The European Commission has proposed giving itself legally-enshrined power to plan the expansion of European electricity grids, as it scrambles to update an ageing network to meet the soaring demands of the clean energy transition. The proposed changes to the Trans-European Networks for Energy, or TEN-E, regulation, would give the Commission power to conduct “central scenario” planning to assess what upgrades are needed to the grid — a marked change from the current decentralized system of grid planning. The Commission would conduct this planning every four years. Where no projects are planned, the Commission would have power to intervene. The proposal was part of the European Grids Package, a sweeping set of changes to EU energy laws released Wednesday. Electrification of everything from transport and heating to industrial processes is essential as Europe moves away from planet-warming fossil fuels. But that puts huge strain on networks, and the Commission estimates electricity demand will double by 2040. An efficient, pan-European electricity grid is essential to meeting this demand. “The European Grids Package is more than just a policy,” said Teresa Ribera, the EU’s decarbonization chief, in a statement Tuesday. “It’s our commitment for an inclusive future, where every part of Europe reaps the benefits of the energy revolution: cheaper clean energy, reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels, secure supply and protection against price shocks.” Along with centralized planning, the Grids Package proposes speeding up permitting of grids and other energy projects to get the infrastructure faster, including relaxing environmental planning rules for grids. Currently planning and building new grid infrastructure takes around 10 years. It would do this by amending four laws: the TEN-E regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Markets Directive, and the Gas Market Directive. The package also proposes “cost-sharing” funding models to ensure those countries that benefit from projects contribute to its financing, and speeding up a number of key energy interconnection projects across Europe.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. As Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, then head of Ukraine’s state-owned national power company Ukrenergo, was scrambling to keep the lights on. Somehow, he succeeded and continued to do so every year, earning the respect of energy executives worldwide by ensuring the country was able to withstand Russian missile and drone strikes on its power grid and avoid catastrophic blackouts — until he was abruptly forced to resign in 2024, that is. Kudrytskyi’s dismissal was decried by many in the energy industry and also prompted alarm in Brussels. At the time, Kudrytskyi told POLITICO he was the victim of the relentless centralization of authority that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his powerful head of office Andriy Yermak often pursue. He said he feared “corrupt individuals” would end up taking over the state-owned company. According to his supporters, it is that kind of talk — and his refusal to remain silent — that explains why Kudrytskyi ended up in a glass-enclosed cubicle in a downtown Kyiv courtroom last week, where he was arraigned on embezzlement charges. Now, opposition lawmakers and civil society activists are up in arms, labeling this yet another example of Ukraine’s leadership using lawfare to intimidate opponents and silence critics by accusing them of corruption or of collaboration with Russia. Zelenskyy’s office declined to comment. Others who have received the same treatment include Zelenskyy’s predecessor in office, Petro Poroshenko, who was sanctioned and arraigned on corruption charges this year — a move that could prevent him from standing in a future election. Sanctions have frequently been threatened or used against opponents, effectively freezing assets and blocking the sanctioned person from conducting any financial transactions, including using credit cards or accessing bank accounts. Poroshenko has since accused Zelenskyy of creeping “authoritarianism,” and seeking to “remove any competitor from the political landscape.” That may also explain why Kudrytskyi has been arraigned, according to opposition lawmaker Mykola Knyazhitskiy, who believes the use of lawfare to discredit opponents is only going to get worse as the presidential office prepares for a possible election next year in the event there’s a ceasefire. They are using the courts “to clear the field of competitors” to shape a dishonest election, he fears. Others, including prominent Ukrainian activist and head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center Daria Kaleniuk, argue the president and his coterie are using the war to monopolize power to such a degree that it threatens the country’s democracy. Kaleniuk was in the courtroom for Kudrytskyi’s two-hour arraignment, and echoes the former energy boss’s claim that the prosecution is “political.” According to Kaleniuk, the case doesn’t make any legal sense, and she said it all sounded “even stranger” as the prosecutor detailed the charges against Kudrytskyi: “He failed to show that he had materially benefited in any way” from an infrastructure contract that, in the end, wasn’t completed, she explained. The case in question is related to a contract Kudrytskyi authorized seven years ago as Ukrenergo’s then-deputy director for investments. But the subcontractor didn’t even begin work on the assigned infrastructure improvements, and Ukrenergo was able to claw back an advance payment that was made. Kaleniuk’s disquiet is also echoed by opposition lawmaker Inna Sovsun, who told POLITICO, “there’s no evidence that [Kudrytskyi] enriched himself.” “There was no damage done. I can’t help but think that this is all politically motivated,” she said. Sovsun turned up to the arraignment to offer herself as a bail guarantor if needed — two other lawmakers offered to act as guarantors as well, but the judge instead decided on another procedure to set Kudrytskyi free from pre-trial detention by requiring the payment of bail bond of $325,000.   