2 min read
Spending some time recently in Australia is a useful way to test some of the assumptions we make in the UK about how energy policy has to work.
Coming back to the UK, I was struck by the contrast between two energy stories that broke almost simultaneously.
On the one hand, the record-breaking AR7 offshore wind auction – a real vote of confidence in the Contracts for Difference regime, and a reminder that when the UK gets market design right, it really does work.
On the other, the uncomfortable situation in Scotland that’s seen the energy secretary step back from planning decisions following a row over her constituents’ perception of meetings held with a developer – a reminder that trust, transparency and clear boundaries matter just as much as megawatts.
Neither story defines the UK system on its own. But together, they underline why how we govern the energy transition is just as important as what we build.
That’s where Australia gave me plenty to think about.
What struck me most wasn’t a single policy lever, but the architecture around decision-making. Australia has worked hard to separate policy direction, rule-making, regulation and system operation into distinct, independent roles. It doesn’t remove politics – nothing ever does – but it does reduce the risk that outcomes depend on who has access, rather than what makes the system work.
Equally powerful is Australia’s Integrated System Plan. It’s not perfect, but it provides a shared, whole-system view of where generation, storage and transmission need to go over the long term – and it’s updated, stress-tested and openly consulted on. That shared evidence base changes the conversation. Disagreements still happen, but they happen around assumptions and trade-offs, not opaque processes.
For Scotland and the UK, there’s a clear opportunity here. We already have some world-class tools – CfDs being the obvious example. The challenge now is to match that strength in market design with equally strong system governance: clearer institutional separation, more transparent planning, and a genuinely shared roadmap for the transition.
This isn’t about trashing what we have. It’s about learning lessons from what works elsewhere to build a more stable, investable and trusted energy system at home – one that can carry us through the next decade of decarbonisation without constant reinvention.