Ministers can move energy charges between household bills, standing charges and taxation. But they cannot make the underlying costs disappear. In the end, the consumer ultimately pays.
Every time energy bills rise, ministers announce another form of support.
They talk about cutting VAT, removing policy costs, changing standing charges or introducing a social tariff. These measures may help vulnerable households in the short term, but they do not necessarily make the energy system cheaper.
They simply change where the cost appears.
If a levy is removed from energy bills and transferred to general taxation, the taxpayer pays. If VAT is cut, the Treasury loses revenue that must be found elsewhere. If standing charges are reduced, some of those fixed costs may be transferred to unit rates. If a social tariff is introduced, its cost must be met by taxpayers or other consumers.
The invoice may change, but the cost remains.
THE LATEST INCREASE IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY
For accuracy, the expected October price-cap increase is being driven mainly by higher wholesale gas prices following conflict in the Middle East.
That must be acknowledged.
But gas prices do not explain why Britain’s electricity system is expected to remain expensive for years—even if wholesale prices eventually fall.
EDF now forecasts that a typical annual household bill could reach approximately £1,790 by 2030. That is around £127, or 13%, above the present £1,663 figure.
EDF’s central warning is that falling wholesale costs are expected to be offset by rising non-commodity costs. These include network charges, policy costs and other expenses attached to operating and supporting the system.
EDF is not an anti-Net Zero organisation. It operates Britain’s nuclear fleet and owns wind and solar generation. Its warning therefore deserves attention.
Its analysis also shows the weakness of simply transferring charges elsewhere. EDF estimates that keeping the electricity VAT cut and changes to renewable funding in place until 2030 could reduce the household bill by approximately £90—but would cost the public purse around £3.5 billion.
That is not the cost disappearing. It is the cost moving from the billpayer to the taxpayer.
“EDF’s earlier published analysis” (https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/rising-energy-bills-can-anything-be-done-absolutely) had already warned that non-wholesale costs were rising rapidly. The “updated EDF forecast was reported on 25 August 2026” (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/08/25/energy-bills-to-rise-by-130-by-2030-amid-net-zero-drive-edf/).
WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR?
The current Ofgem price-cap breakdown shows that wholesale energy, including Contracts for Difference, accounts for approximately 45% of a typical direct-debit bill.
Networks account for around 25%. Operating, debt and industry costs represent approximately 16%, while the category labelled policy costs accounts for another 6%.
Not every pound of network expenditure is caused by Net Zero. Britain has ageing infrastructure that needs maintaining and replacing.
But it would also be wrong to assume that the 6% labelled “policy costs” represents the full cost of the energy transition.
Contracts for Difference are included in Ofgem’s wholesale category. Major grid expansion appears under network costs. The cost of maintaining firm capacity, balancing the system and managing periods of low wind and solar output appears elsewhere.
Britain is therefore paying for several layers of the same energy system.
We are financing weather-dependent generation. We are financing the new transmission infrastructure needed to connect it. We are also financing firm and flexible capacity to maintain security when weather-dependent generation is unavailable.
Wind and solar do produce electricity without purchasing fuel. But their output cannot be ordered to match demand. The system must still be able to supply power during cold, dark and windless periods.
That requires networks, storage, interconnectors, demand management and reliable generation.
The important question is not whether each individual part has some value. It is whether the complete system represents the most affordable and secure pathway for Britain.
Cheap generation is not the same thing as a cheap electricity system.
“Ofgem’s price-cap breakdown” (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-06/Summary-of-changes-to-energy-price-cap-1-July-to-30-September-2026-revised-TDCV.pdf) confirms how much of the household bill now sits outside the basic wholesale cost of energy.
THE OFFICIAL FIGURES ARE RISING
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that environmental-levy receipts will rise from approximately £14 billion in 2025–26 to £18.6 billion in 2030–31.
These figures should not be described solely as renewable subsidies. They include Contracts for Difference, the Capacity Market, Sizewell C financing, the Warm Home Discount and the Green Gas Levy.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate the scale of the additional charges being collected through the energy system.
The Capacity Market is especially important. It pays generators, storage providers and other sources of flexibility to ensure reliable capacity is available when required. The OBR forecasts average Capacity Market receipts of approximately £3.8 billion a year across its forecast period.
In simple terms, consumers are supporting new low-carbon generation while also paying to ensure reliable capacity remains available.
Network expenditure is rising as well. Ofgem approved an initial £28 billion package for Britain’s gas and electricity networks and said the overall programme could reach approximately £90 billion by 2031.
Ofgem argues that grid expansion will produce future savings by reducing gas exposure and constraint costs. It estimates that these savings could reduce the eventual net effect on annual household bills.
Those savings are forecasts, however, and depend upon projects being completed on time, costs being controlled and the expected generation connecting.
That is why EDF has separately called for a strategic review of the Pathway to 2030 transmission programme, updated value-for-money assessments and a live public tracker showing project costs and construction progress.
“The OBR’s figures” (https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-november-2025/) and “Ofgem’s network settlement” (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-unlocks-ps28-billion-investment-maintain-safe-secure-and-resilient-energy-grid-and-upgrade-and-expand-capacity-meet-growing-demands) are forecasts, not guarantees. That makes transparent scrutiny more important, not less.
SUPPORT IS NECESSARY—BUT IT IS NOT A SOLUTION
Households struggling to heat their homes need immediate help. Energy UK warns that domestic energy debt could approach £7 billion by the end of 2026.
Targeted support may therefore be necessary.
But support should not be confused with reducing the underlying cost of energy.
A Government cannot claim to have made energy cheaper simply because it has moved a charge from an electricity bill to the Treasury. The same household may pay through higher taxation, reduced public services, increased borrowing or charges placed elsewhere.
The consumer ultimately pays—as a billpayer, taxpayer, worker or pensioner.
That is why ministers appear to be scrambling. They are trying to find a less visible and more politically acceptable place to put costs that cannot be removed without changing the underlying energy pathway.
DOES THE PLAN STILL ADD UP?
Before Britain commits further billions to generation, networks and supporting capacity, the entire programme should face an independent whole-system review.
That review must examine four connected ledgers: generation, networks, flexibility and security.
It must show what consumers will pay through their bills, what taxpayers will fund, what costs are being moved between the two, and what reliable capacity will be required to keep the lights on.
It must also compare the current pathway with credible alternatives based on more firm domestic generation, nuclear power, strategic gas capacity and renewables used where they genuinely reduce whole-system costs.
This is not an argument for doing nothing.
It is an argument for building intelligently rather than automatically.
The grid must be strengthened. Ageing infrastructure must be replaced. Britain needs new generating capacity. But expenditure should be driven by affordability, reliability and engineering reality—not simply by a political deadline.
Ministers can move costs between bills, standing charges and taxation. They can announce rebates, discounts and temporary relief. What they cannot do is make the underlying costs disappear.
Support packages may change who pays.
They do not make the system cheaper.
Grid first. Reliable power first. Affordability first.
Shane Oxer — Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy
Principal sources
– “EDF — Rising energy bills: Can anything be done?” (https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/rising-energy-bills-can-anything-be-done-absolutely)
– “EDF — Transmission costs and the need for a strategic review” (https://www.edfenergy.com/about/an-electric-britain/transmission-costs-need-greater-transparency-and-strategic-review)
– “Ofgem — July–September 2026 price-cap breakdown” (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-06/Summary-of-changes-to-energy-price-cap-1-July-to-30-September-2026-revised-TDCV.pdf)
– “Office for Budget Responsibility — Environmental levies” (https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-november-2025/)
– “Ofgem — Network investment settlement” (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-unlocks-ps28-billion-investment-maintain-safe-secure-and-resilient-energy-grid-and-upgrade-and-expand-capacity-meet-growing-demands)
– “Energy UK — Energy Debt: Everyone Pays” (https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publications/energy-debt-everyone-pays/)
SAY NO TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR LAND 
Leave a comment