UK Energy prices 2021 and now – anatomy of indirect taxes, “standing charges” and the “net zero” rip-off
PETER HALLIGAN
It’s been a long four years as various UK governments have been busy hiding the indirect taxes levied on the British public to fund the ludicrous “net zero” policies.
Here I show details of the sky rocketing UK energy bills over just the last four years – switching from a 2-year fixed price deal in 2021 to the current variable rate (April 2025).
Keep in mind that all energy bills are subject to an additional Value Added Tax (VAT) of 5%. There are also around 28,4 million households in the UK -households paid around £1,700 a year in 2024 – that’s a total energy bill of clos to £50 billion a year (and has gone up by 20% since last year – an extra £10 billion pounds). This is the result of the cartel relationship between the power companies and the UK government – a socialist/fascist cartel that does not allow “fair” competition on a level playing field – new entrants are frozen out and the “market” is dominated by super taxes (80%) on North Sea oil and gas – and huge subsidies for the useless and ugly “renewable green” energy.
Not that the argument for the “energy transition” has switched from “carbon emissions” – which has been well and truly lost – to “energy security” – which is fallacious and equally insane. Here is growing attention on the cost of decommissioning the millions of tons of decaying wind turbines and solar panels – down to th deep foundations that have penetrated the land to a depth of dozens of metres. There is even talk of panting the wind turbines black, to prevent the decimation of birds.
The daily standing charge is also levied and is intended to cover the following – per Brave AI:
“The standing charge on UK energy bills covers the fixed costs associated with maintaining the energy supply infrastructure and providing customer services. This includes the cost of keeping your home connected to the energy network, carrying out meter readings, maintenance, and other related charges. Additionally, part of the standing charge goes towards the cost of government initiatives aimed at helping vulnerable homes and reducing carbon emissions.”
The exact part of the standing charge going to “reducing carbon emissions to vulnerable homes” is no disclosed on the bill.
TLDR version:
Electricity prices have increased from 20.815 pence per kWh to 26.479 pence per kWh – an increase of 27.2%. The standing charge for providing the electricity has increased from 17.1 pence per day to a whopping 46.197 pence per day – an increase of 170%.
The annual electricity standing charge is now £168,62 a year.
Gas prices have increased from 5.484 pence per kWh to 7.072 pence per kWh – am increase of 29.4% and th standing charge has been increased from 14.28 pence per day to 32.959 pence per day – an increase of 130.8%.
The annual gas standing charge is now £120.30-a year.
The total standing charge is therefore around £290 a year.
Note the price of the overall bill is enhanced further by VAT of five per cent on the increased prices for the total bill.
Note also that th price to UK households bears no relation to the cost of extraction of the natural gas.
Now, the price of electricity is muddied by the amount of renewables fed into the grid and all the charges for ether switching off or switching on wind turbines and solar panels. The price of gas though is subject to clear signals from international markets.
Here is the price of natural gas futures over the last four years:
UK Natural Gas – Price – Chart – Historical Data – News
You can see the impact of the Russia/Ukraine war on prices that are now close to those prevailing in 2019.
So, what is the reason for UK households to be charged prices that are 30% higher?
Could it be that the 20% of LNG shipped in from the US are the reason?
Here’s the actual bills to households for a one-bedroom apartment in Central London between 2021 and now.
Starting electricity prices in 2021 – from an email dated Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 14:43
About this electricity tariff
v
And now, after 4 years – from an email dated Tue, 11 Mar at 14:01
Back in 2021:
And now in 2025
Now for the gas bill.
2025 gas prices
Please take a subscription to gain access to the thousands of hours of research that go into producing these SubStack articles – or make a donation of $3 bucks or more for a ko-fi here:
Onwards!!!
This article (UK Energy prices 2021 and now – anatomy of indirect taxes, “standing charges” and the “net zero” rip-off) was created and published by Peter Halligan and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Articles Below
Renewables Are No Way Cheaper, and This Reality Can No Way Be Hidden Any Longer (Even in New York)
Guest Post by Roger Caiazza of Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.
I have run into a couple of instances where New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) proponents have claimed that renewable energy development can reduce costs. This article responds to the argument that reduced fuel price volatility will make renewables cheaper.
Renewable Energy Can Reduce Costs
I am disappointed that the ‘renewable energy can reduce costs’ claim has made it into the New York State Energy Plan process. The Energy Plan is “a comprehensive roadmap to build a clean, resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers.”
When the Energy Planning Board met on March 3, 2025 to adopt the scope for the state energy plan this claim was mentioned. One item on the agenda was a discussion of the “planned approach for techno-economic pathways analysis.” This is the analysis work whereby the state agencies and their consultants will “prove” their pre-conceived notion that the Climate Act net-zero transition concocted by politicians will work.
The presentation by Jeff Freedman from the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, University at Albany, Albany, New York included the following slide that makes the claim that renewable energy can reduce costs. One characteristic of the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) documentation for the implementation plan is inadequate documentation, so it is not surprising that the justification for the claim is not readily available.
Energy costs: Fossil fuel prices are increasingly volatile, largely because they are traded on global markets. In contrast, a power sector composed of large volumes of renewable resources that have no fuel costs could lead to less volatile energy bills due to the elimination of this driver of variability in energy costs. The presence of distributed resources amplifies this effect. Whether the costs of a clean power sector are lower than, comparable to, or higher than the status quo, they will be more predictable and less likely to create indirect costs that arise from unexpected price changes.
I am aware of only one other instance where this rationale was mentioned.
The December 18, 2024 New York Assembly Committee on Energy public hearing enabled legislators to question NYSERDA and the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) staff about Climate Act progress. When Jessica Waldorf, Chief of Staff & Director of Policy Implementation, DPS was asked what impact Climate Act GHG emission reductions would have given that New York emissions are smaller than the observed annual increases in global GHG emissions. Waldorf said that there are other reasons “to build renewable energy resources in New York that are not just related to emissions.” She gave two reasons: energy security and price volatility.
The other thing I would say about energy security is price volatility. Customers are beholden to the whims of the fossil fuel industry and the up and down markets that we see from fossil fuels. Localizing our energy production and renewables allows us for price stability. That is definitely a benefit of building resources here.
The presumption in this article is that renewable energy will be cheaper and less volatile in that a renewable energy dependent electric system will have less unstable fuel costs, resulting in cheaper and more secure energy. This, in turn, is based on two presumptions: fuel prices are volatile because of global markets and renewables would eliminate this cost driver.
Fuel Volatility
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) noted in June 2024 that fossil fuel price volatility has shown significant changes over time, with recent years experiencing particularly high levels of volatility:
“In 2022, natural gas price volatility reached extreme levels, with historical volatility peaking at 171% in February 2022, the highest since at least 1994.”
Note the EIA is only discussing natural gas volatility, which has become a much larger electric generating fuel source in recent years. In my opinion, the increasing reliance on a single fuel could be the fundamental reason for the observed increase in volatility.
In any case, the New York agency global market argument picks just one driver for fuel price volatility. The EIA gave other reasons for natural gas variability in August 2022:
Increased uncertainty about market conditions that affect natural gas supply and demand can result in high price volatility. Events that have contributed to changing market conditions include:
- Production freeze-offs
- Storms
- Unplanned pipeline maintenance and outages
- Significant departures from normal weather
- Changes in inventory levels
- Availability of substitute fuels
- Changes in imports or exports
- Other sudden changes in demand
U.S. natural gas prices are typically more volatile during the first quarter of a year because of the fluctuating demand for natural gas for space heating as weather changes. Factors that contributed to heightened volatility in the first three months of this year include:
- Weather-driven fluctuations in natural gas demand
- Declining natural gas production in January and February
- Declines in Lower 48 states’ working natural gas levels
- Record U.S. LNG exports to Europe to help offset reduced natural gas supplies from Russia
Of the eight events that contribute to changing market conditions and fuel volatility, imports and exports is the only one related to global market conditions.
Jurisdictional Proof
When I get around to submitting a comment on the weakness of this argument, I intend to demand that the proponents of the Climate Act offer an example of a jurisdiction where the electric system has become reliant on wind and solar renewable generation and consumer costs have gone down because fuel volatility has decreased. To my knowledge, all jurisdictions have seen consumer cost increases.
I used Perplexity AI to research electric energy prices as a function of wind and solar deployment. My experience showed the weaknesses of AI research. The response to the question, of whether consumers in any jurisdiction have seen decreased costs when transitioning their electric system to rely on wind and solar, was a claim it was true. The response said:
“This trend is driven by the rapidly declining costs of renewable energy technologies and their increasing cost-competitiveness compared to conventional fossil fuel sources.”
The reference cited was from Ember-Energy “a global energy think tank that accelerates the clean energy transition with data and policy” that can hardly be considered an unbiased source!
The response also does not address consumer rate costs. It makes the mistaken claim that the cost of developing renewable technologies has little relation to the delivered cost of electricity to consumers.
In the real world, the cost of storage to address intermittency, the cost of additional transmission support to address diffuse wind and solar, and the cost to provide the ancillary transmission support services not available from wind and solar, make renewables much more expensive than fossil fuels. I was unable to frame a question that provided an answer that acknowledged that the costs necessary to provide consumers with reliable power made delivered renewable energy more expensive.
German Experience
However, if the claim is true then proponents should be able to point to jurisdictions where wind, solar, and energy storage have make electric prices cheaper.
The best example of the claim that renewable energy is cheaper because it reduces fuel volatility should be Germany. Oil, coal and gas prices spiked in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and have been volatile ever since. Germany’s Energiewende is the country’s planned transition to a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy and is often cited as an example of what New York should do. Enerdata reports that “According to the German Federal Network Agency, the installed renewable power capacity in Germany increased by nearly 20 GW (+12%) to nearly 190 GW in 2024.”
If the proponent’s claim is true then prices should be trending down. However, since 2000, electricity prices for German households have risen by 116%, from 13.94 to 30.43 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2019 . As of April 1, 2024, households with basic supplier contracts were paying around 46 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it “the most expensive option compared to other providers or special contracts” .
Another way to look at the claim is to compare electricity prices within the European Union. I highly recommend the Nemeth Report for its coverage of European energy issues. The post EU Action Plan for Affordable Energy includes just such a comparison. It quotes Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, as saying: “We’re driving energy prices down and competitiveness up. We have already significantly reduced energy prices in Europe by doubling down on renewables. “
However, the data in the following figure do not support her claim.
The analysis states that:
Note that the household price average shows a large difference between EU countries that use coal, nuclear, and gas vs those that have focused on wind and solar. For example, as shown in the chart above, according to Statista, using 2023 data, Hungary’s electricity price was 9.68 Eurocents/kwh (50% of their electricity is from nuclear, 38% coal & gas) and Bulgaria which relies mostly on coal and nuclear was around 11 Eurocents/kwh, whereas Germany, which has “doubled down on renewables” (and closed down its nuclear), was the highest at 44.97 Eurocents/kwh and Denmark which has a small population and a whole lot of windmills was at 39.44 Eurocents/kwh!
Data sources and the year of the data matters. Eurostat uses numbers from the first quarter of 2024 which reorder some of the countries but the overall argument, that countries that “doubled down on renewables” and made other poor choices of shutting down nuclear power plants and/or coal experienced higher prices, remains supported.
Discussion
Roger Pielke, Jr recently posted an article about the politicization of expertise that is relevant here. He argues that society needs to depend on the expertise of specialists in many fields – “Nobody knows enough to run the government”. As a result, society needs all of us. He explains that “We do not have to agree on everything, but we do have to work together”. Then he points out that “In recent years, credential expertise—like many things—has become pathologically politicized.”
Such is the case shown by the politicization of the Climate Act implementation led by NYSERDA. Consider, for example, the presentationby Jeff Freedman to the Planning Board. It is concerning on a couple of levels. In the first place, the Planning Board is composed of agency heads and political appointees who for the most part do not have background and experience in the energy sector.
Freedman was presented as an expert from the energy sector whose claim that “renewable energy can reduce costs” was probably taken as the gospel. However, his main research focus is on “renewable energy and atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) processes” so his bias is towards renewable energy virtues and he has no energy sector experience that qualifies him to make such a statement. He was a spokesman because of his adherence to the narrative.
In the second place, the presentations at the meeting suggest that NYSERDA will follow the Scoping Plan approach in the stakeholder process for the Energy Plan. The primary purpose of the meeting was to approve the final scope of the Energy Plan. As was the case with the Climate Act Scoping Plan the NYSERDA response to stakeholder comments is to document the number of comments received by category and provide general descriptions of key themes and “responsive Scope revisions.”
My problem with this is that if anyone provides specific comments or raises specific issues with claims, there is no documentation that the submittal was addressed, and nothing included to respond to the issue raised. For example, the claim that renewable energy can reduce costs was undocumented in Freedman’s presentation.
I have no doubts that NYSERDA will continue the charade that renewable energy can reduce costs and that costs of inaction are worse than the costs of action. They have never responded to related issues raised and will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it. This is another instance of pathologically politicized expertise by NYSERDA because they are so arrogant that they don’t see any need to respond to stakeholder comments.
Conclusion
The biggest threat to Climate Act progress is the inevitable extraordinary cost of implementation. The Hochul Administration has ducked the issue since the Climate Act was passed. They can only hide reality for so long. The question is whether the issues associated with the net-zero transition will be addressed before New York’s economy is severely compromised.
In the meantime, if you ever hear anyone say renewable energy can reduce costs, please ask them why German electric prices are so high or to cite an example of any jurisdiction that is transitioning their electric system that has reduced ratepayer bill costs when using the Climate Act strategy to rely wind, solar, and energy storage resources.
#RenewableEnergy #Caiazza #Climate #NYSERDA #NewYork #ClimateAct #ElectricityCosts #Hochul
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This post represents his opinion alone and not the opinion of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated. Roger has followed the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and has written over 500 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.
This article (Renewables Are No Way Cheaper, and This Reality Can No Way Be Hidden Any Longer (Even in New York)) was created and published by Energy Security and Freedom and is republished here under “Fair Use”
*****
The Mounting Pollution Problem Caused by Intermittent Solar and Wind Energy Falsely Billing Itself as “Clean”
Guest Post from CFact.
CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Dr. Bonner Cohen told a packed hearing room in the Maine State Capitol Building March 6 that wind and solar projects should be subject to strict monitoring and rigorous testing to safeguard the public against toxic chemical contaminations. Wind turbines and solar panels contain troubling levels of toxic Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) chemicals.
When leached into soil, groundwater, and other parts of the environment, Dr. Cohen explained, PFAS can pose a significant public health risk, along with long-lasting environmental degradation. Before Maine undertakes a massive expansion of wind turbines (onshore and offshore) and solar panel arrays, measures need to be in place to provide early warning of potential harm, he pointed out.
Testimony of Dr. Bonner Cohen for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) before the Energy, Utilities, and Technology Committee, Maine State Legislature, March 6, 2025
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the important topic of potential PFAS contamination from wind turbines and solar panels. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow researches, among other things, the environmental impact of all sources of energy, from fossil fuels, to nuclear, to renewables.
Our focus today is on wind and solar power, specifically in conjunction with legislation proposed by Rep. Reagan Paul that requires the developer of a solar power development or wind power development to conduct testing for PFAS contamination at the development site in accordance with rules adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection.
The issue addressed by Rep. Paul’s initiative is not hypothetical, it is real. These chemicals are toxic and can build up in the environment, including soil and groundwater, and in humans, including the bloodstream. Once environmental contamination takes place, remediation is almost impossible. PFAS do not break down easily. Not for nothing are they known as “forever chemicals.” They are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by all state environmental agencies.
And, they are present in wind turbines and solar panels. Because wind turbines and solar panels cannot be commercially recycled, once they reach the end of the — short (15 to 20 years) — life expectancy, they wind up in landfills. As more and more wind turbines and solar panels are removed from service and deposited in landfills by the hundreds of thousands, their accumulation and that of their PFAS will pose a significant environmental and public health challenge.
Of even greater concern is the potential for PFAS leaching on site of the intermittent energy generation. Wind and solar power are land-intensive. Hundreds of PFAS-laden wind turbines are found on each wind installation. Even the smallest solar arrays contain thousands of PFAS-laden solar panels. The potential for harm at these sites cannot be understated.
By requiring third-party testing at each site, Rep. Paul has put her finger on the only way to catch PFAS contamination before it has time to spread. In cancer, early detection followed by proper treatment can save lives. Early and repeated testing for PFAS at wind and solar sites can also preemptively limit the damage PFAS contamination can cause. And if it is determined that contamination was caused by a wind or solar project, then state officials need to consider shutting down the site altogether.
Dozens of farms in Maine have recently been forced to go out of business because of PFAS contamination. That contamination did not come from wind turbines or solar panels but from wastewater sludge spread on cropland as fertilizer.
Farmers were told the practice was safe. It was not. Wind and solar developers say their PFAS pose no threat. Really? One Maine farmer who lost his farm to PFAS is reportedly considering allowing thousands of solar panels to be installed on his otherwise useless land. He may be exchanging one source of PFAS contamination for another.
By establishing a rigorous PFAS testing regime on wind and solar sites, one backed up by the real threat of enforcement to the point of the developer potentially losing its license to operate, Maine is setting an example the rest of the nation should follow. As wind and solar installation spread, the nation will have to confront a mounting pollution problem caused by an – intermittent – energy source falsely billing itself as “clean.”
#PFAS #Landfills #Solar #CFact #BonnerCohen #Maine #Wind
This article (The Mounting Pollution Problem Caused by Intermittent Solar and Wind Energy Falsely Billing Itself as “Clean”) was created and published by Energy Security and Freedom and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply