The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked to support an independent assessment of the true costs and impacts of the Climate Change Act targets. His reply defended Net Zero and left that request unanswered.
What will it cost? What is included? What is missing? Who pays?
Those were the questions behind my email to John Healey. They are questions the country’s chief financial minister should be willing to address.
The petition’s request is clear
Petition 780321 calls for a temporary suspension of the legal duties to meet statutory carbon budgets and the 2050 Net Zero target until Parliament has considered an independent national assessment of their full costs and impacts.
The assessment should cover public and private costs, household bills, fuel poverty, industry, food and energy security, land use and the infrastructure required. It should examine the consequences for peatland and landscapes, alongside rising electricity demand from data centres.
My email explicitly asked for costs and benefits to be assessed. Supporting action on climate change is entirely compatible with demanding evidence that the chosen policies are affordable, deliverable and represent value for money.
A defence of Net Zero leaves the assessment unanswered
Mr Healey’s reply discusses climate risks, international fossil fuel markets, reductions in energy bills and jobs in the Net Zero economy. It explains why he supports the Government’s policy.
It does not say whether he supports the independent national assessment requested. It does not identify an existing assessment that covers the petition’s scope. It does not directly answer the request for a temporary pause pending Parliament’s consideration of that evidence.
A statement of political commitment cannot substitute for a costed assessment.
Show us the full cost of reliable power
The Chancellor argues that more wind and solar will protect billpayers from volatile fossil fuel prices. That claim needs to be tested across the full system: generation, transmission and local networks, storage, backup, balancing and constraint payments.
The same assessment should test expected savings and benefits, compare practical alternatives, and show who pays under each option. Spending, operating savings and wider appraised benefits need to be reported clearly so Parliament can see what each figure means.
There is already a clear reason for scrutiny. The National Audit Office reported £1.9 billion in thermal constraint costs in 2025–26, expressed in 2024 prices. These payments manage grid bottlenecks by changing generators’ output; they include paying some generators to reduce output and others to increase it. They are distinct from renewable subsidy schemes.
The NAO also found that the Government had not demonstrated that the selected transmission upgrades were the best route to its objectives without an integrated plan or appraisal of the whole system. It also said grid investment was needed to avoid still higher constraint costs. The question is which approach delivers the best overall value. Read the NAO’s findings.
Read the full email exchange
The three emails below are dated 22 October 2026. Their substantive wording is reproduced in full. Postal addresses, contact footers and repeated quoted messages have been omitted; line wrapping and character encoding have been normalised.
My original request — 6.13am
Subject: Petition 780321 — will you support an independent assessment of Net Zero costs and impacts?
Dear Mr John Healey,
I am writing as the creator of parliamentary petition 780321 to ask for your support for an independent national assessment of the costs and impacts of the Climate Change Act targets.
What will the programme cost households and businesses? What infrastructure is required, when can it be delivered, and how much agricultural land and countryside will it occupy?
Electricity prices have more than doubled since 2013, according to the ONS electricity price index. The National Audit Office reports that grid constraint costs alone reached £1.9 billion in 2025–26. These are separate from renewable subsidies.
The NAO also found that, without an integrated plan or whole-system appraisal, the Government had not demonstrated that the proposed transmission upgrades represented the best way of achieving its objectives.
The petition calls for a temporary suspension of the statutory carbon-budget and 2050 duties until Parliament has considered an independent assessment of their full costs and impacts.
Will you:
Support that assessment, covering costs and benefits, bills, energy and food security, land use and infrastructure delivery?
Ask ministers to identify the existing assessment, or explain how the gaps will be addressed?
Review the petition and consider endorsing and sharing it?
Please let me know your position and what action you are willing to take.
Read petition 780321
Yours sincerely,
Shane oxer
Shane Oxer to John Healey, 22 October 2026
The Chancellor’s reply — 12.15pm
Dear Shane,
Thank you for contacting me about net zero.
I support net zero because I believe we have a duty to tackle the climate crisis and protect future generations. Climate change is not a distant threat. It is already affecting the UK through hotter, wetter weather, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme events. According to the Environment Agency, over six million properties and much of our best agricultural land are at risk of flooding, while recent heatwaves have resulted in thousands of excess deaths.
