Two Governments: Energy

Britain signed up to the G7 diesel release. What can it put in?

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT

My verdict: Mostly right. Britain was not shut out. It joined calls with EU commissioners and governments, and signed the G7's 100 million barrel release. But it holds no public oil stocks, so its share must come from companies' tanks.

What happened

Average UK diesel reached a record 200.01p a litre on 2 October, beating 199.09p in June 2022. Filling a 55-litre tank cost £110.01, up £31.70 since 28 February.

The same day, the European Commission's Energy Union Task Force met on diesel. The Commission describes it as its own officials plus EU countries, and its notice does not mention the UK. It said EU supply "remains stable for the time being".

On 1 October, energy minister Martin McCluskey joined a call with EU commissioners, City AM reported, and ministers held calls with Germany, France, Italy and Ireland. The transport minister, Keir Mather, said Britain is not facing a shortage because its supply is "inherently resilient".

Later on 2 October, G7 leaders, including the UK, agreed to release 100 million barrels through the IEA over four months. Diesel is front-loaded into the first 20 days. They also reaffirmed a commitment to avoid energy export restrictions between G7 countries. The Guardian reported a split of 50 million barrels each of diesel and crude.

What's really going on

The RAC points to the Strait of Hormuz and US threats of an export ban. Trump had been considering a wider ban to lower US fuel prices before November's midterm elections, and Washington had pressed Europe to tap its emergency stockpiles. After the G7 call, Trump said Europe had agreed to release "a massive amount" of diesel.

The constraint is what Britain holds. Each of the 32 members of the International Energy Agency, which coordinates emergency oil stocks, must keep stocks worth at least 90 days of net imports. Britain meets that by directing companies to hold minimum stocks within their commercial stocks. When the IEA agreed its largest-ever release on 11 March, 280 million of the 426 million barrels pledged were to come from governments' own stocks.

The UK's 14.0 million barrels, about 3.3% of the total, came entirely from relaxing obligations on industry, with nothing from public stocks. The US pledged 172.2 million barrels and Germany 19.5 million, all publicly held. The G7 statement does not say how much each country will release, and the UK has not published its share.

Britain's refining base has shrunk too. UK refinery production in the second quarter of 2026 was 14% lower than a year earlier, partly because Grangemouth became an import terminal. Demand for white diesel fell 5.5%.

The strongest case on each side

The case that Britain is exposed

Grangemouth now imports rather than refines, refinery output is down 14% on a year earlier, and ministers are talking to Washington about export curbs.
In March the UK pledged nothing from public stocks because it holds none. The US pledged 172.2 million barrels from public stocks, Germany 19.5 million.
The EU's task force is the Commission plus member states, and the IEA briefs it. A one-off ministerial call is weaker than a standing seat.

The case that ministers are right

Neither ministers nor the Commission report a physical shortage. Diesel is dear because of Hormuz, and a UK stockpile cannot move a world price.
Britain meets its stockholding duty by obligating companies, not keeping state tanks, and that gave 14 million barrels in March, close to France's 14.6 million.
Britain signed the G7's 100 million barrel release, and ministers held calls with EU commissioners, Germany, France, Italy and Ireland.

My verdict: mostly right

Ministers are mostly right. Nobody reports a physical shortage, and Britain was in the G7 deal that settled the immediate row, as well as the calls with EU commissioners and governments. The "shut out" story is thinner than the headlines, because the task force is an EU body and Britain left the EU.

But the no-shortage line answers the wrong question. Drivers were paying £110.01 to fill a tank on 2 October, £31.70 more than in February. When the G7 release needs barrels, Britain's answer will again be letting companies run their tanks lower.

The fuel emergency plan's published summary lists the levers but not the point at which ministers would pull them, and that silence has a cost.

What I'd do instead

The useful question is what Britain could release of its own, now and the next time allies ask, and how it would decide.

Publish when each fuel emergency lever would be used

The energy department should add to its published summary of the National Emergency Plan for Fuel the point at which it would use each lever.

How it would work: DESNZ updates its GOV.UK summary of response tools, last revised in April 2024, to give the trigger for each lever, from a stock release to rationing at the pump.
What it costs: Officials' time. The IEA already publishes each member's oil stocks every month, in days of net imports, so no new data is needed.
Who it affects: Hauliers, farmers, forecourts and local resilience forums gain a planning basis. Ministers lose some room to decide case by case.
Tried before?: Partly. The summary lists the levers and says the least invasive comes first, but gives no thresholds. In April 2026 a Conservative peer asked ministers to publish the plan itself.
The risk: Published triggers could prompt early filling-up, which itself empties forecourts. The statement would need to say plainly that supply is stable today.

Hold a small public diesel reserve under contract

The government should buy title to a modest stock of refined diesel at existing terminals, so Britain has barrels of its own for the next IEA action.

How it would work: DESNZ tenders for storage at commercial terminals and buys title to refined diesel. Release happens only under an IEA collective action or a published emergency-plan trigger.
What it costs: Unpublished. It depends on barrels held, the purchase price and terminal rates, paid from general taxation or a levy on fuel suppliers that would reach the pump.
Tried before?: Not as a public reserve. In 2014 the government backed an industry-owned central stocking entity, if companies brought it a roadmap. No sign of one was found, and the UK's March pledge came entirely from company stocks.
Why ownership: In March the US pledged 172.2 million barrels and Germany 19.5 million from state stocks. The UK's public column was empty, so it could only ease industry obligations.
Who it affects: Taxpayers or motorists pay to hold barrels that may sit for years. Terminal operators gain storage income.
The risk: A stockpile cannot move a price set at Hormuz, and ministers would face pressure to release it for pump prices rather than supply emergencies.

Ask for observer status at the EU's diesel coordination meetings

The UK should formally request to attend the Commission's Energy Union Task Force and Oil Coordination Group as an observer whenever an IEA collective action is live.

How it would work: The energy secretary asks the Commission for a standing invitation to attend the Energy Union Task Force and the Oil Coordination Group as an observer during any IEA action.
What it costs: No direct money. The EU may ask for something in return, and the UK would attend a body in which it has no vote.
Who it affects: Ministers and officials, mainly. UK fuel importers would gain earlier notice of EU stock decisions that move the prices they pay.
Tried before?: Nothing found. The Commission describes the Task Force as itself plus EU countries. The UK's contact on 1 October was a call with commissioners, City AM reported.
The risk: The Commission can refuse, and an observer with no barrels to offer may find the seat does little. It still beats reading the notice afterwards.

The trade-off

Taxpayers or fuel suppliers would pay to hold barrels that may never be needed, and published triggers risk nudging drivers to fill up early. I think both costs are smaller than facing another US export threat with nothing to release.

How we'd know it worked

If the IEA calls another collective action by the end of 2028, the UK's public-stocks column in its confirmation table should show a figure above zero. The Commission's meeting notices should also name the UK as attending.

What to watch

Whether the US formally restricts diesel exports to Europe before the midterms
The RAC's average diesel price at the end of October
The Commission's next Energy Union Task Force notice on diesel

Sources

Burnham recommits to net zero. Is there a plan behind the pledge?

Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

My verdict: Too early to judge. Local ownership is the right approach, and the £30m is billed as the first payment on a £1bn programme. The Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions and the Budget will show whether the pledge has a plan behind it.

What happened

Writing in the Guardian, Andy Burnham said the UK must fully commit to reaching net zero by 2050. He said Britons can no longer think of climate change as something happening elsewhere. Alongside it, the government announced £30m for "People's Power" projects, delivered through Great British Energy, to help communities build and own local clean energy. Burnham called it a downpayment on a £1bn programme.

Over the summer he was criticised for a muted response to heatwaves, drought and wildfires. The Conservatives and Reform UK have both rejected the net zero target. A decision on the Jackdaw gas field, which had seemed imminent, has been delayed until later this autumn.

What's really going on

Net zero has become one of the sharpest dividing lines in British politics, and Burnham is picking a side while bills are high and the Budget is tight. His argument is that home-grown renewables are the only lasting way to bring bills down, and that local ownership makes people more willing to accept new infrastructure near them.