One senior Ukrainian adviser, who asked not to be identified so they could speak about the case, dismissed the defense’s description of the case against Kudrytskyi as being politically motivated and claiming there was no substance to the embezzlement allegations. “People should wait on this case until the full hearing,” he added. But for former Deputy Prime Minister Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, the case “doesn’t look good from any angle — either domestically or when it comes to international partners.” The timing, she said, is unhelpful for Ukraine, as it coincides with Kyiv’s ongoing appeal for more European energy assistance ahead of what’s likely to be the war’s most perilous winter. With Russia mounting missile and drone strikes on a far larger scale than before, Ukraine’s energy challenge is likely to be even more formidable. And unlike previous winters, Russia’s attacks have been targeting Ukraine’s drilling, storage and distribution facilities for natural gas in addition to its electrical power grid. Sixty percent of Ukrainians currently rely on natural gas to keep their homes warm. Some Ukrainian energy executives also fear Kudrytskyi’s prosecution may be part of a preemptive scapegoating tactic to shift blame in the event that the country’s energy system can no longer withstand Russian attacks. Citing unnamed sources, two weeks ago Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda reported that former energy executives fear they are being lined up to be faulted for failing to do enough to boost the energy infrastructure’s resilience and harden facilities. “They need a scapegoat now,” a foreign policy expert who has counseled the Ukrainian government told POLITICO. “There are parts of Ukraine that probably won’t have any electricity until the spring. It’s already 10 degrees Celsius in Kyiv apartments now, and the city could well have extended blackouts. People are already pissed off about this, so the president’s office needs scapegoats,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “The opposition is going to accuse Zelenskyy of failing Ukraine, and argue he should have already had contingencies to prevent prolonged blackouts or a big freeze, they will argue,” he added. Senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “Battleground Ukraine” Adrian Karatnycky also worries about the direction of political travel. “While he’s an inspirational and brave wartime leader, there are, indeed, worrying elements to Zelenskyy’s rule,” he said.

When you live at the crossroads of East and West, energy is never just about electricity or gas. In the Republic of Moldova, high-voltage lines and pipelines have always carried more than power — they have carried geopolitics. For decades, this small country wedged between Romania and Ukraine found itself trapped in a web of vulnerabilities: dependent on Russian gas, tied to Soviet-era infrastructure and reliant on energy supplies from the breakaway Transnistrian region. Energy was less a utility than a lever of political blackmail.         And yet, in just a few years, Moldova has begun to flip the script. What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         A turning point in the crisis         The breaking point came in October 2021, when Gazprom slashed deliveries, prices exploded and Chișinău suddenly found itself staring at an energy abyss. Electricity was supplied almost entirely from the MGRES plant in Transnistria, itself hostage to Kremlin influence. By 2022 the situation worsened: gas supplies were halted altogether, MGRES cut the lights on the right bank of the Dniester and Moldova teetered on the edge of a blackout.         With coordinated support from the European Union — which helped Moldova overcome the crises, cushion the impact on consumers hit by soaring prices and committed further backing through instruments such as the Growth Plan for the Republic of Moldova — the country managed to stabilize the situation.              For many countries, such a crisis would have spelled capitulation. For Moldova, it became the start of something different: a choice between survival within the old dependency or a leap toward reinvention. > What was once the country’s greatest weakness has been turned into a project > of sovereignty — and, crucially, a bridge to Europe.         Reinvention with a European compass         Under a unified Pro-European leadership — President Maia Sandu, Prime Minister Dorin Recean and Energy Minister Dorin Junghietu — Moldova has embraced the latter path. In 2023 the Ministry of Energy was created not as another bureaucratic silo, but as an engine of transformation.         The strategy was clear: diversify supply, integrate with the European grid, liberalize markets and accelerate the green transition. Within months, JSC Energocom — the newly empowered state supplier — was sourcing natural gas from more than ten European partners via the Trans-Balkan corridor. Strategic reserves were secured in Romania and Ukraine. For the first time, Moldova was no longer hostage to a single supplier.         In 2024 Moldova joined the Vertical Gas Corridor linking Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine — a symbolic and practical step toward embedding itself into Europe’s energy arteries. On the electricity side, synchronization with ENTSO-E, the European grid, in March 2022 allowed direct imports from Romania. The Vulcănești–Chișinău transmission line, to be completed this year, alongside the Bălți–Suceava interconnection in tender procedures, ensures Moldova’s future is wired into Europe, not into its separatist past. Since 2025 the right bank of the Dniester has no longer bought electricity from Transnistria.         Accelerated legislative reform         None of Moldova’s progress would have been possible without shock therapy in legislation. The country rewrote its gas law to enforce mandatory storage of 15 percent of annual consumption, guarantee public service obligations, open its markets to competition, and shield vulnerable consumers. In parallel, it adopted EU rules on wholesale market transparency and trading integrity, aligning itself not only in practice but also in law with European standards, a pace of change that has been repeatedly underscored by the Energy Community Secretariat in its annual Implementation Reports, which recognized Moldova as the front-runner in the Community in 2024.         But perhaps the most striking step was political: Moldova became the first country in Europe to renounce Russian energy resources entirely. A government decision spelled it out clearly: “the funds are intended to ensure the resilience and energy independence of the Republic of Moldova, including the complete elimination of any form of dependence on the supply of energy resources from the Russian Federation.”         Junghietu, Moldova’s energy minister, has been blunt about what this meant. “Moldova no longer wants to pay a political price for energy resources — a price that has been immense over the past 30 years. It held back our economic development and kept us prisoners of empty promises.” The new strategy is built on diversification, transparency and competition. As Junghietu put it: “The economy must become robust, so that it is competitive, with prices determined by supply and demand.”         This combination of structural reform and political clarity marked a definitive break with the past — and a foundation for Moldova’s European energy future.         The green transition: from ambition to action         The reforms went beyond emergency fixes. They set the stage for a green transformation. By amending renewables legislation, the government committed to 27 percent renewable energy in total consumption by 2030, with 30 percent in the electricity mix.         The results are visible: tenders for 165 MW of renewable capacity have been launched and contracted and a net billing mechanism was introduced, boosting the number of prosumers. In April 2025 more than a third of Moldova’s electricity already came from local renewables. The ministry has also supported the development of energy communities, biofuels and pilot projects for energy efficiency. The green transition is no longer a slogan — but a growing reality.         More than energy policy — a political project         Digitalization, too, is reshaping the sector. With support from UN Development Programme and the Italian government, 35,000 smart meters are already in place, with a goal to reach 100,000 by 2027. These are not just gadgets — they cut losses, enable real-time monitoring and give consumers more control. Meanwhile, ‘sandbox’ regimes for energy innovators, digital platforms for price comparison and streamlined supplier switching are dragging Moldova’s energy sector into the 21st century.       These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory. By transposing the EU’s Third and Fourth Energy Packages, adopting the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan, and actively engaging in European platforms, with technical support from the Energy Community Secretariat that helped authorities navigate these challenges, Chișinău is demonstrating that integration is not just a diplomatic aspiration — it is a lived reality.         Partnerships with Romania have been central. The 2023 energy memorandum, joint infrastructure projects, and cross-border storage and balancing initiatives have anchored Moldova firmly in the European family. Step by step, the country has become not only a consumer but also a credible partner in the European energy market. > These are not technical reforms in isolation; they are political acts. Energy > independence has become the backbone of Moldova’s EU trajectory.         Lessons from crisis         The energy crises of 2021-22 were existential. Moldova was threatened with supply cuts, social unrest and economic collapse. But the government’s response was coordinated, strategic and unusually bold for a country long accustomed to living under the shadow of dependency.         New laws harmonized tariffs, enforced supplier storage obligations and put in place shields for vulnerable households. The Ministry of Energy proved capable of anticipating risks and managing them. Moldova ceased being reactive — and started planning.         Of course, challenges remain. Interconnections with Romania must be further expanded, balancing capacity for the electricity grid is still limited and investment in efficiency has only begun. But today, Moldova has a coherent plan, a competent team and an irreversible direction.         A change of mindset         Perhaps the most profound transformation has been cultural. Chișinău’s energy ministry has evolved from crisis responder to a forward-looking body linking European market realities with citizens’ daily needs. Its teams are now engaging with both the complexities of European energy markets and the practical concerns of Moldovan households. Decisions are increasingly data-driven, communication is transparent, and cooperation with private actors and international partners has become routine.         This institutional maturity is crucial for Moldova’s EU path. Integration is not only about harmonizing legislation but also about building trust, credibility and resilience. Energy has become the showcase — the sector that proves Moldova can implement European rules, innovate and deliver. > Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, > social protection and regional development.         A model in the making         In a region where instability remains the norm, Moldova is beginning to stand out as a model of resilience. Its reforms — synchronization with ENTSO-E, participation in the Vertical Gas Corridor, expansion of renewables and rapid digitalization — are being watched across the Eastern Partnership. Energy has become a catalyst for broader reforms in governance, transparency, social protection and regional development.         What was once a weapon turned against Moldova has been reimagined as a shield. Energy, long the Achilles’ heel of this fragile state, has become its spearhead into Europe.          Moldova’s journey is far from complete. But one thing is already clear: its European future is no longer a promise. It is under construction, one kilowatt at a time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Daniel Apostol is an economic analyst, first vice president of the Association for Economic and Social Studies and Forecasts (ASPES), and CEO of the Federation of Energy Employers of Romania. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its content represents the sole responsibility of the MEIR project, financed by the European Union. The content of the publication belongs to the authors and does not necessarily reflect the vision of the European Union.

Mr. Marcin Laskowski | via PGE The European Union finds itself navigating an era of extraordinary challenges. From defending our shared values against authoritarian aggression to preserving unity in the face of shifting geopolitical landscapes, the EU is once again being tested. Covid-19, the energy crisis, the full-scale Russian war against Ukraine and renewed strains in international relations have taught us a simple lesson: a strong Europe needs capable leaders, resilient institutions and, above all, stable yet flexible financial frameworks. The debate on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is therefore not only about figures. It is, fundamentally, a debate about Europe’s security, resilience and its future. From the perspective of the power sector, the stakes are particularly high. Electricity operators live every day with the consequences of EU regulation, carrying both the costs of compliance and the opportunities of EU investment support. Data confirms that European funds channeled into the electricity sector generate immense value for the EU economy and consumers alike. Why? Because electrification is the backbone of Europe’s industrial transformation. The Clean Industrial Deal makes it clear: within a few short years, Europe must raise the electrification rate of its economy by 50 percent — from today’s 21.3 percent to 32 percent by 2030. That means the future of sectors as diverse as chemicals, steel, food processing and high-tech manufacturing is, in reality, a debate about electrification. If this transition is not cost-effective, Europe risks eroding its global competitiveness rather than strengthening it. > That means the future of sectors as diverse as chemicals, steel, food > processing and high-tech manufacturing is, in reality, a debate about > electrification. Electrification is also central to REPowerEU — Europe’s pledge to eliminate dependence on Russian fossil fuels. It is worth recalling that in 2024 the EU still paid more to Russia for oil and gas (€21 billion) than it provided in financial support to Ukraine (€19 billion). Only a massive scale-up of clean, domestic electricity can reverse this imbalance once and for all. But this requires a fresh approach. For too long, the power sector has been seen only through the lens of its own transition. Yet without power sector, no other sector will decarbonize successfully. Already today, electricity accounts for 30 percent of EU emissions but has delivered 75 percent of the reductions achieved from the Emissions Trading Scheme. As electrification accelerates, the sector — heavily reliant on weather-dependent renewables — faces growing costs in ensuring security of supply and system stability. This is why investments must also focus on infrastructure that directly enhances security and resilience, including dual-use solutions such as underground cabling of electricity distribution grids, mobile universal power supply systems for high/medium/low voltage, and advanced cyber protection. These are not luxuries, but prerequisites for a power system capable of withstanding shocks, whether geopolitical, climatic or digital. > For too long, the power sector has been seen only through the lens of its own > transition. Yet without power sector, no other sector will decarbonize > successfully. The European Commission estimates that annual investment needs in the power sector will reach €311 billion from 2031— nearly ten times more than the needs of industry sector. This is an unavoidable reality. The critical question is how to mobilize this capital in a way that is least burdensome for citizens and businesses. If mishandled, it could undermine Europe’s industrial competitiveness, growth and jobs. The MFF alone cannot deliver this transformation. Yet it can, and must, be a vital part of the solution. The European Parliament rightly underlined that completing the Energy Union and upgrading energy infrastructure requires continued EU-level financing. In its July proposal, the Commission earmarked 35 percent of the next budget — about €700 billion — for climate and environmental action. These funds must be allocated in a technology-neutral way, systematically covering generation, transmission, distribution and storage. Public-good investments such as power grids — especially local and regional distribution networks — should be treated as a top priority, enabling small and medium-sized enterprises and households to deploy renewables, access affordable energy and reduce energy poverty. > The debate is not only about money, it is also about the way it is spent. The debate is not only about money, it is also about the way it is spent.  A cautious approach is needed to the “money for reforms” mechanism. EU funds for energy transition must not be judged through unrelated conditions. Support for investments in energy projects must not be held hostage to reforms not linked to energy or climate. This caution should also apply to extending the “do no significant harm” principle to areas outside the scope of the Taxonomy Regulation, where it risks adding unnecessary complexity, administrative burden and uncertainty. The focus must remain firmly on delivering the infrastructure and investments needed for decarbonization and security. Moreover, EU budget rules must align with state aid frameworks, particularly the General Block Exemption Regulation, and reflect the long lead times required for power sector investments. At the same time, Europe cannot afford to lose public trust. The green transition will not succeed if imposed against citizens; it must be built with them. Europe needs more carrots, not more sticks. The next EU budget, therefore, must be more than a financial plan. It must be a strategic instrument to strengthen resilience, sovereignty and competitiveness, anchored in the electrification of Europe’s economy. Without it, we risk not only missing our climate targets but also undermining the very security and unity that the EU exists to defend.