The fight against climate change is therefore about protecting our way of life, our natural environment and the local places we know and love.
Of course, I recognise that the UK represents only around 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot beat climate change alone. But we can only influence the rest of the world to tackle the remaining 99% if we do our part and act with urgency here at home.
At the same time, I recognise the concerns about the cost of living. I understand the frustration that people will feel when seeing their utility bills each month. That is why I remain committed to supporting action to get bills down. The previous Chancellor acted to cut £150 off energy bills this year, and shortly after becoming Chancellor I took another £50 off by scrapping VAT from energy bills.
But rowing back on our net zero commitment is not the way to do this. It was the last Government’s failure to invest in clean energy that left us exposed to international fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators like Putin and meant we were hit with the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. And it is wholesale gas costs that remain the main reason energy bills are so high. That has never been more painfully obvious than it is right now, with the situation in the Middle East driving up energy prices due to a dependence on overseas oil. The only way off this energy price rollercoaster is cheap, abundant, domestic clean energy.
The more we generate from wind or solar, the less we must generate from more expensive gas and the more we are protected from the volatility of international fossil fuel markets and future price shocks. That is why I am committed to a clean power mission that lets us take back control of our energy system and protect billpayers for good.
In addition, I believe the transition to net zero is also a major economic opportunity, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and driving new investment across the country. Between 2023 and 2024, for example, the net zero economy grew by 10.1% and it now supports the equivalent of nearly a million full-time jobs.
For these reasons, I remain committed to reaching net zero by 2050. I nevertheless appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this important issue.
Best wishes,
John
John Healey to Shane Oxer, 22 October 2026
My follow-up — 1.27pm
Subject: Petition 780321 — please answer the specific requests
Dear John,
Thank you for your reply. However, it explains your support for Net Zero without answering the specific requests in my petition.
Supporting action on climate change is entirely compatible with requiring an independent assessment of the costs, consequences and deliverability of the policies being pursued.
Please answer these three questions directly:
1. Will you support the independent national assessment requested in Petition 780321, covering public and private costs, bills, fuel poverty, industry, food and energy security, land use and infrastructure?
2. If you believe an assessment already adequately addresses these matters, please identify it and provide a link to the relevant evidence.
3. Will you support the petition’s proposed temporary suspension of statutory carbon-budget and 2050 target duties pending Parliament’s consideration of that assessment? If not, please explain your reasons.Your claims about cheaper electricity need to be tested against the full cost of providing reliable power—including generation, networks, storage, backup, balancing and constraint payments.
What will it cost? What is included? What is missing? Who pays?
These are reasonable questions about policies affecting every household and business. General assurances about clean energy and green jobs leave them unanswered.
Please address the petition’s requests directly.
Regards,
Shane Oxer to John Healey, 22 October 2026
Shane Oxer
Parliament should see the evidence
The Chancellor has explained his support for Net Zero. The specific requests for an independent assessment, an identifiable evidence base and a temporary pause still need direct answers.
Households, businesses and communities deserve to see the costs, the benefits, the delivery timetable and the consequences for their countryside before being asked to accept the programme on trust.
MAKE THEM SHOW THE EVIDENCE.
At 10,000 signatures, the Government will respond to the petition. Help us reach that threshold and put the request for a full national impact assessment directly before ministers.
One signature is all we ask. Share if you care.
Evidence and source notes
UK Parliament: Petition 780321 — the published wording and signature thresholds.
GOV.UK: John Healey — his current role and official photograph.
National Audit Office: Upgrading the electricity transmission network, 11 September 2026 — summary paragraph 8 gives the constraint-cost figure in 2024 prices. These costs are not the same as payments solely to switch off wind farms. The NAO’s conclusion concerns the transmission programme; it does not by itself establish the absence of every wider Net Zero assessment.
ONS: household electricity price index, series D7DT — the 2013 annual index is 95.1 and the 2025 annual index is 192.8, supporting the original email’s statement that prices more than doubled. This is a price index; it does not attribute that increase to the Climate Change Act.
The figures and policy claims within the Chancellor’s email are reproduced as his statements. The article’s central criticism is that his reply does not answer the petition’s specific requests.
Leave a Reply