BERLIN — An extreme left-wing group has claimed responsibility for an arson attack that caused a blackout affecting about 45,000 households and more than 2,000 businesses in Berlin over the weekend. “This isn’t just arson or sabotage. It’s terrorism,” Berlin’s Mayor Kai Wegner said Sunday of the attack, which burned through a cable connected to one of the city’s largest gas-fired power plants. Members of the so-called Vulkan Group, known for similar attacks on critical infrastructure in the past, claimed responsibility for the sabotage in a letter titled: “Cutting off power to those in power,” which was published online. “In the greed for energy, the earth is being depleted, sucked dry, burned, ravaged, burned down, raped, destroyed,” the group, which is listed by Berlin’s intelligence services as a left-wing extremist organization, said in the letter. “The aim of the action is to cause significant damage to the gas industry and the greed for energy,” its authors wrote. The group has used similar means to communicate in the past, and Berlin police believed the letter to be genuine. With temperatures below freezing in the German capital, schools and kindergartens in the southern districts affected by the power outage remained closed on Monday morning. Around 30,000 households and approximately 1,700 businesses were still without power on the third day of the power outage. Full restoration of supply is expected to take until Thursday. The city’s energy senator, Franziska Giffey told POLITICO’s Berlin Playbook Podcast on Monday that Berlin’s critical infrastructure needed better protection. “There is a great deal of public information about our critical infrastructure that we need to publish and make transparent. In the future, we will have to consider how we can handle this differently and how we can protect ourselves even better against these issues,” she said. In a separate interview with Berlin’s public broadcaster rbb, Giffey said prosecutors at the national level would need to assist with the investigation. “The question is, are these just left-wing activist groups acting on behalf of ideology, or is there more to it than that? That absolutely must be investigated,” said the politician from the center-left Social Democratic Party that governs Berlin in a coalition with Wegner’s conservatives. “This is not just an attack on our infrastructure, but also an attack on our free society.” Josh Groeneveld and Rixa Fürsen contributed to this report.

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.

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.

PGE Group, Poland’s largest electricity and heat producer, has unveiled its ambitious new strategy for 2035. The strategy outlines an estimated €55 billion in investments aimed at transforming Poland’s energy landscape. It prioritizes energy grids, new flexible gas power plants, renewable energy sources and advanced energy storage systems, all while integrating modern heating solutions. Crucially, the strategy reinforces PGE’s commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, with an interim target of reducing CO2 emissions by 75 percent by 2035, including from existing coal-based units. > Crucially, the strategy reinforces PGE’s commitment to achieving climate > neutrality by 2050, with an interim target of reducing CO2 emissions by 75 > percent by 2035. In an exclusive interview, Dariusz Marzec, the CEO of PGE, discusses the courage and responsibility required to follow through with a transformative action plan in a turbulent environment. PGE’s new strategy that lasts for 2035 is entitled: ‘Energy of secure future. Flexibility.’ Why is flexibility so important? Flexibility is essential.Nowadays, power systems are highly dependent on intermittent renewables. At midday — when the renewable(RES) generation is at the highest level — demand for dispatchable capacity drops substantially, but then in the evening after the sunset we can observe a rapid rise of demand. Flexibility is a tool to match variable demand with variable production. For this reason, we can use storage, power-to-heat solutions and flexible dispatchable gas generation. So, flexibility will allow us both to match demand and reduce price volatility. What kind of assets do you need for that? By 2035 we plan to develop 4 GW of offshore wind power plants and another 4 GW onshore. To enable more RES deployment we plan to increase our distribution grid capacity by up to 11 GW. To keep our power system stable we are also investing massively in energy storage. In 2035 we intend to operate energy storage facilities with a capacity of more than 18 GWh. We are building one of the largest lithium-ion energy storage facilities in Europe in Żarnowiec. All this will help us decrease CO2 emissions by 75 percent in just ten years due to rapidly decreasing generation of energy from coal. In some locations these old coal power plants are being replaced by flexible gas power plants. By 2035 we plan to operate 10 GW of them, however, they are not meant to work at full capacity all the time. > To keep our power system stable we are also investing massively in energy > storage. In 2035 we intend to operate energy storage facilities with a > capacity of more than 18 GWh. We are building one of the largest lithium-ion > energy storage facilities in Europe in Żarnowiec. How do you plan to finance these investments? How are banks looking at your projects taking into account that you spend €5 billion to €6 billion for the EU Emissions Trading System each year to cover emissions from coal assets? Yes, indeed, financing would be a challenge, but we have number of options and alternatives on the table. We can rely on currently available sources of financing for the energy transition, such as the Modernisation Fund, Recovery and Resilience Facility, and resources provided under the current Multiannual Financial Framework. Investments in the energy sector require long-term planning and a stable outlook, while most of the aforementioned funds are set to expire in the coming years. What we need is to ensure continuation of these funds to enable us to meet the 2035 targets. For example, only recently we signed 25-year loan agreements with the Polish Development Bank (BGK) for expanding distribution networks, which amounted to approximately €2.8 billion in March 2025 from the National Recovery and Resilience Fund. > Investments in the energy sector require long-term planning and a stable > outlook, while most of the aforementioned funds are set to expire in the > coming years. Our first offshore wind farm project, Baltica 2 — backed with a Contract for Difference — will cost around €7 billion. Of this amount, €3.5 billion, PGE’s share, has already been secured from financial institutions such as BGK, the Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and a large group of commercial banks. The gearing level achieved is approximately 75 percent, while the remaining equity contribution has been secured with a loan funded from the National Recovery and Resilience Fund. The key to successfully finance the project lies in the evaluation framework and its ability to generate stable, predictable and secured income — in other words, the project must be bankable. This guarantee is ensured through support mechanisms such as the Contract for Difference for offshore wind farms, the Capacity Market for gas and energy storage, and a dedicated mechanism to support flexibility in both power and heating systems. To better adapt to the local specifics we need a flexible state aid framework that more accurately reflects the actual costs of individual investments below the notification threshold. Moreover, capacity mechanisms should be recognized as an integral part of the energy market, and their implementation should be seen as essential in the volatile power system, serving as a preventive measure to avoid blackouts. Is this the main reason that you are planning to operate 10 GW of gas-fired capacity? Speaking about natural gas, we have to make a distinction between power and combined power and heat generation. Natural gas will be needed to decarbonize our district heating systems — here we have no alternatives to deliver heat at the required temperature, which is approximately 130 degrees Celsius. And yet in power system gas-fired capacity is also needed. According to the European Resource Adequacy Assessment, Europe will need an additional 50 GW in gas-fired capacity to ensure its energy security. Yet, here again, the district heating can contribute to the power system – in Poland almost 20 percent of electricity comes from combined heat and power. Still, you need to plan how to phase out coal, and that will have a negative impact on your balance sheet. How long do you want to keep coal assets? Today coal-fired power plants work for a much shorter periods of time than years ago, but they are still needed. In 2035 coal power plants will not have to produce anything at all, but they must be available as some kind of insurance policy — the cost of which we must cover for our security. Let me use an example, lignite mining in Belchatow is expected to end in 10-12 years, and in Turow a little later. Analyses are underway on how this 5-GW power gap will be secured after the coal deposits in Belchatow are exhausted. This location has gigantic grid assets and qualified engineering and technical staff to draw on. That’s why I am sure that this region will continue to be involved in energy. We will study the possibility of putting up a nuclear power plant there, while in the case of Turow we are considering putting up both a gas unit and a small modular reactor.

The southeastern part of France, including the city of Cannes, suffered a power outage on Saturday, temporarily disrupting the international film festival. About 160,000 households lost power on Saturday morning around 10 a.m. following a fire at a high-voltage transformer and damage to power lines, France’s electricity operator RTE said, adding it is working to restore the system. Both the fire and the damage to the power lines appeared to be of criminal origin, according to the local police which opened an investigation. The power cut also disrupted internet connections, the phone network, as well as traffic in the city and the train system. The organizers of the Cannes film festival, which closes on Saturday night with the award of the prestigious Palme d’Or, said the blackout led to few disruptions. Some film screenings were interrupted, but the closing ceremony will take place as planned on Saturday night and “in normal conditions” as the venue runs on independent power generators, the organizers said.

BRUSSELS — The long-neglected web of cables, coils and switches that keeps Europe’s lights on is finally having its moment in the limelight — for all the wrong reasons.  Energy concerns have dominated the continent’s politics in recent years, with the European Union shunning Russian imports after Moscow invaded Ukraine and ditching fossil fuels for cleaner alternatives.  But officials have largely focused on where that power comes from — allied or unfriendly nations; climate-friendly or planet-warming sources — rather than how electricity circulates. Europe’s power grids were usually an afterthought.  Until Monday, that is, when a massive power outage paralyzed the Iberian Peninsula, halting trains and pushing hospitals to backup generators. On Tuesday, Spanish officials identified a freak incident in the electrical grid as the likely culprit, all but ruling out a cyberattack.  Once the lights were back on, the blame game started in Spain, with the socialist government and the conservative opposition trading blows in a rather literal example of power politics — threatening to distract from the technical questions arising in the blackout’s aftermath. Yet the question of what went wrong and how to stop it from happening again is vital as Europe relies increasingly on electricity — and, by extension, its power grids — in its pursuit of climate neutrality by 2050. WHAT’S A GRID, ANYWAY?  Picture a network of water pipes. On either end of those pipes, some parts of the system fill up the network (think power plants) and others take from it, whether it’s a person plugging in a phone or a factory switching on its machines.  “If we pour more water than is consumed, the pipes could burst; if we pour less, demand would not be met. This balance must be maintained continuously, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, despite constant variations in consumption,” said Miguel de Simón Martín, a professor at the University of León’s electrical engineering department.  That balance depends on an intricate network of substations and other elements that work like valves regulating the pressure and flow in a water distribution network. If there’s too much or too little power, operators can make corrections. Almost all of the time, this system works without a hitch in Europe. Massive blackouts are exceedingly rare.  WHY ARE BLACKOUTS EVEN A THING?  Blackouts can be wildly inconvenient and cause chaos, but they actually help keep Europe’s grids safe.  In the same way that circuit breakers trip when we run too many electrical devices at home, sections of the bloc’s power network shut down if there’s a sudden drop or surge in the power it’s handling. If the grid is exposed to unexpectedly high voltages and currents, energy infrastructure can be damaged or even destroyed.  The sudden blackout in Spain and Portugal happened when the Iberian grid experienced a significant power imbalance, which triggered a self-defense shutdown. Paradoxically, the fact that the lights went out is a good thing — it shows the mechanisms designed to protect the power network from serious damage are working. Spanish officials identified a freak incident in the electrical grid as the likely culprit, all but ruling out a cyberattack. | Carlos De Saa/EPA WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED DOWN THERE?  At 12:33 p.m. on Monday, something truly crazy happened: More than half of Spain’s power suddenly vanished. Unsurprisingly, that destabilized the grid, triggering a massive blackout.  The grid appears to have experienced an initial, second-long power generation loss from which it swiftly recovered. But immediately after, it experienced the longer interruption that triggered the blackout, according to Red Eléctrica, Spain’s national transmission system operator (TSO).  Power is now restored, but what caused these episodes remains unclear. Many initially feared a cyberattack, but Red Eléctrica said Tuesday that a preliminary assessment didn’t uncover any evidence of digital infiltration. National officials are now looking at the role private companies may have played. While warning against jumping to conclusions, several experts also highlighted potential grid vulnerabilities linked to the country’s reliance on renewables.  CAN WE PIN THIS ON RENEWABLES?  Spain and Portugal are poster children of the EU’s plan to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources like solar and wind.  According to Red Eléctrica, the problem originated in the southwestern region of Extremadura, which is home to the country’s most powerful nuclear power plant, some of its largest hydroelectric dams and numerous solar farms.  The company’s head of system operation services, Eduardo Prieta, said Tuesday that it was “very possible that the affected generation could be solar.” In an annual report published in February, Red Eléctrica’s parent company warned the increased share of renewable energy in the system could result in “significant” disruptions.  Despite that, experts and EU officials on Tuesday went out of their way not to blame renewables for the incident and declined to speculate on the matter. That didn’t stop Spain’s far-right party from seizing on the blackout to intensify its campaign against the government’s energy transition plans.  WHY DID IT SPILL OVER INTO PORTUGAL? AND WHY WAS THE REST OF EUROPE NOT AFFECTED?  The Iberian Peninsula has a highly integrated power grid that allows Spain and Portugal to routinely exchange electricity. Those links usually make grids more stable, but on Monday it led to the collapse of the electricity supply in both countries. Although the Iberian Peninsula is somewhat isolated, it maintains a few cross-border links with France. Monday’s power crisis didn’t spread far north of the Pyrenees because the bloc’s grid is designed to protect itself from these situations, and the moment the Spanish grid became unstable, it was automatically disconnected from the French network. SO THIS KIND OF THING CAN’T HAPPEN ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE?  The EU’s energy grid is designed to respond quickly to episodes of this kind, but that doesn’t mean that it’s immune to blackouts. In 2006, millions of people in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain lost power after a power line was disconnected to facilitate a cruise ship’s voyage on the Ems River. And just last year, extreme heat caused a blackout that affected Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Montenegro and parts of Croatia. One key way in which Europe avoids power outages is by linking up neighboring countries’ power grids. “Having an interconnected system is good for everyone,” said a senior EU official who explained that connections make it easier to manage dramatic power supply changes. That helps keep the grid balanced and prevents blackouts. It’s worth emphasizing that those connections do not increase the possibility of a grid collapse spreading across countries. As the shut-off of the link between Spain and France showed Monday, there are automatic processes in place to prevent cascading blackouts.  SPEAKING OF, ARE WE TAKING GOOD CARE OF OUR PRECIOUS GRIDS?  While most people take their grids for granted, policymakers are keenly aware of the challenges and have been working on them for years, issuing tons of bland-sounding legislation that has helped Europe develop one of the world’s most extensive power networks.  But there are still serious network weaknesses: Governments have generally been slow to invest in grids, which are out of sight and out of mind for most citizens, and the bloc’s countries have some seriously old infrastructure. Climate change fallout, particularly the extreme heat becoming more frequent in Europe, also poses a particular threat to aging grids. The European Commission estimates that around €584 billion in investments are needed this decade to update and expand the bloc’s power grids. WAIT, WHY DO WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR GRIDS?  Electricity use is surging — not in some distant future, but right now. The European Commission expects EU power demand to rise by around 60 percent by 2030 compared to 2023, and the bloc’s grids need to be beefed up in order to cope.  There are a few reasons for the increased demand. A key factor is the EU’s energy transition, which is replacing polluting fossil fuels with climate-friendly alternatives. Think swapping traditional cars for electric vehicles or gas boilers for heat pumps.  There’s also the fact that electricity-hungry sectors, such as artificial intelligence, are on the rise. And as the planet warms, more and more people will turn to air conditioning to keep cool, including in Europe.  “We need to discuss how we are going to deal with a situation like this,” given that soon “every part of the economy will be electrified,” said one EU diplomat. “Imagine in 20 years [we] have a total blackout … You cannot get your car, go to your work.”  AND WHAT’S NEXT IN SPAIN?  EU law requires incidents involving Europe’s grids to be thoroughly investigated. Spain has to issue a technical report explaining what happened within three months. A larger independent probe conducted by European experts has to issue its own findings within six months. The European Commission expects EU power demand to rise by around 60 percent by 2030 compared to 2023, and the bloc’s grids need to be beefed up in order to cope. | Borja Sanchez-Trillo/EPA Those investigations will be instrumental in making the EU’s electricity grid stronger in the long term. A senior Commission official said the report detailing a 2003 Swiss incident that caused a massive blackout in Italy shaped new EU protocols. Those measures, the official added, helped EU countries avoid a major blackout between 2013 and this past Monday. While the experts work out what went down, expect plenty of political mud-slinging about who or what is to blame. 

Spain’s national transmission system operator has not found signs that a cyberattack was at the root of the massive power blackout in Spain and Portugal on Monday. “With the analyses we have been able to carry out so far, we can rule out a cybersecurity incident in the electricity grid facilities at the Red Eléctrica control center,” Red Eléctrica’s head of system operation services Eduardo Prieto said at a press conference on Tuesday. Prieto said the conclusions were preliminary, but said that so far, the operator had “been able to conclude that there has not been any type of intrusion in the electrical network control systems that could have caused the incident.” When lights went out on Monday, people in the street in Spain and some local politicians speculated the blackout could be due to a cyberattack. Cyber agencies and other authorities including the European Commission cautioned against linking it to a cyberattack, noting that no evidence of such an attack had been found thus far. Red Eléctrica’s statement on Tuesday is the strongest so far that actively rules out a cyberattack. The outage left millions of people without access to basic modern necessities. Prieto said on Monday that the blackout was caused by a “very strong oscillation in the electrical network,” The full explanation of why networks went down is still unknown.

The massive blackout that left the Iberian Peninsula in the dark on Monday appears to have been sparked by the unexplained disappearance 15 gigawatts of power from Spain’s electricity grid. “This has never happened before,” said a grave-looking Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez at a press conference late on Monday evening. “And what caused it is something that the experts have not yet established — but they will.” He added that “no hypothesis has been rejected, and every possible cause is being investigated.” A spokesperson for the Spanish government told POLITICO that “at 12:33 p.m. 15 gigawatts of the energy being produced [in Spain] suddenly disappeared and remained missing for five seconds.” They added that the amount of electricity that had suddenly vanished from power grid was equivalent to 60 percent of the total being consumed nationwide at that time. The sudden drop in available power destabilized Spain’s electricity grid, which is highly integrated with Portugal’s and linked  to the rest of Europe through a small number of cross-border interconnections with France. Eduardo Prieto, director of Spanish transmission system operator Red Eléctrica, on Monday said the blackout had been caused by a “very strong oscillation in the electrical network” that led Spain’s power system to “disconnect from the European system, and the collapse of the Iberian electricity network at 12:38.” 30,000 members of the the country’s police force and the Civil Guard gendarmerie corps had been deployed. | Alberto Estevez/Getty Images The situation, which affected public transport networks, traffic lights, hospitals, and payment systems, is unprecedented. Spain’s opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and its support for Ukraine against Russia’s aggression have made it a major target for cyberattacks, and throughout the day there was heightened speculation that the crisis could be the result of nefarious action. The Joint Cyberspace Command, which reports to the Defense Staff and oversees cybersecurity, and the National Cryptologic Center, have both launched investigations into the blackout. Saying that it would likely be “a long night,” Sánchez said that it could take longer than expected to restore power to the entire country. He added that Spaniards should prioritize their welfare and try to work from home on Tuesday if possible. “Spanish citizens should and can feel calm,” the prime minister said, adding that security forces are ensuring that order is maintained throughout the country. 30,000 members of the the country’s police force and the Civil Guard gendarmerie corps had been deployed across the country on Monday, and additional reserve units have been placed on stand-by ready to be activated if needed. This article has been updated.