UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has ordered an urgent investigation into the power outage caused by a substation fire that shut London’s Heathrow airport on Friday, reports BBC News. According to the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero, the investigation – led by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) – will build a “clear picture” of the incident and the UK’s energy resilience more broadly to prevent it “from ever happening again”, the outlet reports. Miliband said he has commissioned the investigation to “understand any wider lessons to be learned on energy resilience for critical national infrastructure, both now and in the future”, the article notes. The North Hyde substation in Hayes, west London, caught fire late on Thursday night, explains the Financial Times. And, although it is just one of three local substations Heathrow draws power from, the airport “said it was forced to close in order to reset its electrical supply and computer systems after the fire at one of them caused it to fail”, the newspaper says. It notes that a 2014 risk assessment for the airport warned that “even a brief interruption to electricity supplies could have a long-lasting impact”. Nonetheless, the report concluded that Heathrow “appears to have resilient electricity supplies that are compliant with regulations and standards”, the newspaper adds. The Mail on Sunday, Sunday Telegraph and GB News all seize upon the warnings. 

In a frontpage story today, the Financial Times reports that National Grid chief executive John Pettigrew “insisted the electricity transmission network remained capable of feeding enough power to Heathrow throughout the airport’s closure”. Pettigrew tells the newspaper that the two remaining substations that serve Heathrow were working throughout the incident: “There was no lack of capacity from the substations…Each substation individually can provide enough power to Heathrow.” He adds: “Losing a substation is a unique event – but there were two others available…So that is a level of resilience.” The Times, i newspaper, Daily Mail and Sky News all pick up Pettigrew’s comments in the FT – as does the Daily Telegraph in its frontpage story. The Daily Telegraph also ran a story on Friday afternoon claiming that Heathrow was “forced to shut down because of net-zero”. The theory is based entirely on the comments of climate sceptic Richard Tice – deputy leader of the hard-right, populist Reform UK – who claimed to have spoken to an “industry expert” who told him Heathrow had changed its backup systems from a diesel generator to a biomass alternative “in order for it to be net zero-compliant”. Another BBC News article explains that a biomass power generator provides heat and electricity to terminal two, but the “National Grid is the main source of power for Heathrow”. The Guardian notes that the fire led to “more than 1,350 flights [being] disrupted and an estimated 300,000 passengers facing travel chaos”. 

Sky News says that chancellor Rachel Reeves “defended a decision to delay an expansion at Gatwick as she was questioned in the wake of the sudden closure of Heathrow airport – despite admitting the fire showed the need for increased capacity and resilience”. The Daily Telegraph says that having a third runway at Heathrow “may have averted Friday’s power meltdown” because the “plans for an expanded site have previously mooted the idea of an additional power supply at the airport”. The New York Times, Press Association, Independent and ITV News all have the story, while there is considerable reaction in the comment pages (see below).

The chief executive of this year’s UN COP30 climate summit in Brazil has warned that the risk of a global trade war is “a very big concern” that would damage the world’s ability to tackle rising temperatures by limiting access to crucial technology, reports the Financial Times. In an interview with the paper, Ana Toni said COP30 would be taking place in “very difficult circumstances”, adding: “The trade war is a really big concern because some countries have technology for decarbonisation that other countries need…We cannot slow down the process because of trade wars in terms of exchanging technologies, products and so on.” Toni emphasised that “having fluid and free trade for specifically low carbon products is really important”. Despite the geopolitical turmoil, “we have to have a successful COP”, Toni told the FT: “Climate change is not going to wait for the geopolitical scenery to change.” She also noted that this year’s COP needed to shift away from a focus on negotiations – arguing the “rule book” for the Paris accord was now largely agreed – and instead focus on how to “accelerate action”.

China is looking to add to its “strategic reserves of key industrial metals”, including cobalt, copper, nickel and lithium, to “boost the resilience” of critical minerals production this year, Bloomberg reports. The country’s move to increase these metal stocks comes amid growing demand for an energy transition and rising geopolitical tensions, and is expected to have a “material impact on market prices”, adds the outlet. Ahead of the meeting with Chinese commerce minister Wang Wentao in China, Maroš Šefčovič, the EU’s trade chief, says that Chinese electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers should be prepared to transfer technology if they seek to invest in the bloc, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports. The Financial Times carries an article following China’s plan to build a dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo River under the title: “Beijing faces pushback over ambitious hydropower project plans.” Chen Zhenlin, head of the China Meteorological Administration, says that China will launch “geostationary meteorological satellites” over the next two years to “enhance global early warning systems”, state-run newspaper China Daily reports.

Meanwhile, state broadcaster CCTV interviews Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who says “international cooperation is the only way for humanity to avoid global climate disasters”. China’s former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua is quoted by Beijing News saying that accelerating green transformation and global cooperation on climate change is a “historical development trend that no one can stop”. State broadcaster China Global Television Network (CGTN) publishes an article under the title: “China’s green development: A model for global sustainability”. 

Separately, industry news outlet BJX News reports that China’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has announced a second batch of “27 national carbon peak pilot projects”. An article by China Daily says that Chinese “company executives and industry experts” are calling for the “gradual easing of refined oil and chemical export restrictions” in light of China’s “evolving energy landscape” and the rapid adoption of EVs. The Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily carries an article by Li Qiuyue, a lecturer at Beijing Wuzi University’s School of Marxism, saying that “China’s EV exports and adoption reflect the country’s successful economic green transition”.

The European Commission said on Friday that it has delayed its plan to propose a new EU climate target for 2040 in the first quarter of this year, reports Reuters. The newswire continues: “Brussels had said last month it would amend the EU’s climate law this quarter – a long-planned move that would set a 2040 target to keep countries on track between their 2030 emissions goal, and the bloc’s aim for zero net emissions by 2050. However, the proposal has run into political opposition, with some member states and lawmakers reluctant to back the 90% emissions cut, which the commission has previously indicated should be set as the 2040 target.” As with most countries, the EU also missed a February deadline to submit a 2035 climate plan to the UN, the article notes – a plan the commission has said should be derived from the EU’s 2040 goal. The EU “has vowed not to backtrack on its climate change commitments”, the newswire says. However, as Euractiv points out, “influential voices have come out” against the 90% target.

The US National Weather Service (NWS) is reducing weather balloon launches at six more locations and temporarily suspending them at two more places due to staffing shortages, Axios reports. It continues: “Weather balloons, typically launched twice per day at NWS local forecast offices, provide crucial data for weather forecasting. The suspensions and reductions in balloon launch frequency come on the heels of other cuts made to at least three locations in the wake of NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] layoffs.” Taken together, the loss of all this balloon data is “likely to reduce the accuracy of computer models not just for US computer models like the Global Forecast System, but also for other nations whose systems rely on data gathered worldwide”, the outlet says. It notes that “NOAA is preparing for further layoffs of up to 1,029 employees, in addition to more early retirements”. This could “further hit NWS’ services and make it harder for the agency to fulfil its mission of protecting life and property”, it says.

Government ministers will seek to overturn measures this week “that would have guaranteed companies using forced labour play no part in the UK’s race towards net-zero”, reports the Times. It continues: “When the Great British Energy Bill, which will establish Labour’s new publicly owned clean energy company, returns to the commons this week, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, will reject an amendment intended to curb modern slavery. Tabled by the crossbench peer Lord Alton of Liverpool, it seeks to stop public money being spent by GB Energy on solar panels and other materials where there is ‘credible evidence of modern slavery’ in supply chains. The House of Lords voted in favour of the amendment by 175 votes to 125 votes in February.” The article explains that “academics, politicians and human rights groups have long warned that forced labour is rife in the Xinjiang region” of China, noting that the region “produces between 35% and 40% of the world’s polysilicon, the key raw material for the panels”. Miliband has stated he “disagrees” with the amendment and wants it dropped from the bill when it returns to the commons tomorrow, the newspaper explains. It adds that “MPs are gearing up for a battle over the issue”. The Daily Telegraph quotes Lord Alton of Liverpool, who said: “Before shovelling millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money into the pockets of Chinese Communist Party-approved companies, Ed Miliband needs to address serious questions about the origins of solar panels made by slave labour.” He added that Miliband “also needs to come clean about net-zero ideology”. In response, a spokesperson said the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero is “working across government to tackle the issue of forced labour in solar supply chains”, the newspaper notes. The Daily Mail says that Miliband told a radio show last week that an £180m investment in installing solar on schools and NHS buildings would need to source panels from outside the UK because “our solar panel industry has not got this kind of share of the market”. He added: “That’s why we’ve got to build our domestic industry.” There is further reporting in two articles in the Sun and an additional article in the Daily Mail.