LONDON — In his first Downing Street speech, Keir Starmer promised to “deliver change.” Fourteen months on, he’s still figuring out the delivery part. The British prime minister is expected to revamp his No. 10 operation amid tumbling poll ratings and as a fraught political season gets underway. Nin Pandit, his most senior civil service aide, is being moved after 10 months to lead a new delivery team operating out of Downing Street. “Delivery” is the watchword for Starmer, who sold himself to voters as a businesslike problem-solver after years of political chaos. But several Labour officials, MPs and civil servants who spoke to POLITICO, all on condition of anonymity, questioned whether the structures Starmer has created for his major program of domestic change really are fit for purpose. Pandit is the latest in a growing list of civil servants and political aides with “delivery” in either their titles or remit. They include Liz Lloyd, Starmer’s director of policy, delivery and innovation, who works alongside Olaf Henricson-Bell, the director of the No. 10 policy unit; Pat McFadden, Starmer’s Cabinet ally and enforcer; Clara Swinson, who leads Starmer’s Mission Delivery Unit; and Michael Barber, the founder of Tony Blair’s delivery unit in 2001, who is advising the new PM.  Some officials think this big cast is a recognition that there is a problem. But some also see a cause: too many people with different ideas about getting things done. Then there is that overall vision — or lack of it (an accusation that Starmer’s allies deny vociferally). One Labour MP loyal to Starmer said: “We are like a piece of driftwood floating on the ocean looking at the view. It’s a nice view, but where are we going?”  On paper, Starmer — who returns from holiday to a flurry of activity this week — should be far more comfortable than his centrist allies such as France’s Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Friedrich Merz. He has a huge House of Commons majority and probably won’t face an election until 2029. On the world stage, his careful diplomacy has nudged Donald Trump toward more U.K.-friendly statements on tariffs, Ukraine and Gaza. At home, though, Starmer faces populists both left and right, with Brexit veteran Nigel Farage’s Reform UK consistently ahead in the polls. Inflation has ticked up. Unpopular tax rises loom. Starmer’s backbenchers are nervous about planned welfare cuts and reforms for children with special needs. And migrants keep arriving on small boats across the English Channel. “If the first year is about stabilizing and fixing foundations, I think the next year is going to be about deep-seated reform — and then the benefits of that will come towards the end of the parliament,” Ravinder Athwal, who wrote Labour’s 2024 manifesto and left his role as an aide to Starmer in July, predicted in an interview with POLITICO’s Westminster Insider. So far, it has also meant bureaucracy. THE DELIVERY BUREAUCRATS Deep in the 19th century stone-fronted Cabinet Office lies the Mission Delivery Unit (MDU). Set up by Starmer last fall, this group of around 30 civil servants — led by Swinson, a Whitehall veteran who worked for Blair’s first delivery unit — measures progress against the PM’s “five missions” that pledged the highest growth in the G7, lower violent crime, better health and education systems, and a decarbonized electricity grid by 2030. On paper, Starmer — who returns from holiday to a flurry of activity this week — should be far more comfortable than his centrist allies such as France’s Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Friedrich Merz. | Pool Photo by Manon Cruz via EPA Some officials argue her unit started at a disadvantage by being based in the Cabinet Office instead of No. 10 next door, making it less visible to the wider government machine. One person said at least some of the MDU’s staff began their work in the department’s basement. “I don’t know necessarily what their objective is,” said one government official. “From what I’ve seen, they kind of provide more of a monitoring service of how departments are getting on, rather than driving things from the center. But then there’s a question of whether that is the job of the policy team in No. 10.” Supporters point out the MDU was designed exactly to be this sort of monitoring service and that it was never intended to actually drive policy, which is led by Downing Street. Others were less charitable. A former government official described the MDU jokingly as “the slide pack department,” adding: “I genuinely don’t really know what they do.” A second government official complained: “The message you get from them is so fucking vague that you struggle to articulate it.”  The MDU is said to have a certain template in which departments have to submit their progress in order to be accepted. One Labour official said: “Oh my god, that fucking place. That unit is everything wrong with the civil service.”  A person who talks regularly to No. 10 said: “If the government is going to continue with missions as a thing, then it really needs to press a reset button and put a bit more oomph back under them. If the delivery unit remains where it is, as an adjunct in the Cabinet Office, away from the prime minister’s authority, then the reality of how Whitehall works is it’s never going to be given the priority it needs to actually be really pushing forward reform through the system.” TAKE IT TO THE BOARD Starmer’s “mission boards” have also come under question. These were set up with the aim of bringing in outside expertise to discuss the big hurdles facing the government. Each one is led by a Cabinet minister in charge of a mission — plus a sixth board led by Deputy PM Angela Rayner, on her pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. Swinson and McFadden would customarily sit in on the meetings, though McFadden’s attendance rate has dropped off recently, said two people with knowledge of the boards. Several people who have worked with the boards argued their lack of decision-making ability has left them underpowered. The boards are “pointless,” said the first former government official quoted above: “They’re chaired by the cabinet ministers who are marking their own homework.” When more junior ministers join meetings to present their plans, they come across like a school “show-and-tell” day, the former official added. “They don’t actually achieve anything.” The person who speaks regularly to No. 10 quoted above said: “You either soup them up and make them more useful, or you put them out of their misery, quite frankly.” A second person who speaks regularly to No. 10 predicted that Starmer — who initially said he would chair the boards personally — “will have to” overhaul them. “There is a sense that the mission delivery boards aren’t working,” they added. “Pat largely doesn’t turn up to them anymore. They need to inject energy into them or rethink delivery across the PM’s priorities.” Allies of Rachel Reeves say the top finance minister is actively working on the government’s growth strategy ahead of her fall budget. | Will Oliver/EPA More broadly, civil servants do not “feel like an awful lot has changed,” said another person in regular discussions with senior officials. “It doesn’t feel like there’s been a revolution in how the government makes decisions. There were always units for how you do joined-up government … they’ve been trying to solve this for decades. This is just a different way of doing what other governments have been trying to do.” THE FINAL BOSS One element that is effective, several officials said, involves Starmer himself. Since last fall the PM has been leading regular “stock takes” with the five “mission lead” Cabinet ministers, plus Rayner, that can run for two to three hours each. He began by visiting Cabinet ministers in their own departments, though now they come to him in No. 10. There tend to be a dozen or fewer attendees, including McFadden, Barber and Swinson. The stock takes put pressure on departments to get their ducks in a row, said people with knowledge of them, and give Cabinet ministers face-time with Starmer to press their most urgent requests — including getting No. 10 to lean on other departments. “The prime minister wants” are still among the most powerful words in Whitehall. There is continuity, too. Supporters of the PM point out that the missions themselves still stand, two and a half years after Starmer unveiled them. The Cabinet ministers leading them have all remained in their jobs. Starmer’s “Plan for Change” — which attached “milestones” to the missions — is mentioned constantly in government press releases (under orders from No. 10), and the missions govern the structure of the “grid,” the weekly news planner circulated to senior communications officials. While roles as “business champions” for loyal, fresh-faced Labour backbenchers to sell the message were quietly scrapped in July, similar “mission champions” still exist. There are regional champions, as well as mission-specific ones — Rosie Wrighting on health, Dan Tomlinson on growth, Tom Hayes on net zero, and Sarah Smith on opportunity. Fellow new MP Linsey Farnsworth was the champion for tackling crime, but her role ended in the summer after she spoke out against planned welfare cuts and she has not yet been replaced, said one person with knowledge of the move. Some other Labour MPs, though, have long complained that Starmer’s overlapping missions, milestones and steps blur the message they are meant to send to the public. Events and crises can knock these long-term goals off course, too. A second former government official said: “They’ve been talking about nothing but small boats all summer.”  IT TAKES TIME These struggles should surprise no one, according to Michelle Clement, a lecturer at King’s College London who wrote “The Art of Delivery,” a study of Blair’s first delivery unit. “We’re in the equivalent of 1998,” she told POLITICO. Blair, frustrated by the pace of change on key domestic priorities, only set up his unit in 2001. Whitehall is still getting over life under five Conservative PMs in 14 years. “All of the change and churn that we saw in recent years of prime ministers does have an impact on the capacity of the state,” she added. Clement argues that Starmer has taken the right approach in creating “institutional ballast” to ensure he has people focusing on the important issues, while other staff focus on the urgent ones. Pandit will be “well-placed” to do policy delivery, she said, despite some negative briefing (denied by No. 10) to the BBC about her effectiveness. Lloyd, Clement said, was “one of the unsung heroes of the Blair years.” If Tony Blair remains the model for government delivery, No. 10 aides would do well to check out a 20 year-old debate clip still online. | Jessica Lee/EPA “People need to panic a bit less,” said a second Labour official, who argued a “huge amount” is being done but that some of it — like extending free school meals to 500,000 more children — doesn’t resonate with the Westminster bubble. Government-funded childcare hours increase from Monday, while Starmer is expected to put a renewed focus on his pledge to open hundreds of nurseries in spare school classrooms. A third Labour official said: “That’s our priority [this] week, not tittle tattle gossip.” MISSIONS: IMPOSSIBLE Others, though, question the overall direction. Starmer’s mission-led approach to government was inspired by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor at University College London who wrote “Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism.”  In an interview with POLITICO, she suggested the majority of Starmer’s five missions do not lay out clear and sufficiently direct means of changing the way the British economy works. “I don’t know what the economic strategy is, in terms of what economy we want,” she said. Mazzucato favors setting “moonshot” public sector goals that drive private investment and innovation “along the way” — just as John F. Kennedy’s pledge to land on the moon by the end of the 1960s began a chain of inventions that led to camera phones and baby formula. Mazzucato praised Labour’s net zero mission, but said overall that the party needs “a really ambitious positive strategy which resonates with people” — and that it should have had one from the start. “Growth is the result of a strategy,” she added. “So, beyond the narrative on growth, what kind of society, what kind of economy do we want? That’s not clear. I think if you asked anyone on the street, what is Labour’s strategy for the direction of economic growth — not the rate — it wouldn’t be totally clear.” Mazzucato suggested the government is thinking about delivery “in the Michael Barber way” of Blair’s first unit: more focused on key performance indicators than on serious economic reshaping. “It’s a productive critique,” she added. “I think they can still turn it around. It’s not like they’ve got the wrong DNA for thinking this way. They just don’t have it set up right.” Making the public notice is still a huge challenge, Mazzucato warned. “Biden’s agenda worked, actually, economically, but it didn’t work in terms of resonating with people.” Mazzucato remains in touch with the government in what she calls a “light touch” way. She last met Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the spring, has contact with the No. 10 policy team, and has worked closely with Cabinet Office Minister Georgia Gould. Much of the proof that Starmer’s government is delivering will come from 11 Downing Street. Allies of Reeves say the top finance minister is actively working on the government’s growth strategy ahead of her fall budget. A fresh overhaul of planning laws is an “attempt to grip” the system and shift the way it works, said one person who speaks to No. 11 regularly. “The Treasury is really trying to get other departments to kick into gear,” they added. No. 10, meanwhile, plans to add more firepower of its own. As well as an in-house delivery team, Starmer has been seeking a high-profile economic adviser for at least six months. It is widely reported that he will appoint Minouche Shafik, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England who resigned as Columbia University’s president after turmoil over the treatment of Gaza war protests on campus. Government-funded childcare hours increase from Monday, while Starmer is expected to put a renewed focus on his pledge to open hundreds of nurseries in spare school classrooms. | Robert Ghement/EPA Former Greater London Authority official Kate Webb also joined No. 10 recently to work on infrastructure and housing policy, a person with knowledge of the appointment said, after Nick Williams left a similar post earlier this year. LESSONS FROM HISTORY If Tony Blair remains the model for government delivery, No. 10 aides can turn to a 20 year-old debate clip that many of them will be familiar with. It was April 2005, just ahead of a general election, and Blair faced an angry grilling from a voter in a BBC debate. The man complained he wasn’t allowed to schedule a doctors’ appointment for later in the week — because Blair had set a target for patients to be seen within 48 hours. It meant the man had to be seen within two days. Blair was agog. It appeared to be an example of KPIs gone mad — but it was also a clear example of a public service target that had cut through with the public and was working. Unlike Starmer, however, Blair had eight years in office under his belt by that moment — and didn’t have Farage’s Reform UK breathing down his neck. Farage is now making moonshot promises of his own, including a vow to deport hundreds of thousands of people. Labour aides have been encouraged by recent press interviews with Farage that have tested how deliverable his pledges are. “People forget that it took a long time to make that change under Tony Blair,” said the second Labour official quoted above. “It would be great if the speed of delivery ramped up with the size of our majority. Sadly it doesn’t work like that.” With Farage eyeing that majority in 2029, Starmer has to find a way of proving that his own brand of “deliverism” works — and soon. Patrick Baker interviewed Ravinder Athwal for Westminster Insider.

ROME — Italy’s right-wing government is turning its back on two historical referendums to place a bet on unproven nuclear technology. Some 35 years after Italy’s last nuclear power plant closed, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her ministers are drawing up plans to go nuclear once again in a bid to meet a growing demand for decarbonized electricity. This time, however, it will be through next-generation nuclear technologies called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). “We need to make some long-term choices. That’s why we have chosen to restart the development of nuclear power, making a bet on mini-reactors that are safe and clean sources of energy,” Meloni said in a speech earlier this year. On Wednesday, Italy’s Environment and Energy Security Ministry announced that the law outlining the national plan to restart nuclear energy production had cleared the final institutional hurdle and was now ready to be sent to parliament. Speaking at a July 16 event organized by Italy’s main business lobby, Confindustria, Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin said should Rome approve it, the first plants could be operational by the end of this decade or in the early 2030s. According to government estimates, nuclear fission could meet from 11 percent to 22 percent of national demand by 2050. Italy was previously home to a number of nuclear power plants. But following the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, which sent a cloud of radioactive dust over much of Europe, Italians voted against nuclear power in a referendum the following year. By 1990 Italy had shuttered its plants and nuclear power was no more. In 2011 the decision was reconfirmed with another referendum shortly after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. “This government has demonstrated up until now that they aren’t taking into account at all what has been a very clear expression of the popular will as demonstrated in two referendums,” said Enrico Cappelletti, a member of the lower house of parliament and part of the opposition Five Star Movement. Critics such as Cappelletti argue the process will be slow and expensive, and will increase power bills for Italians — already the second highest in Europe. However, the government insists that adding nuclear to the power mix is crucial to meeting growing energy demand, which is forecast to double by 2050. SPLITTING THE ATOM The mid-July Confindustria gathering saw business and political community elites pack into a parliamentary committee room. With billions of euros in investment on the line — an EY study estimates Italy’s nuclear market could reach €50 billion by 2050 — it’s no surprise the event was an irresistible draw for the companies in pole position to benefit. Although no nuclear power plants operate in the country, several Italian engineering companies are active in the sector abroad. Ultimately, however, any nuclear renaissance would almost certainly require the participation of firms in countries that already have active nuclear power plants, such as France or the U.S. Utility company Enel, infrastructure giant Leonardo, and energy engineering firm Ansaldo Energia — all under varying levels of state ownership — have formed a consortium called Nuclitalia to study viable options for a return to nuclear power. In June, Italy joined the French-led European Nuclear Alliance, an initiative aimed at promoting nuclear energy throughout the EU. Speaking at the Confindustria event, Fratin said there was a need for a continuous source of power to integrate with the variable energy produced by renewables. Nuclear was the obvious choice, he said, though officially, a final decision will follow a careful study of the costs and benefits. “We are a country that at the moment … is not able to meet its national demand for electricity,” Fratin said. “There is only one path for us to take if we want to remain among the rich countries of the world.” The lively discussion demonstrated that the debate has moved beyond the shadow of Chernobyl to focus on financial arguments. “When we talk about sustainability, we need to look at it from all angles,” Katiuscia Eroe, a representative of the climate NGO Legambiente, told the gathering. “Including the logic of costs, and therefore, economic sustainability.” Nuclear, she added, wasn’t competitive with renewables given the huge investments needed to get it up and running. TINY TECH Stefano Monti, president of the European Nuclear Society, told POLITICO that nuclear power is key to providing a steady supply to the grid of decarbonized energy, known as the baseload, supplementing renewables in moments when there isn’t enough sun or wind. The use of new technology is also politically important as it allows the government to argue that the prior referendums don’t apply. SMRs use miniaturized technology in effect to factory-produce key reactor components, thereby achieving economies of scale and reducing costs. AMRs use non-traditional fission technology and are powered by spent fuel from other reactors, such as SMRs, potentially reducing the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be stored. Neither has ever been built in Western Europe — while in the U.S., one attempted SMR had to be abandoned after costs spiraled. Monti said the government may ultimately revert to traditional power plant designs, even though these have incurred huge cost overruns in Europe in recent years. It may also be the case, he added, that the energy source will need to be subsidized for a while. Still, Monti said, nuclear energy was financially competitive with solar and wind energy when considering the additional infrastructure, such as batteries, needed to make renewables sufficiently reliable to power the grid. Michele Governatori, an academic and a member of climate think tank Ecco, said he didn’t think there would ultimately be any return to nuclear, “but that doesn’t mean that it won’t cause damage.” The buzz around nuclear, he said, was allowing the government to sidestep politically unpopular decisions on how to accelerate the build-out of renewables. He said the economics argue against fission — nuclear power is expensive and plants have to be running 24/7 for the finances to work. But given the fluctuating production levels of renewable energy, on sunny or windy days, nuclear energy might end up going unused. The government estimates there’s a backlog of 150 gigawatts of renewable energy projects currently held up by paperwork. According to Governatori, Rome’s embrace of nuclear energy was a way of avoiding a showdown with regional governments over permitting problems, given that local authorities often hold up developments due to so-called NIMBY concerns. There are also lobbying interests in play. “The big national champions have a bigger stake in nuclear than renewables,” said Governatori. Developers of renewable energy tend to be smaller “and are more distant from the businesses that are close to the state,” he said. CONVENIENT CUDGEL The government’s 2024 energy and climate plan estimates that nuclear power could save approximately €17 billion in costs compared to an all-renewables strategy. However, a report by Italy’s central bank found that while adding nuclear to the grid may help flatten swings in electricity prices, it was unlikely to deliver any savings. A paucity of know-how risks delaying construction and adding costs, while “the processing, enrichment and preparation of fuel is concentrated in a few plants, largely in countries with elevated political risk (Russia first and foremost),” the central bank noted. Meanwhile, while the previous referendums may provide ammunition for the opposition to criticize the government, they are unlikely to pose a significant obstacle. “The previous two referendums don’t create any obstacle whatsoever for the current governing majority,” said Carlo Fusaro, a law professor at the University of Florence. Referendums in Italy can revoke laws that are already on the books, but they don’t tie the government’s hands in perpetuity, especially as the last one was more than a decade ago. In theory, the opposition could call another referendum if it’s able to gather the required signatures, though polls show that public opinion has grown steadily more pro-nuclear. Five Star’s Cappelletti said it’s premature to discuss the options, given that the law has not yet been presented. “We’ll see how things evolve. We can’t exclude anything, even eventually proposing a referendum.”