework underpinning delivery. Ministers emphasised that the target is “up to 24 GW” and not fixed, with a broader energy-grid view via NESO's strategic spatial energy plan due later in 2026 and published in 2027. Government signalled a pipeline-led, private-sector–led approach for advanced modular reactors (AMRs/SMRs) and a four-month market-entry process for projects into a formal pipeline. The session also probed regulatory reform (Fingleton recommendations), EN-7 revision for siting and life-extension, waste management plans funded by developers, and security (supply chains, cyber and physical security). Key commitments include publishing NESO's energy-plan this year and next year, establishing lead regulators per area, pursuing a joint government-regulator international strategy by autumn, expanding the SMR supply chain with a target of 70% UK content, and delivering a robust skills and workforce plan to support up to tens of thousands of nuclear-related jobs. The witnesses asserted that the reforms aim to improve delivery times, reduce regulatory duplication, maintain safety, and deliver long-term energy security, while acknowledging ongoing challenges in GDF siting, cost trajectories for SMRs, and public communication about bills and risk.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee grilled government and regulator witnesses on implementing the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce’s Nuclear Nation recommendations, with a focus on proportionate regulation, culture change, and faster regulatory processes. Key government commitments include implementing Nuclear Nation recommendations and pursuing a 20–40 GW nuclear capacity target by 2050, alongside a lead regulator model intended to simplify engagement for operators while preserving regulator independence. Witnesses from ONR and the Environment Agency outlined steps to reduce regulatory burden (e.g., 30–40% reduction in guidance), increase collaboration to avoid “perfection” bias, and strengthen international co-operation to cut duplication (Atlantic Partnership). The two-panel session also scrutinised the role and funding of GB Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) in government-led deployments vs. market-led advanced nuclear, the Advanced Nuclear Framework, and the UK’s HALEU/advanced modular reactor (AMR) ambitions, including sovereign test-reactor needs, Scotland’s site suitability, and the implications for the UK fuel supply chain, decommissioning, and workforce. There is also explicit debate about semi-urban EN-7 density criteria, and the risks and governance around dispersed small reactors versus gigawatt-scale plants.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee questioned witnesses on the role of emerging nuclear technologies (SMRs and AMRs) in the UK energy mix, balancing investment across gigawatt-scale reactors and modular options, and the policy, regulatory and financing framework to enable deployment. Key issues included government reforms (Fingleton recommendations and NESO grid reforms), the Advanced Nuclear Framework’s funding-flexibility, siting and grid considerations, supply-chain strategy, workforce planning, decommissioning and waste, and security assurances. The session highlighted government commitments to implement reforms by 2027, and a framework that allows project-by-project assessment of funding mechanisms and regulatory paths, while industry witnesses stressed the need for speed, certainty, and local-content and supply-chain development.

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee scrutinised UK energy resilience and security of supply amid the Iran-related disruption. Witnesses from industry and government highlighted potential accelerants to resilience (accelerating North Sea oil and gas production via fiscal/funding reforms; expanding near-term North Sea projects like Jackdaw and Rosebank; and expanding UK storage and grid flexibility). They discussed policy levers including the oil and gas price mechanism (windfall tax/sector tax) to unlock investment, and CBAM inclusion for UK refineries (with a projected constraint that refinery inclusion by January 2028 is not possible, but efforts will continue). They also considered non-price levers: investment in electricity and gas storage, diversification of supply chains, cross-departmental data-sharing for targeted support, and stronger cyber/physical-security governance in energy infrastructure. The minister and department signalled ongoing work on a three-bucket approach (short-term interventions, market reform/de-linkage from gas prices, and a longer-term energy-transition package), plus rapid responses to price shocks (price-cap protections, targeted heating-oil support, and exploration of data architecture under the Digital Economy Act). Key tensions included whether North Sea production materially lowers domestic prices, how CBAM affects UK refinery viability, and the balance between maintaining existing fossil-fuel capacity and accelerating the transition.

The 2026-03-17 session of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee scrutinised how the government plans to shield consumers from volatile energy prices, fund policy costs, and build a more resilient, lower-cost energy system. Ministers Michael Shanks and Jonathan Mills defended current protections (notably the price cap) and set out government commitments to de-escalate global tensions, support vulnerable households, and pursue long‑term grid investment and market reform. They argued that policy costs should be scrutinised and potentially funded from general taxation where appropriate (e.g., warm homes plan), while emphasising continued investment in infrastructure and strategic planning (RIIO-3, strategic energy plans). They insisted fossil fuels should not be the basis of the future and defended the role of carbon pricing, windfall mechanisms, and decarbonisation strategies (data-centre planning, long-duration storage, CCUS, hydrogen). Key policy signals include keeping the 1 April price cap, monitoring costs during the post-June window, publishing the national pricing delivery plan, and maintaining flexibility in financing the energy system. The session also touched on data-sharing for targeted social tariffs, the evolution of the warm homes scheme, and ongoing rebalancing considerations between electricity and gas policy costs. These points establish government intent to balance consumer bills with investment in a cleaner, secure energy system, while keeping options open across funding mechanisms and market design.