Two decisions will show whether the pledge has teeth. The first is whether the government approves the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields, which the Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is weighing. The second is what the 28 October Budget does about the policy levies that sit mostly on electricity bills and make going electric more expensive.

The strongest case on each side

For Burnham's approach

Local ownership wins consent. People accept a turbine or solar farm more readily when they share in the benefit.
Home-grown power cuts exposure to global gas prices, the same shock that is squeezing this year's Budget.
A clear commitment gives investors in grids and generation the long-term signal they ask for.

Against, or not enough

At £30m, the first payment is under half of one per cent of the £8.3bn for Great British Energy and its nuclear sister company.
The money is repackaged. Great British Energy already had community energy plans before Burnham became Prime Minister.
Opponents argue the costs land on households now while the benefits arrive later, when people are already stretched.

My verdict: too early to judge

I agree with the commitment, and local ownership is the right way to build support for new infrastructure. But the government hasn't said when the rest of the £1bn arrives, and a pledge in a newspaper is easier than the decisions coming up.

On Rosebank and Jackdaw, I'd be fair both ways. Approving them isn't automatically at odds with net zero, because the UK will use gas for years and domestic supply can replace imports.

But a number of Labour MPs say approval would tell voters the government isn't serious about climate. Whatever the answer, it should come with an explanation of how it fits 2050.

What I'd do instead

Keep the commitment, but back it with rules and decisions rather than one-off grants. Three steps.

Extend bill discounts from pylons to wind and solar farms, and offer a stake

Households near new pylons will get £250 a year off their bills for ten years. The same principle should apply to new generation, with ownership on offer as well as a discount.

How it would work: Every new onshore wind farm or large solar project offers nearby households a bill discount, plus the chance to buy a share of the project. The People's Power fund would help communities pay for their stake.
Why ownership: KPMG found most people who would object to a wind farm nearby would still object if offered up to £250 a year off their bills. A share in the profits gives them a reason to want it built.
Tried before?: Scotland has long asked wind developers to pay £5,000 per megawatt each year into community funds. Denmark required developers to offer local people a share of new turbines for more than a decade.
What it costs: Developers pay, and pass some of it on through the prices they bid in government auctions, so a little lands on everyone's bills. The pylon discount already works this way.

Finish the job on energy levies

Last November's Budget moved three-quarters of one old subsidy, the Renewables Obligation, onto taxation for three years and scrapped the ECO scheme. The government says that cuts typical bills by around £150.

The problem: Total environmental levies are still forecast to rise from £14bn to £19bn by 2030-31. Most sit on electricity, which makes heat pumps and electric cars cost more to run than they should.
How it would work: Make the Renewables Obligation shift permanent rather than letting it end in 2029, and publish a timetable for moving more policy costs off electricity bills.
What it costs: The Budget costings put the current shift at about £2.3bn a year, £6.9bn over three years. Going further costs more, paid through taxes or by moving costs onto gas bills.
The risk: Moving costs onto gas hits households that can't easily switch, often poorer families in older homes. Any shift needs protection for them built in.

Decide Rosebank and Jackdaw in public

Whatever the answer, publish the reasoning against the 2050 target, not just the decision.

How it would work: Publish the full emissions assessment, including emissions from burning the oil and gas, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 must be considered. Show how production fits the carbon budgets and what happens to North Sea jobs.
Background: Both fields have been through the courts already. Scotland's Court of Session overturned their original consents in January 2025.
What it costs: Nothing beyond analysis the government has to do anyway.
The risk: A fully published case gives opponents more to challenge in court, whichever way the decision goes.

The trade-off

Moving more levies onto taxation isn't cheap, in the same Budget where the Conservatives want tax rises ruled out. The government can't do both without saying what gives.

How we'd know it worked

Fewer planning objections to new wind and solar, and a heat pump that costs less to run than a gas boiler in a typical home.

What to watch

The Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions, and whether they come with a net zero explanation.
Whether the 28 October Budget touches energy bill levies.
The Climate Change Committee's next progress report.