In other Miliband news, the Daily Telegraph says the energy secretary “has been accused of targeting farmland in Conservative constituencies to fuel a major expansion of solar energy”. The Sun says that Miliband is “plotting to clobber Brits with another eco levy” because he is “consulting on plans for a new levy on gas shippers to bankroll the rollout of hydrogen”. And the Daily Telegraph reports that “green energy tycoons” are “go[ing] to war over Ed Miliband’s net-zero grid”. 

Finally, the Observer speaks to former Tory energy minister Chris Skidmore, who accuses Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch of breaking a promise made to Tory MPs during her leadership campaign after abandoning the party’s commitment to reaching net-zero by 2050. And the Daily Telegraph reports that Wilkin & Sons – supplier of jams to King Charles – has said it has a “great concern” about a new levy to make packaging producers responsible for the cost of recycling their products. The newspaper describes the levy, which was first proposed by the Conservatives, as “Labour’s net-zero glass tax”.

There is widespread reaction to Friday’s closure of Heathrow after a fire at a nearby substation caused a power outage. In the Financial Times, James Ginns – head of risk management policy at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience – writes that, from undersea cables to energy grids, “it doesn’t take long to see how vulnerable the UK is”. He says: “Hub airports have the energy demands of small cities while, quite rightly, prioritising safety. Heathrow claims that it’s not possible to have in place the energy generation backup required to run its operations safely. That’s not good enough. It needs to establish that alternative supply is available from the grid and can be switched in seamlessly if needed. More broadly, regulators should require that all providers of critical infrastructure regularly assess vulnerabilities and stress test their ability to recover quickly.” 

In editorials from right-leaning newspapers, the Times describes the events as a “wake-up call about the importance of resilience”, while the Sunday Times notes that “getting a third runway built afford­ably remains a bigger issue” for the airport. Saturday’s edition of the Sun describes the events as an “appalling global humiliation”. The Daily Mail suggests the substation was “running in excess of its safe capacity” because of an “explosion of power-gobbling data centres and electric cars”. Saturday’s Daily Telegraph says that energy secretary Ed Miliband “is more culpable than most” for “largely focus[ing] on net-zero, while neglecting to build resilience into the National Grid”. The Sunday Telegraph (not yet online) goes further, arguing that it is “crucial” that the investigation “fully scrutinise[s] Mr Miliband’s own role and responsibility in all of this”. The newspaper claims: “He has subordinated every aspect of our national energy security to the headlong rush to net-zero, which must have significantly affected our overall resilience, whether or not it had anything to do with the Heathrow fiasco.”

In other reaction, Times contributor Libby Purves writes that the “search for instant scapegoats is a symptom of chattering class ignorance of how the world around us works”. She says: “Some blamed a biomass generator being depended on, which it wasn’t. [Short-lived UK prime minister] Liz Truss tweeted about a “leftist…net-zero debacle”. One newspaper [the Daily Mail] offered a vague unfounded accusation about a ‘blundering engineer’.” Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas, former music journalist Tony Parsons in the Sun and former Conservative MP Bob Seely in the Daily Telegraph all describe Friday’s events as a “wake-up call”. And Daily Mail commentator Andrew Neil says they “sum up broken Britain”.

Tesla boss Elon Musk “once thought the idea that China’s BYD could compete with his company was laughable”, but he has now “been outpaced” by the company, says a Guardian editorial. It continues: “Last week, the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer unveiled new charging technology that, it says, is capable of delivering 400km (249 miles) of driving range in just five minutes – as quick as filling up a petrol car. The system, released next month, will be fitted in two EVs, priced from 270,000 yuan (£29,000) – comparable to Tesla’s most affordable model in China. Yet BYD claims to quadruple Tesla’s kilometres-per-minute charging rate. Technological supremacy at a competitive price may help to explain why BYD now sells seven times as many cars in China as Tesla.” Making a similar point, Dominic O’Connell – a business presenter for Times Radio – writes in the Times that BYD’s new charging technology “really rocked Tesla shares this week”. Brooke Sample, Bloomberg opinion editor, writes that “while Tesla was busy being provocative, BYD was focused on being innovative”. In the Los Angeles Times, business columnist Michael Hiltzik writes that “Tesla’s bumpy ride may not be over”. The Sunday Times profiles BYD executive vice-president Stella Li, who is “becoming the most powerful woman in the global car industry”.

Meanwhile, there is widespread coverage of the continued vandalisation of Tesla showrooms and charging stations in what the New York Times says is an “apparent protest of Mr Musk’s efforts to drastically reshape the federal government and fire much of the federal workforce”. In a social media post, US president Donald Trump said he “look[ed] forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20-year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla”, the newspaper reports. Bloomberg says that millions of Tesla customers – “whose electric vehicles increasingly are viewed as political symbols” – are “caught in the middle”. The Washington Post says that “Tesla owners are trading in cars at record rates”, while the Hill says this shows a “potential shift” in buyers’ feelings toward Tesla. Forbes reports on a survey in Germany that suggests 94% of more than 100,000 citizens would never purchase a Tesla. Finally, in his Sunday Times column, motoring journalist and broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson recounts the tale of Musk suing him for giving a bad review of one of his cars, adding: “So how will he cope now that the eco hippies who used to idolise him have turned on his cars?”

UK energy secretary Ed Miliband features prominently in the comment pages over the weekend. Sunday Times commentator – and former New Statesman editor – Jason Cowley writes that prime minister Keir Starmer “knows… that Labour has a Miliband problem”. Cowley continues: “More than any other cabinet minister, he embodies Labour’s progressive delusion, and many colleagues and party donors associate him with some of the party’s most abject defeats.” Cowley says that the “government is caught in a double bind: it wants rearmament and reindustrialisation and net-zero, here and now”. He writes: “The leadership of the 110-strong Growth Group of Labour MPs believes that solar panels (if made in Britain), net-zero, nuclear submarines and fiscal prudence ‘can all make sense as a story about the new politics of national security’. But there are those who say that story is not being told by Miliband and the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero. He evangelises about renewable energy but seldom about new nuclear energy or about the potential of nuclear microreactors.” This “tension between the old and the new, between soft left progressivism and a harder-edged, more conservative politics of security that defines this emerging era, runs like a fault line through Labour”, Cowley argues, concluding: “But the incoherence will continue until Labour abandons – or world events force it to – its progressive delusions.”

Meanwhile, i newspaper columnist Isabel Hardman writes that Miliband “is a force to be reckoned with, much to the disappointment of some MPs”. John Rentoul, the Independent’s chief political commentator, predicts that despite Miliband being the “most popular cabinet minister among Labour Party members”, he will “not be in his current post at the time of the next election”. Rentoul says that, as “the road to net-zero starts to get expensive…an energy secretary who simply asserts that green energy creates good jobs becomes an electoral liability”. An editorial in the Sun on Sunday says that “Ed Miliband’s delusional net-zero folly…must be binned if we are to kickstart [the] economy”. An editorial in Saturday’s Sun also attacks Miliband because “the swivel-eyed energy secretary is advertising for someone to run his GB Energy fantasy firm on a staggering £525,000 with two days a week working from home”. The Sun also publishes a comment article from shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie, who writes that “Miliband and his band of net-zero nutters seem determined to run the UK into the ground”. And an editorial in today’s Daily Mail (not yet online) says that “Ed Miliband justifies his dogmatic dash for solar power by claiming it will free us from dependence on foreign dictators’ fossil fuels”.

Permafrost thaw in Alaska could cause $37bn in damages to buildings and roads under a “medium” emissions scenario, a new study warns. The authors note that losses in Alaska due to permafrost thaw are currently underestimated due to “incomprehensive infrastructure maps”. They use a combination of satellite imagery, OpenStreetMap data and a deep learning detection model to create an “improved map”, which includes 53m square metres of buildings and more than 50,000km of roads in Alaska. Under a high emissions scenario, losses could reach $51bn, the study says.