Skip to content

Cost Of Green Subsidies Rises To £11.3bn

April 7, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

2.7 Environmental levies

£ billion

Outturn Forecast

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
CRC Energy Efficiency scheme 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Warm home discount1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Feed-in tariffs1 0.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
Renewables obligation 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.8
Contracts for difference 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0
Capacity market1 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.9
Environmental levies 5.2 8.6 10.4 11.7 12.2 12.5 12.8
Memo: Expenditure on renewable heat incentive (RHI) 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1
Note: The ‘Environmental levies’ line above is consistent with the ‘Environmental levies’ line in Table 4.6 of the March 2018 Economic and fiscal outlook.
1 The ONS have yet to include Warm Home Discount, Feed-in Tariffs and Capacity market auctions in their outturn numbers. If they were included, they would have been £0.3bn, £1.3bn and £0.0bn respectively.

http://obr.uk/efo/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2018/

 

The Office for Budget Responsibility has just published the Spring Statement. It’s  Economic & Fiscal Outlook reveals that the cost of Environmental Levies this year will be £11.3bn, a rise of £2.0bn over the last financial year.

In addition, we can add £1.9bn for Climate Change Levy receipts, though this is actually tax revenue, unlike the levies, which are essentially subsidies for renewable energy.

2.13 Climate Change Levy receipts

£ billion

Forecast

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
CCL Receipts 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
of which:





CCL Receipts (ex Carbon Price Floor) 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7
CCL Receipts – Carbon Price Floor 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

The increase of £2.0bn represents a rise in average electricity bills of about 5%, and Environmental Levies now account for about a quarter of bills. This excludes CCL receipts and other costs such as building new transmission lines to cater for renewable energy.

 

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about these costs, with an almost total reluctance to mention it amongst our political class, media (with a couple of honourable exceptions) and climate lobbyists.

This is very strange, given the considerable controversy which surrounds the cost of things like the Overseas Aid Budget and HS2, which are of a similar scale. Not to mention the well publicised shortage of funds for the NHS, Social Care, Defence, Police etc etc.

It truly is one of the scandals of the age.

28 Comments
  1. keith permalink
    April 7, 2018 11:37 am

    It’s probably not mentioned because the only journalist who understands the scam is Booker. The rest are such lightweights that they wouldn’t know where to start, or have been totally brainwashed..

    • Adrian permalink
      April 7, 2018 1:38 pm

      Well as the BBC is presumably, owing to it’s unique way of funding, staffed by the most impartial of reporters, I expect this will be fully covered in this weekend’s output.

      I think I might need to lay down for a moment.

  2. April 7, 2018 12:28 pm

    The net cost of membership of the EU is also comparable to the cost of “green energy”, the Overseas Aid Budget and HS2. That’s a huge waste of money for little if any benefit.

  3. April 7, 2018 12:32 pm

    This is a wicked waste of money, nothing to show for it but virtue signalling.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      April 7, 2018 1:15 pm

      The real problem is that it is not simply a “waste” – customers are being forced to pay for things they don’t want to make a few people considerably richer.

      There is a forced transfer from the poor to make people rich. Why the Left does not find this appalling is beyond me,a s it is exactly the sort of thing they usually (wrongly) accuse businesses or the Tories of doing. The modern Left cares more about appearing Green then helping the poor and the old. Truly bizarre.

      • Dave Ward permalink
        April 7, 2018 7:22 pm

        “Why the Left does not find this appalling is beyond me”

        Possibly because we have the “Left” to thank for this lunacy: Lord Rooker & Hilary Benn introduced the Climate Change Act 2008.

  4. Athelstan permalink
    April 7, 2018 1:03 pm

    There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about these costs, with an almost total reluctance to mention it amongst our political class, media (with a couple of honourable exceptions) and climate lobbyists.

    This is very strange, given the considerable controversy which surrounds the cost of things like the Overseas Aid Budget and HS2, which are of a similar scale. Not to mention the well publicised shortage of funds for the NHS, Social Care, Defence, Police etc etc.

    It truly is one of the scandals of the age.

    So very well said Paul, however.

    And if you’ll excuse me Mr. Homewood,

    ‘our’,

    her Excellency the PM and her entourage,are busily trying to engage the Russians in some form of virtual warfare and given the sheer, the utter sabre rattling boneheaded incompetency of the current executive, yet, it could even go ‘hot’ – it may seem bonkers (hot war) but you know……….

    Gawd it gets worse, then sorting out the chimera of ‘a gender paygap’ seems to be the limit of our PM’s scope, Plus, Leaving the EU being well booted, kicked into the long transition grass, days, weeks, months ago.

    Wasting £billions on boondoggles, is to be expected, I mean we aren’t talking about a poltical claque (of grounded, WeltPolitik experienced, capable and realistically cogent thinkers) who give’s a damn (about the nation, about British interests and about the domestic consumer ie the people) –

    now are we?

    • Charles Wardrop permalink
      April 10, 2018 9:21 am

      So true and ultra relevant, but how did it ever happen: bone headed stupidity, vote seeking or even politically
      lazy corruption, in the sense of never wanting to admit being in the wrong?

  5. charles wardrop permalink
    April 7, 2018 1:13 pm

    Fully agreed re the crazy expenditure imbalance, where even political kindred spirits such as John Redwood, and many more, have put nothing complaining in print beyond re the wastefd subs to the EU.

    Adding up also indiscriminate foreign aid, “Green” levies and costs and their administration it is clear that the total sum would help defray useful expenditures.

    Now that the AGW and wind powered electricity generation scams and their utter waste are seen in context, least that could be done is to repeal the always wrong Climate Change Acts (2008,9), an expensive, wasteful example of groupthink.

  6. Jack Broughton permalink
    April 7, 2018 1:28 pm

    A major implication of these levies is that large power-using industries will leave the UK faster than they presently are. So the effect of the madness of the CCA runs into jobs and the economic wellbeing of the country in a few years time: to be covered-up by a future government as all parties are culpable.

    • John Fuller permalink
      April 8, 2018 10:44 am

      The mendacious aspect of this is that domestic supply is protected at the expense of industry in an attempt (successful so far) to keep the public/voters in the metaphorical dark.

  7. Tony Budd permalink
    April 7, 2018 1:46 pm

    Most people have very little idea of what £11.3bn represents. A figure of £415 average for every UK household from their net income might mean a bit more.

    • Joe Public permalink
      April 7, 2018 5:21 pm

      Those were the subsidies for greenery.

      To which must be added the costs of infrastructure & grid stabilisation measures essential for the highly-intermittents to operate.

      The Not-so-Smart-Meters will cost ~£14billion.

      Is the smartest thing about the smart meter programme the name?

      Probably the smartest aspect of the official Smart Metering Implementation Programme is its name. After all, who doesn’t want to be seen as “smart”? With the corollary that, if you are dubious about the Programme’s value, then you must by definition be stupid.

      But increasingly the list grows longer and longer of those questioning the true value of requiring energy suppliers to replace 53 million meters in 30 million homes and small businesses with these so-called “smart” electricity and gas meters by 2020.

      To date, around eight million have been installed. And the overall programme costs have crept up, from an initial £5bn, to the current official £10.9bn, towards a (very possible) £14bn. All costs of the exercise are eventually being borne by consumers – via their energy bills. That works out at a possible gross cost of over £450 per household.

      https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/3022230/is-the-smartest-thing-about-the-smart-meter-programme-the-name

      • charles wardrop permalink
        April 7, 2018 6:26 pm

        “New meters for old!”

      • Dave Ward permalink
        April 7, 2018 7:25 pm

        “After all, who doesn’t want to be seen as “smart”?”

        Smart people don’t surround themselves with smart technology…

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 8, 2018 11:26 am

        Smart these days usually means another dumb idea.

  8. R harding permalink
    April 7, 2018 2:02 pm

    Just for clarification from all you experts, what exactly is an environmental subsidy. Is it the money the Government pays to Wind Solar Farm operators to keep them in luxury minus the money they add on to energy producers using coal oil and gas. It would be nice to see the costs in bar graph form showing the actual cost and the cost plus or minus subsidy for each sector.

  9. Derek Buxton permalink
    April 7, 2018 3:39 pm

    And all done as Global Fraud, for that is what it amounts to. The totally corrupt UN wants to steal all our money, to first line their pockets then hand what is left to the leaders of the third world. Our own government is colluding in this and many are taking the money. the weird thing is that the Government, as representatives of the People, are suppose to ensure our safety, were they a Public Company they would now be in gaol….long stretches too!

  10. April 7, 2018 4:09 pm

    Peter Lilley made a good job of publishing the costs of the CCA in 2016. They were and are so frightening that the MSM and the politicians probably couldn’t understand them. The costs reported by Paul are in line with those forecast by Peter Lilley.

    https://bit.ly/2Hf7dYd

    In the summary Peter Lilley says the average cost of decarbonising electricity to meet the Climate Change Act targets was or will be (in 2014 prices):

    • £327 per year per household in 2014
    • £584 per year per household in 2020
    • £875 per year per household in 2030
    • £1390 per year per household by 2050

    Peter points out that these costs place a cumulative £10,800 burden on each household, between the years 2014 and 2030.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      April 7, 2018 8:33 pm

      Frightening predictions and well in line with Paul’s values!
      The loss of jobs that will result from these lunatic policies will make matters worse. We will buy less as austerity continues and large power using businesses industry will move from the UK to more favourable locations.
      I wonder what level of economic incompetence is needed to cause a revolution to occur, as nearly happened in the 1920s.

  11. charles wardrop permalink
    April 7, 2018 7:55 pm

    See “wattsupwiththat,” March 30 2018 for an analysis of the risng atmosphreric pCO2 as an alleged cause of AGW, by Chris.Monckton, devastating the climate catastrophist’s hypotheses and case.

    If that proposition/analysis cannot be refuted, their game is up, but beware of
    “hide the decline” reactions by those destined to lose out.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 8, 2018 11:31 am

      Of interest is the latest on WUWT where the US states were allowed to slip in a whole raft of ad hominem attacks on the Lord Monckton et al because of their excellent amicus brief. But what intrigued me was the piece about how the green blob were able to spend around $250,000 to divert traffic away from a youtube clip by his Lordship pointing out faults in global warming science.

  12. April 8, 2018 5:07 pm

    Glad that people pointed out that a stat is useless if it cannot be understood and contexted
    and that
    #1 Per household is the best way of expressing it
    #2 That mere subsidies are only part of it, you have to account for extra infrastructure and inefficiencies of Green-Energy.

    A useful measure would be if we can find an economy that has no green tinkering and say look the electricity costs £X per MWh there.
    I’m guessing in the UK we are paying double of such a country.

    The other day I wrote : The more solar/wind on an electricity network, the more the subsidy cost, the higher the leccy bill for a hospital..the less nurses they can employ.

    And someone replied why has no media ever told us this?

  13. Vanessa permalink
    April 9, 2018 11:32 am

    A good book on the whole “Global Warming” question is Christopher Booker’s new book called “Global Warming: A case study in Groupthink”. It lays bear all the lies we are being told and how, without question, we all go along with it.

  14. April 10, 2018 12:08 pm

    Paul – should the ever increasing payments to wind operators to shut down when there’s too much wind (i.e. constraint payments – currently approaching £3.5billion) be included?

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: