Skip to content

Failed Green Deal scheme cost £17,000 for every household that signed up

April 14, 2016

By Paul Homewood


h/t Paul2 




From the Telegraph:


Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the Government’s failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme, which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britain’s entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.

The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to fund the cost of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the cost paid back out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million – on average less than £3,600 each.

By contrast the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had spent £240 million – more than £17,000 per household – on setting up, promoting and helping administer the scheme.

The Green Deal did not deliver value for money and “failed to deliver any meaningful benefit”, Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, concluded.


The NAO also criticised the Government for the costly design of another energy efficiency scheme, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which required gas and electricity suppliers to upgrade homes.

The £3bn scheme was paid for on energy bills and was almost three times more expensive per tonne of carbon saved than previous schemes, so increasing energy bills, the NAO said.

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together “deliver over £6 billion of energy bill savings to the most vulnerable” and had helped make more than one million homes warmer.

It said it had already taken action “to address the issues in this report” by ceasing funding for the company that issued the loans and launching an independent review of the energy efficiency sector.


It did not take a genius to work out that very few people would get suckered into the Green Deal, knowing that they would have to pay back the money sooner or later. Given the propensity of civil servants to burn money on administration, the outcome was inevitable

Since Ed Davey was in charge at the time, perhaps he should be surcharged for wasting taxpayers’ money.

  1. April 14, 2016 11:10 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Another hastily delivered, feel-good ‘green’ program fails at great cost to the taxpayer. Tsk tsk tsk.

    Didn’t Ed Davey learn from Australia’s disastrous and deadly “Pink Batts” scheme/scam implemented by Kevin Rudd’s Left-wing, global warming obsessed government (2007-10) that cost $2.8 billion, plus a $500 million cleanup bill?!

    What is it with climate obsessed / Lefty governments and other-people’s-money?

    I repeat, the worst ‘green’ zealots can be accused of for “saving the planet”, even when lives are tragically lost, is an excess of virtue.


    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      April 14, 2016 11:14 pm

      Not to mention the fires and deaths as the cowboys employed untrained people to install the cheaper foil type (stapling metal into a live power cable is not a good idea).

  2. April 14, 2016 11:53 am

    This is a good example where democracy fails, when minority parties (always of a “green” persuasion) insist on being in charge of their hobby horses, in exchange for keeping a major party (one that people have voted for in numbers) in power. German Greens have also wielded undue power on the basis of a tiny percentage vote.

    The Lib Dems should only have been in charge of 20% of energy policy.

    Alternatively, please join me in forming an anti-green party, our MPs will join any coalition, on the condition that greens are excluded from power.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      April 15, 2016 1:15 pm

      The failure is mainly in the PR system, which has the effect you describe built in. Our FPTP system usually consigns such minorities to the outer wilderness – our problem is that our political classes have almost entirely subscribed to the Green agenda, probably in part because they have no alternative than to obey Brussels. The manner in which the body politic has been taken over will be an object of study for future historians.

  3. Tom Moran permalink
    April 14, 2016 12:03 pm

    So they spent £250 million promoting projects that cost £50 million. Sounds like Govt math.

  4. April 14, 2016 12:11 pm

    I am curious why England and Australia don’t fully insulate homes? In the US, there’s ceiling insulation, walls and often floors. People install more on their own. Also, window caulking, window film to serve as temporary storm windows, etc, are all sold at home improvement stores. There are commercials about energy saving all the time.

    There is a government program to help the poor with insulation, etc. It’s been around for over 40 years, with few complaints. When the Obama stimulus throw a bunch of money at it, then there were reports of misuse and poor workmanship. The problem seems to be when governments throw massive amounts of money at a program, encouraging no oversight and much fraud. Slowly developed programs and older programs aren’t as easily defrauded.

    • Ex-expat Colin permalink
      April 14, 2016 12:39 pm

      Land in UK is too expensive. Previously owned by the Church and anybody on a big horse carrying a sword. Not much money in it to build the house, hence most houses are simply crap!

    • April 15, 2016 10:04 am

      @RC “I am curious why England and Australia don’t fully insulate homes?”
      Hey we are talking about OLD UK homes here. Ones 50, 100 years old etc. whose owners have unlike most not installed modern insulation.
      New homes are built to energy efficiency standards of compulsory double glazing and loft insulation.
      Those old properties not insulated are often owned by landlords who don’t pay the energy bill themselves.
      A particular problem has been spivs from cavity wall insulation companies signing people up in areas where it is already too damp ..and then people have found huge costs of having it fixed, after gov money was spent installing it.

  5. Derek Buxton permalink
    April 14, 2016 12:22 pm

    I wrote to my then MP (Lib-Dim) naturally, complaining about the “green deal” and received a rather stupid reply saying it would save me more than it would cost. I tried to point out the flaws but got nowhere. As for Ed Davey, he should be in jail for lying about the cost of it.

  6. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    April 14, 2016 12:43 pm

    I read the cr*p a few years ago…spotted the smiley contractors waiting behind the dumb Govt words. Did it myself for a few hundred notes.

    I’ve watched the cheapo job lot double glazing going in with the window units installed from the outside. 3 years later it truly is replacement of replacement DG windows.

  7. April 14, 2016 12:46 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll no doubt say it many more times in the future. If it has “green” in the title, then it is a scam and you should keep a tight hold on your wallet – not that that will stop the Government dipping into it.

  8. April 14, 2016 2:03 pm

    ‘Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme’

    Small change to epic money-wasters on ‘green’ scams/schemes like Davey.

  9. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 14, 2016 4:48 pm

    These schemes seem to be designed to transfer money, via taxes, from mid-level economic people to those higher up the status-ladder. Thus, “follow the money.”

    It would be simple to have a few smart people examine a proposal in the manner of “If this is done, who will do what? Then, what happens next? And then, next?”
    Think like one does playing chess. Maybe a dozen different flowcharts are drawn to depict the various outcomes. Expect that the worst outcome will be the most likely.
    That something like this is not done strengthens the assertion to “follow the money.”

    There is a formal decision making system: Delphi Decision Making Process

    • April 19, 2016 8:04 am

      The problem in following the money is how well the ultra-rich can hide the flow-paths.

      The Delphi method was used to select the radiant fiddle-factor (sorry forcing factor) that all global warming calculations are based on; IIPCC demonstrated well that it is possible to force the outcome if one is sufficiently unscrupulous (or has a job dependent upon the outcome)!

  10. Paul2 permalink
    April 14, 2016 8:31 pm

    As an aside, listen to virtually every single politico who is in favour of staying in the EU and your’ll notice that near the forefront of their argument to stay is to “tackle climate change”.
    This and this alone makes me a Brexiteer no matter what other advantages or disadvantages there are in leaving.

  11. tux1952 permalink
    April 14, 2016 8:57 pm

    The Greed Deal…surely???

  12. It doesn't add up... permalink
    April 15, 2016 2:36 pm

    The Green Deal was surely a Huhne invention?

    Labour List did a nice job of ridiculing it with a script worthy of “Yes, Minister” here:

  13. iain mcfadyen permalink
    April 19, 2016 12:02 pm

    For all you gda’s. Get another job.


  1. Failed Green Deal scheme cost £17,000 for every household that signed up |

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: