The Rt Hon. The Lord Case CVO joined as keynote speaker for our recent energy event, ‘The Energy Debate: Challenges & Change’.
He argued that public trust now shapes every serious energy decision we make. He urged honesty about costs, trade-offs and inevitable disruption ahead.
Here are the key takeaways from his address.
1) Start with the trust deficit
Public trust in energy is thin and fragile. That includes industry, government and regulators alike. Polling has shown this for many years. People doubt institutions will act in their interests. That doubt colours every later conversation.
Distrust has built up over time. People remember mis-selling and opaque billing practices. They remember sudden price spikes and corporate profits. Those memories do not vanish quickly. They sit behind every new announcement.
Simon Case offered a political example from government. He recalled the 2013 debate on bills. Ed Miliband attacked energy companies and promised cuts. Downing Street then scrambled for a response – and to try and cut £50 off everyone’s bills. Ed Milliband touched a nerve, and political pressure followed.
He also pointed to the Ukraine price surge. Many households saw bills double in real time. The causes were global and technically complex. Yet the lived experience was simple and frightening. Explanations did not help families that were choosing between heat and food.
Trust in politics is also historically low. Scandals and poor performance have damaged credibility. That makes long-term planning harder to sell publicly. Energy requires consistency across many Parliaments. Yet government narratives change frequently and abruptly.
When trust is low, motives are questioned. Even sensible policy shifts can be doubted. Case noted the move towards taxation funding. Some will welcome fairness and wider burden-sharing. Others may see it as a cynical political tactic. Either way, trust shapes interpretation first.
The practical implication is straightforward and uncomfortable. We are not starting from a position of strength. We are starting from a position of deficit. That should change how we communicate and engage. It should also change what we promise publicly.
2) The media compresses complexity into conflict
Energy systems are complicated by their nature. Electricity, gas, networks, storage and demand all interact. Explaining them well takes time and patience. Modern media rarely rewards either.
Online media compresses issues into simple frames. It prefers heroes and villains, and quick certainty. That pushes nuance out of the discussion. Energy becomes a binary argument by default. Wind is salvation or vandalism, never trade-offs. Nuclear is miracle or fiasco, never context.
Case used AI and data centres as an example. Government wants the UK to lead in AI. That may be a major economic opportunity. Yet AI growth carries large energy consequences. Data centres need electricity, grid capacity and often water.
He cited projections showing steep demand growth. UK data centre electricity use could rise sharply by 2030. Government roadmaps also imply large new capacity needs. The numbers are big compared with the current system. This is not a marginal change to demand. It is a structural shift.
Media coverage, however, often polarises the story. It becomes triumphalism or a scare story. Either Britain leads the AI revolution brilliantly. Or communities are drained of power and water. The credible middle is less clickable and less shared. Yet the middle is where policy must operate.
This coverage pattern creates a vicious cycle. Public views form around simplified narratives. Politicians then respond to those views rapidly. Policy is shaped by perception rather than evidence. Meanwhile, technical voices sound evasive or bureaucratic. The space for ‘it’s complicated’ disappears further.
The solution is not to attack journalism. The solution is to improve storytelling capability. Case argued we default to jargon too easily. We issue committee-written explanations and press releases. They do not connect with daily life. We need stories about jobs and communities. We need stories about what change looks like locally.
3) Net zero is becoming a culture-war arena
The third barrier is rising political polarisation. Net zero used to enjoy broad political consensus. That consensus is now fraying domestically and internationally. In parts of the debate, identity is replacing evidence.
Once energy becomes tribal, rational debate collapses. People stop listening for facts and trade-offs. They listen for signals of group belonging instead. We have seen this in heat pumps debates. We have seen it around low-traffic neighbourhoods. We have seen it around ULEZ expansion too.
Case stressed a narrow path for communicators. Push too hard and you seem out of touch. Admit costs and disruption and you seem disloyal. Yet costs and disruption are real and unavoidable. The only viable approach is candour. You must acknowledge trade-offs without collapsing into pessimism.
He argued for relentlessly practical framing. Talk about energy security and household bills. Talk about jobs and economic opportunities. Talk about timelines, disruption and mitigation measures. Avoid abstract targets as the primary message. Most people do not think about 2050 in their day to day lives. They think about the next direct debit.
4) The great disconnect is the hidden driver
The final barrier underpins the others: disconnect. Modern life depends on invisible energy infrastructure. Most people cannot describe how it works. They should not need to, in normal times. People expect lights and heat to be available. That expectation is reasonable and normal.
Yet we are asking for a full system transformation. That means new infrastructure in communities nationwide. It means pylons, substations and storage sites. It means changes to heating and transport habits. These are not small demands on households. They are direct impacts on daily routines and places.
AI adds a further layer to that challenge. Many people did not anticipate AI’s energy costs. Each query and image generation consumes real power. Globally, data centre electricity use is rising fast. That means more infrastructure, more disruption and more local concern. It also means more risk of bill impacts. Although many do not realise that using AI in grid mangamenet will make it a net contributor of energy, not a consumer of it.
Case warned about bill fairness explicitly. UK power for data centres is already expensive. If infrastructure costs fall onto household bills, anger will be predictable. People will ask why they are subsidising servers. That would deepen distrust and worsen polarisation quickly.
His conclusion was a call for engagement investment. Not glossy ads or patronising campaigns. Real community-level engagement, sustained over time. Bring people into the conversation early. Listen to concerns before decisions are locked in. Explain benefits, costs, trade-offs and mitigations clearly.
Five things to do differently
The Rt Hon. The Lord Case CVO ended with practical actions. Be consistently honest about costs and timelines. Humanise energy through real stories and voices. Meet people where they actually get information. Listen properly, and not performatively. Get ahead of the next contentious issues early.
The energy transition is a huge national undertaking. AI will place further demands on the system. Both will create winners, losers and disruption. Success requires public consent and endurance. That consent cannot be assumed or commanded. It must be earned, repeatedly, through honesty.
