Public First are launching a major new investigation into energy security and cost, working with the Centre for Policy Studies among others.

This will be at the top of the new Prime Minister’s inbox. Decisions made now will affect how we get through a cost-of-living crisis that is looking increasingly long-term. The world is not getting less turbulent. Investments (or lack of them) now will have consequences for decades: we do not want to bemoan our short-sightedness in ten-years time.

The energy conversation of the last few years has focused, predominantly, on net zero. But before that we talked about the energy ‘trilemma’ – cost, security, and sustainability. The invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that we have neglected the first two.

Public First will therefore be looking at options for the new Prime Minister and their team, including:

• How different options for energy supply (gas, nuclear, renewables, pumped storage, etc) affect i) average household costs; and ii) energy security (particularly domestic supply);
• How much shifts in household demand (usage; take up of technologies like electric vehicles) affect household costs and security;
• Depending on the source of energy, the trade-offs for different ways of backing up energy supply.

We will make broad recommendations based on this – but also seek to publish the work in a way that allows others to draw their own conclusions.

We will combine this with opinion research to make sure what we suggest is politically feasible. We will work with MPs and former advisers and draw on our own experience in government to try and make sure the solutions are also implementable.

There is no shortage of energy experts thinking about this problem. This work is designed to help politicians.

We are therefore being deliberately selective– we’re interested in the biggest inputs into household energy bills – heating, light, and personal transport (usually cars). Our strong view is that this is where the political test really lies, and that it is usually politics, not economics, that makes a policy fail.

We are also being realistic about the modelling – we will seek lots of expert input but given the speed of decision making needed, we will focus on capturing the most important dynamics, rather than producing a full energy system model like UK TIMES. . We also know this is a subject where passions run high and people have very different assumptions – some people loathe nuclear on principle, others hate renewables, some can’t bear a role for any fossil fuels. We’re bound to disappoint most of those people.

But what interests us is a solution that stands some kind of political test of time and makes sure we don’t end up in this dreadful mess again.

We’d love your input and involvement. We’ll be publishing some interim modelling shortly, and holding interviews and roundtables with experts, politicians, and others.