They constantly blame gas for Britain’s high electricity bills. But that is only part of the story. Official figures reveal billions being recovered through transmission charges, balancing payments, renewable-support contracts and payments to keep generating capacity available. NESO’s forecasts show that transmission revenue requirements are set to rise much further.
Why isn’t the full financial picture presented as clearly as the explanation about gas? And where is the complete account of what households and businesses will be expected to pay?
These are not rumours or campaign estimates. They are figures published by NESO, Ofgem, DESNZ, Parliament and the Scottish Government. Here they are, in plain English, followed by the questions the responsible organisations must answer.
1. THE GRID: FROM £3.32 BILLION TO A FORECAST £13.80 BILLION A YEAR
In 2021/22, Britain’s electricity-transmission system had an annual revenue requirement of £3.318 billion. For 2026/27, NESO’s final tariffs require £7.610 billion. Its October 2026 forecast rises to £9.471 billion for 2027/28 and £13.802 billion by 2031/32.
Across 2027/28–2031/32, NESO forecasts approximately £59.7 billion in transmission revenue to be recovered. That is money flowing through the charging system, not £59.7 billion of new construction.
DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO must publish a clear breakdown of that increase: how much pays for existing assets, how much for replacing old equipment, how much for new renewable connections, how much for other electricity demand, and how much for debt interest and investor returns?
2. HOUSEHOLDS: THE TRANSMISSION CHARGE IS ALREADY MOVING
NESO’s representative household estimate was £39.79 in 2024/25. It increased to £51.30 in 2025/26 and £83.24 in 2026/27. The updated forecast for 2027/28 is £103.24. This is just the transmission component of the electricity bill.
Ofgem separately stated that its 2026–2031 network-investment arrangements could add around £108 to a typical annual household energy bill by 2031. These are different financial measures and should not be added together.
What will the average home actually pay each year from 2026 to 2035? Where is the one published table that reconciles TNUoS, distribution charges, balancing, supplier charges and the eventual total bill? If higher upfront charges are expected to produce later savings, show the amount, timing and evidence—not just an assurance.
3. THE CHARGES BEYOND WHOLESALE GAS
The House of Commons Library’s illustrative electricity bill for April–June 2026 was £875 a year. Within that were approximately £214 for networks, £42 for balancing and £78 for policy and social schemes. Together, those three lines accounted for £334—about 38% of the illustrated electricity bill.
That £334 is not the price of gas. It is also not one single ‘Net Zero levy’. It is the published breakdown of separate charges, which deserves a transparent explanation.
Why do official explanations of electricity prices so often stop at wholesale gas? Publish the full breakdown each year, showing how every non-wholesale charge has changed and where the revenue goes.
4. SIX PAYMENT STREAMS: THE 2024/25 FIGURES
The 2024/25 reports identify £7.70 billion as the Renewables Obligation scheme value; £4.19 billion in transmission revenue requirements; £2.70 billion in balancing expenditure; £2.20 billion in CfD payments to generators; £1.84 billion in Feed-in Tariffs scheme value; and approximately £1.25 billion in recognised Capacity Market payments.
Each figure deserves its own public account. Which companies received the money? Which contracts govern the payments? Which amounts are funded by electricity consumers and which by taxpayers? When do the obligations expire?
The Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariffs are long-running support arrangements. Contracts for Difference provide another payment mechanism. The Capacity Market pays for capacity availability. The transmission network and balancing services are separately financed. The fact that money travels through different systems is precisely why a consolidated public ledger is needed.
5. PAYING TO TURN WIND DOWN AND GAS UP
NESO recorded roughly £2.70 billion in total balancing costs for 2024/25. Government figures for thermal-constraint actions included approximately £370 million for wind generation to reduce output and £910 million for gas generation to increase output. Those two numbers sit inside the wider balancing total; they must not be added again.
These actions occur when the system cannot move electricity as planned or requires changes to maintain secure operation. How much did constraints cost at each grid boundary? Which network projects were meant to remove them? What were the original completion dates? How much has every delay cost?
The public should be able to see the cost of a new generating project alongside the grid capacity available to carry its output. Approving generation and building the necessary transmission on different timetables creates financial questions that should be answered project by project.
6. OFFSHORE WIND: £80 BILLION, £3.5 BILLION AND £40 BILLION
Consider three published figures. The Scottish Government reported approximately £80 billion in original ScotWind developer expenditure proposals. Ofgem’s October 2026 Hornsea 3 offshore transmission tender concerned connection assets with an estimated value of £3.5 billion. DESNZ has estimated approximately £40 billion in lifetime CfD subsidy for all renewable technologies awarded contracts in Allocation Round 7.
Those sums are not three parts of one £123.5 billion bill. They concern different assets, contracts and periods. But each exposes another financial route requiring public scrutiny.
For every offshore project, publish its complete cost: turbines, foundations, offshore substations, subsea cables, landing points, onshore reinforcement, financing, operations, major replacements and decommissioning. Identify exactly who pays and over what period.
7. THE £80 BILLION SCOTWIND PROPOSALS: WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT?
The Scottish Government’s March 2025 analysis of original proposals for 20 ScotWind projects identified approximately £70.9 billion in development and other non-operating expenditure and around £9 billion in operating expenditure. It was a developer pipeline estimate—not £80 billion already spent.
Which original projects remain viable in October 2026? Which have surrendered seabed options? What is each project’s connection date? What transmission work is required, how much of it is already funded, and who bears the financial loss if a scheme is delayed or abandoned?
The wider £95–£106 billion Scottish offshore-wind pipeline estimate included ScotWind, so it cannot be added again to the £80 billion figure. What matters is the updated project-by-project account—not repeating outdated investment announcements.
8. CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE: WHO PAYS, FOR HOW LONG, AND HOW MUCH?
A Contract for Difference gives an eligible generator an agreed strike price. If the relevant market reference price is lower, it receives a top-up. If the reference price is higher, it pays the difference back. In the simple illustration below, a £90/MWh strike price means a £40/MWh top-up when the reference price is £50/MWh, or a £40/MWh repayment at £130/MWh.
DESNZ must publish a year-by-year schedule of all CfD awards: contracted capacity, strike price, start date, contract length, inflation adjustment, electricity generated, payments made, repayments received and expected remaining obligations.
It should publish the wholesale price assumptions underpinning future subsidy estimates and show clearly how much customers are expected to pay in high-, central- and low-price scenarios. A multidecade commitment should not be explained to the public with a single headline strike price.
9. THE MISSING FIGURE IS THE COMPLETE LIFETIME BILL
Transmission assets have financing charges. Wind farms require maintenance and sometimes major component replacement. Offshore cables and substations have operating costs. Renewables support contracts run for many years. Existing and new generating capacity must be available when the system needs it. Each organisation reports its own slice.
But where is the publicly accessible, independently reconciled account covering construction, financing, maintenance, replacement, constraint payments, long-term support contracts, tax receipts and the charges passed to consumers?
We need the same information for the alternative options DESNZ considered. Without it, Parliament and the public cannot judge the financial consequences of choosing one national energy system over another.
10. DESNZ: SHOW THE FULL ACCOUNTS
These are official figures. They do not require anyone to accept a political opinion. What they require is an explanation.
Tell the public what has already been paid. What remains contractually committed. What is merely forecast. Which organisations receive the money. What infrastructure is still missing. What future financing costs are expected. What savings have actually materialised. And what credible alternatives were evaluated.
It is not the public’s responsibility to defend or justify the government’s energy policy. It is the responsibility of DESNZ, Ofgem and NESO to publish the evidence for the costs they authorise and the consequences they anticipate.
GAS IS NOT THE WHOLE ELECTRICITY BILL. THE FULL BILL MUST BE SHOWN.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
NESO: electricity transmission charges and tariff forecasts; Ofgem: network price controls and tariff regulation; House of Commons Library: electricity bill composition; NESO: balancing costs; Ofgem: Renewables Obligation 2024/25; Scottish Government: offshore wind investment proposals; DESNZ: audited accounts 2025/26; Ofgem: offshore transmission tender and network investment decisions.
Accounting note: 2024/25 scheme values, tariff revenue requirements, actual payments, project investment proposals and future forecasts use different accounting bases. Constraint payments are included in balancing costs; capital expenditure and regulated revenue recovery overlap. The figures above are not an additive Net Zero bill.
Leave a Reply