Skip to content

Green Energy Costs to Double, Committee on Climate Change Reveals

March 17, 2017

By Paul Homewood




From GWPF:


They announced, just as five of the big six energy providers raised prices by between 7-10%, that ‘Britain’s low carbon energy revolution is actually saving money for households’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tucked away at the bottom of a technical annex was a shocking revelation; households would be paying almost twice as much for climate policies than the CCC had estimated in their previous report on energy bills.

The Annex of the report includes an estimate of £235 for the cost of low-carbon policies on household energy bills in 2030, a cost that the CCC claimed in 2015 would only be £125 (p. 21).

Taking business energy costs and taxpayer-funded policies into account, this implies that the overall cost of decarbonisation policies will be over £300 billion by 2030, confirming what Peter Lilley MP has estimated in his report on the cost of the Climate Change Act.

The embarrassment of the CCC was heightened by their acknowledgement that they forgot to include VAT and full evaluations of the system costs of renewables in past assessments. The CCC were also forced to admit that the cost of the Renewables Obligation would be much higher than initially thought.

The report reveals that by 2030, low-carbon policies will account for 32% of residential electricity prices. The situation is even worse for businesses; 40% of the electricity price paid by medium-sized commercial businesses will be due to low-carbon policies, a figure that rises to 42% for large manufacturers. Even with significant compensation, low-carbon policy costs will still account for 27% of the total energy costs of energy-intensive industries in 2030.

These large and damaging costs have been covered up by an erroneous attempt to discount low-carbon policy costs with savings from reduced energy use. The reality is that without climate policies, bills would be much lower. Furthermore, as they themselves acknowledge: “it is not possible to identify how far these improvements would have occurred through technological progress in the absence of policies aiming to reduce emissions”. So it is completely misleading to try and hide the costs of green policies in this way.

Nor is it morally acceptable when so many are already living in fuel poverty. According to the report over 3.7 million are currently living in fuel poverty, including 42% of households in Northern Ireland, and low-carbon polices have caused these numbers to be so high. The largest increases in expenditure on energy bills have been for those in the lowest income quintile. The government should be doing all it can to reduce energy bills, not burdening the poorest with significant policy costs, and then pretending those costs aren’t real or significant.

This latest episode shows that the CCC is unfit for purpose, and is nothing more than a pressure group for the renewable energy industry. It is time the Government took immediate action to reform the selection and workings of the Committee on Climate Change, which has misled the public for long enough.


Regular readers of this blog will already be aware of the duplicity of Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change, aided and abetted by the BBC and other green apologists, such as Richard Black’s ECIU.

It has long been obvious that the policies advocated by them will cost the people of this country dear. And all for no benefit at all.

It is time that to drain the swamp of the green blob, and allow the voters a real choice between a pragmatic future and economic suicide.

  1. March 18, 2017 1:48 am

    100% of ratepayers angst is more reliable than any consensus the media can derive.

  2. John Raw permalink
    March 18, 2017 2:57 am

    It’s called “burning your bridges”!

  3. March 18, 2017 6:38 am

    As I’ve said before, who is there who can drain the swamp of the geenblob? You couldn’t fit a sheet of toilet paper between the climate change policies of LibLabCon. And of course the politicians who could do something about it are shielded from reality and from the voices of reason by the civil service.

  4. Tom Dowter permalink
    March 18, 2017 6:38 am

    Propaganda rules ok!

    If it costs more overall to produce green energy than fossil fuel based energy, then households will pay more for it one way or another: either through their taxes or through their energy bills.

    The main reason why electricity prices have just been increased is the decline in the value of the pound. Obviously, if this contnues apace, then wind and sun, which are not imported, will get relatively cheaper.

    Although I expect solar energy to become somewhat cheaper in the future, it still has a long way to go before it can compete on equal terms with fossil fuels.

  5. mikewaite permalink
    March 18, 2017 8:58 am

    The electricity supplier to the small clubhouse used by our local history societies has asked whether we want to move to 100% renewable energy. The cost of this virtuous move would be an increase of 10% in the electricity bill despite the constant claims from the BBC that renewable energy is “virtually free” .
    Recently on a visit to a relative in Kent I noticed a poster for a UEA (University of the Third Age) session in Westerham , near Sevenoaks . Not a large town , more a village , but with many retired wealthy professional people and a flourishing UEA . The session was to be cochaired by the Grantham Institute and Greenpeace and the panel of “experts ” included Prof Hoskins from the Grantham Unit in Imperial College .
    I get the impression of a team led by the Grantham Institute and Greenpeace touring the country, to venues both large and small, promoting the message of AGW and, of course, renewable energy and, no doubt all sorts of carbon taxes.
    Valiant though the efforts of website such as these are , they are nothing to the resources of the green taxes / renewable energy crowd.

  6. March 18, 2017 9:24 am

    Yes the direct cost on energy is 30-40%, but IN ADDITION you’ve got the economic multiplier effect which means that the true cost in the economy is about 4x greater than the direct cost. So instead of £235 household costs + £235 added costs to businesses (which household end up pay), so instead of £470/household the true cost per year of this added costs on the whole economy will be closer to £2000/household per year.

    Of course much of the cost will be felt as reduced economic growth as jobs move to places which are not insanely increasing the cost of living through madcap energy policies.

    • mothcatcher permalink
      March 18, 2017 12:18 pm

      Absolutely correct, Scottish.

      If the GWPF figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, then carbon policy responsible for 40% of electricity prices charged to medium-sized commercial enterprises by 2030 equates to a green surcharge of 67% on the cost of our industries’ most important and most basic input.

      That is an inconvenience to everyone, but a massive imposition on our manufacturing base which has been suffering from government-sponsored energy policy for many long years- and even before the green coup. Already, the special steels that my company uses (steels born and bred in Sheffield) are NO LONGER MADE AT ALL in the UK and – worse than that – many sections that we use are not even imported here any longer, because the user industries have been destroyed to such an extent that the steel stockists cannot justify the cost of importing small quantities.

      One of the few proper industry-related functions of government is to ensure the market can provide a copious supply of water and energy at the cheapest possible prices: we ask little more than that. Instead, I’m regularly getting calls from various government-spawned agencies, notifying us of various grants and schemes, and asking us ‘what can the government do to help?’ My answer is ‘sack yourself and get off our backs’ which doesn’t go always go down too well.

      • roger permalink
        March 18, 2017 1:28 pm

        On BBC Click I have just seen our future, and the future is Orange!
        Orange from the sunlight filtering through the dense smog of particulates ejected by the diesel generators that every business worth it’s name in Mumbai has on standby so as to ensure themselves continuity of supply as the ramshackle power companies fitfully fail the poverty striken populace of one of India’s megacities.
        The narrator shows an exhaust chimney/pipe some two stories above the generator and draws attention to a plethora of others punctuating the cityscape, with even generators attached to mobile phone masts, demonstrating that life will always find a way.
        As Mumbai fights to climb into the sunlight our leaders tread us back down into the dark ages of ignorance and religious cupidity.

  7. March 18, 2017 9:51 am

    CCA? – = Climate Change Act? NO!
    CCA. = Coerced Creative Austerity?

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    March 18, 2017 11:01 am

    Well it will get interesting as May is up for capping the energy rates because the energy market is not working. She might hear some nasty home truths as to who is to blame for the market not working. Some dunce MP – I know, doesn’t narrow it down much, sorry – still some how thinks that there is a free market in energy. Has to be just about the most regulated one there is.

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    March 18, 2017 12:18 pm

    ‘Nothing could be further from the truth. Tucked away at the bottom of a technical annex was a shocking revelation; households would be paying almost twice as much for climate policies than the CCC had estimated in their previous report on energy bills.’

    If the CCC’s projected figures are now shown to be factually incorrect – thus materially shifting the justification for the entire ‘low carbon’ racket, is there a case for a formal complaint?

  10. AlecM permalink
    March 18, 2017 12:23 pm

    The CCC was set up by Bliar and Miliband minor to shaft the poor to enrich the elite.

    Add in the Islamists and we have a perfect Fascist Storm.

  11. andy mckendrick permalink
    March 18, 2017 3:12 pm

    Just a thought for poor Angela ,built too many windmills and cooled the planet down that fast her flight to meet the Donald had to be delayed due to blizzards on the American east coast. Shut down her non-c02 producing nuclear section only to reopen her C02 coal producing section. am I missing something??

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: