Rishi Sunak to Hit Households With £170 Net Zero Levy Within Days

Households will pay a £170-a-year Net Zero levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers. The Telegraph has the story.

The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.

The cost of the levies was shifted from consumer bills to be funded instead by the Government, following a year-long campaign by energy firms and MPs amid spiralling gas, electricity and food prices last year.

It will again be imposed on consumers, although there has been no formal announcement. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was Business and Energy Secretary when the costs were taken away from consumers last year, said: “Green levies are part of the problem behind the U.K.’s particularly high electricity prices. They ought to be abolished but should fall on general taxation until that can happen. The ambition for Net Zero must not make us cold and poor. Any new or re-imposed charge ought to be announced to Parliament first and not slipped through slyly.”

The decision to fund the green levies via general taxation, as opposed to consumer bill payments, was announced by Kwasi Kwarteng, the then Chancellor, when he unveiled the energy bailout used by the Government to subsidise consumer bills since its creation in October.

At the time, the Government said: “Schemes previously funded by green levies will also continue to be funded by the Government during this two-year period to ensure the U.K.’s investment in home-grown, secure renewable technologies continues.”

But the Treasury will stop funding the cost – which has risen from £150 last year to £170 now – from July, meaning that it will be borne by consumers once again.

A Treasury source insisted that the move was “not an active decision of this administration”. 

Due to the way the Energy Price Guarantee (EPG), the Government bailout, was designed, it covered the green levies on bills, the source said. From July, when EPG subsidies will end for most bill-payers, so will Treasury funding of the green levies.

The disclosure prompted astonishment among senior Tories – particularly after Grant Shapps, the Net Zero Secretary, told the Telegraph on Saturday: “We know we need to fund this transition, but we don’t want to do it through household levies… I don’t want to see people’s household bills unnecessarily bashed by this.”

Mr. Shapps said he wanted to scrap plans for a new £120-a-year levy to fund the hydrogen industry. However, days after his remarks, consumers will once again be saddled with the £170-a-year cost of levies that fund other ‘green’ schemes, ranging from the installation of home insulation, to historical contracts with wind farm developers.

Tory parliamentarians and Government figures consulted by the Telegraph said they had expected the charges to be borne by the Treasury for at least the two-year period announced in September. Critics of the levies had expected a public debate about whether the charges should then be reimposed on consumers, either in part or in full, or scrapped altogether.

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lockdown Sceptic
2 years ago

If wind and solar worked they’d need no subsidies.

Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field 
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE

DickieA
DickieA
2 years ago

The disclosure prompted astonishment among senior Tories – particularly after Grant Shapps, the Net Zero Secretary, told the Telegraph on Saturday: “We know we need to fund this transition….”

That’s the bit that really gets me – the certainty of his views and the complete absence of any uncertainty or doubt. How does he know? What data is he relying on?
There needs to be open debate between the anthropogenic global warming mob and the scientists who believe that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate and that the costs commited by our leaders to reduce CO2 levels could be better spent elsewhere to improve education and health, alleviate poverty and generate growth.

FerdIII
2 years ago
Reply to  DickieA

Carbon is not a toxin.
Plant food is healthy.
Human emissions are 5% of 0.04%
Net zero products (choppers solar units) are not gaia-friendly and run on, depend on, hydrocarbon energy.

The stupid is staggering. We are a dumb civilisation. Simple as that. What intelligent person worries about weather or natural rounding error chemicals.

DickieA
DickieA
2 years ago
Reply to  FerdIII

I agree. Below are some quotes from the Telegraph article (highlighted in the news section) where teenagers tell Education Secretary they are ‘too frightened’ to say there are only two sexes: “what it’s like in a school environment where dissenting voices are stifled” and “extreme ideologies are presented as fact” “There is a growing atmosphere of fear around this topic, and many students, including us, are frightened to speak out openly due to the threat of ostracisation and bullying from students who adopt the authoritarian dogma of gender ideology.” They said they have “both experienced times when biased teachers attempt to implicate gender ideology in innocuous topics, for instance claiming that Zeus, the Greek god, was ‘non-binary’, or that Lady Macbeth was ‘gender-fluid’.” “There have been many cases of students being bullied and ostracised for disagreeing with gender ideology, where gender-critical pupils are punished by teachers, excluded by students, and abandoned by friends”. “A lot of us are too afraid to speak out due to fear of the consequences, and this must change so that different opinions are allowed to be heard, even on divisive topics such as this one.” I have faith that some young people have had enough… Read more »

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  DickieA

Net Zero has F A to do with climate. Everything happening now is about immiserization and control. Everything.

varmint
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

But Huxley don’t you know that Pigs now fart a semi tone higher due to climate change? So we have to “act now”—————————–I should add that I am being cynical since I sometimes get red arrows from daft folk who think when I am cynical I am actually being serious.

DickieA
DickieA
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

I agree; however, the excuse for Net Zero (and hence the control) is predicated on the theory that rising CO2 levels will cause catastrophic climate change and that we must reduce man’s CO2 output to stop this.

If “the science” underlining the theory is shown to be faulty / uncertain, then surely the excuse for Net Zero evaporates.

The control won’t stop – they’ll just find some other excuse to use.

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  DickieA

No amount of CO2 output reduction in the UK will make any difference globally and inventing more indirect taxes hitting the poorest members of the population hardest is neither suitable nor meant to accomplish that. That’s just a “take a little money from a lot of people to give a lot of money to very few people” scheme to transfer wealth from delivery drivers working on zero hour contracts to insanely rich owners and founders of ‘green’ energy companies for technically pointless landscape destruction projects.

DickieA
DickieA
2 years ago
Reply to  RW

Spot on.

David101
2 years ago
Reply to  DickieA

Good point. The “Net Zero” / Climate change narrative, along with the authoritarian covid narrative and 15 minute cities – the whole lot of it – are symptoms of an underlying motivation. They are outgrowths of an underlying desire for total control and surveillance. That is the endgame, however much they try to persuade us that “net zero” is the ultimate goal. Not at all – it is but one of many “solutions” looking for a “problem”.

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Well said, HP!

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

Thanks Aethelred 👍

VAX FREE IanC
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

“Immiserization”…Luvvit. Endless immiserization incoming from the establishment bureaucrats, and goofy finger-wagging clipboard wavers from all angles.
Someone sent me this link just now. Guaranteed to push blood pressure levels up to dangerously high numbers.
All in our own best interests of course. We must be protected from ourselves at all costs!
https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/driving-law-update?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=brandawareness&utm_term=20230626&utm_content=june2023newsletterhomerdc_012

JXB
JXB
2 years ago
Reply to  DickieA

The transition… is to a single source of energy – electricity – which is also the most instantly controllable. But there are no efforts to ensure that when we have been ‘transitioned’ there will be enough generated and infrastructure in place to carry and distribute the increased load.

Net Zero Macht Frei. Zero energy, Zero prosperity, Zero wellbeing and liveable life.

The final solution to the Human question.

Rose Madder
2 years ago

Will, you might consider putting up a “NudgeWatch” corner on the home page.

For when leading lights, politicians, journalists, in fact Matt Goodwin’s “elite”, unthinkingly endorse the climate scare hobgoblin.

e.g. Tom Harris in the Telegraph “I should point out that I am no climate sceptic: global temperatures are indeed rising thanks to mankind’s own behaviour and the long term consequences will be disastrous for large swathes of the globe.”

Rowan Atkinson: “[EVs] seem a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.”

and “Carbon emissions”. Should be always inverted commas.

allanplaskett
allanplaskett
2 years ago
Reply to  Rose Madder

Check the above for coherence – seems a bit mad.

Rose Madder
2 years ago
Reply to  allanplaskett

Thanks AP. Here’s another example. Telegraph leader:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/06/23/time-to-reconsider-our-approach-to-net-zero/

“We should of course aim to cut carbon”

why?

stupid af.

NeilParkin
2 years ago

I welcome the announcement.

The quicker the average Joe and Joanne start asking bloody pointed questions as to why the government is dipping in our pockets again for something that doesn’t exist, we move closer to the day when the lie collapses under its own weight.

varmint
2 years ago

Can you believe we have an Energy and Climate Change Minister called Grant Schapps who about 3 weeks ago on GB News was asked if Heat Pumps were any good. ———————-His reply was (and I kid you not) that ” I don’t know, but I will find out soon because I am having one fitted to my house soon”—————WHAT? Are you f..ing insane? This blithering idiot is in charge of energy. ————NET ZERO, the pretend to save the planet Eco Socialist Scam, and it won’t make one bit of difference to our prosperity and ability to heat our house if the Tories bomb at the next election because the entire political class are in on this fraud that panders to the world governance people at the UN and WEF rather than to you and I.——————Labour and Miliband would hit us even harder with the phony climate emergency scam.

7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago
Reply to  varmint

Varmint, you missed his proper appointment!!

Grant Shitts is actually:-
His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero!!

Or, actually, Secretary of State for Zero Energy Security.

Attaboy! A great choice for authoritarian infantile idiocy!

A great successor to Bacon Ed Miliband, Chris “Convicted Criminal” Huhne, Potato Ed Davey and all the others who have alreadt destroyed so much.

The day of reckoning must come soon. I want all these barstewards together with the likes of Dale Vince and Lord Deben held to account for theit evil!

varmint
2 years ago
Reply to  7941MHKB

Thanks for giving me this half wits proper title. ——–But how can you not know if heat pumps are any good but be proposing to rip out all of our gas central heating and dump a heat pump on us that cannot do the job? ———–Because you don’t need to know. You just go with the ideological pretend to save the planet group think eco socialism and kid on your “saving the f…g planet”

prod_squadron
prod_squadron
2 years ago

How much carbon dioxide does the war in Ukraine “emit”?

Steve-Devon
2 years ago

Most people I know round here heat their homes using wood and/or heating oil. I have tried to check but cannot ascertain whether these green levies apply to the sale of heating oil, logs and wood pellets? Is anyone able to answer that question?

If the levy is not paid on these fuels then it would be another reason why the Gov is so keen to do away with oil boilers and wood burners!

BurlingtonBertie
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve-Devon

Heating oil & logs can’t be controlled by a “SMART” meter. Can’t be disconnected from the grid at a keystroke for wrong think. Any form of heating which is totally independent from the control grid is dangerous for the implementation of a totalitarian tyrannical regime. This is all about control of the useless eaters & a transfer of wealth from the many to the far too few. Basically money laundering by diktat hidden in plain sight. Whether it be via taxation or via energy bills, it’s government endorsed theft.

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

“Government endorsed theft”

That’s exactly what this is all about.

varmint
2 years ago

Correct and I have been pointing this out for about the last 16 years

BurlingtonBertie
2 years ago
Reply to  varmint

I was a bit slower than you to get to the party! More & more are seeing this though still not yet in sufficient numbers to act upon it to make a difference.

TheGreenAcres
2 years ago

When they say things like ‘Government funded’ or ‘Government subsidised’, where exactly pray tell, does this magical government money come from??

So in actual fact, it makes not a blind bit of difference how this stupidity is funded. Either it’s taken from general taxation or it’s added to energy bills with taxpayers subsidising the welfare recipients. Either way, it’s coming out of your pocket.

Chris P
Chris P
2 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

True, except increasing the cost of energy would hit poorer people harder than funding the stupidity from general taxation.

BurlingtonBertie
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris P

The poor tend to be on benefits, pensioners so reducing this number of ‘useless eaters’ is all part of the plan.

7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Or, simply, produced by Quantitive Easing. Printing money. Always a great success. Just look at 1920s Germany. How could they afford Zero Covid? You imagine Richi Rich has to grope down the back of his sofa to feed his family?

RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

It almost seems like the Not-a-Conservative-Government WANTS to lose the next election.

prod_squadron
prod_squadron
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

Or they are planning to take us into WW3, suspend elections and stay in power.

BurlingtonBertie
2 years ago
Reply to  prod_squadron

We’ve been at war since early 2020 – the government & evil cabal have been waging war on us for over 3 years now. Psychological war, a tyrannical controlling war, to break us, to divide us, to weaken us & implement the evil agenda under the radar. All aided & abetted by the collusion of the bought & paid for MPs & the MSM.

NeilParkin
2 years ago
Reply to  prod_squadron

WW3 has already happened. China won. They have taken control of our manufacturing, most of Africa and its resources, most of South America and its resources, and got us in the West to cripple our economies and social cohesion.

Not a shot fired. All done by social media, brilliant.

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

Doesn’t matter who is in power as long as the agenda is followed.

transmissionofflame
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

As stewart very intelligently pointed out yesterday, we should not assume politicians, especially senior ones, fear political defeat. Their intended audience for what they do is not the electorate but their future employers and collaborators in various large public and private bodies, national and global.

DomH75
2 years ago

The gangsters in Parliament are raising their protection racket costs, in other words…

stewart
2 years ago

the Telegraph said they had expected the charges to be borne by the Treasury for at least the two-year period

The Treasury can’t “bear” anything because it doesn’t make money. It collects it from us.

This kind of semantic nonsense only serves to confuse and obscure the fact that we pay for everything. Everything!

JXB
JXB
2 years ago

You have to laugh.

“The cost of the levies was shifted from consumer bills to be funded instead by the Government…”

Translation:

The cost of the levies was shifted from consumer bills to consumer taxes.

As the Blessed Margaret Hilda was fond of pointing out, Government has no money of its own, only money taken from taxpayers.

And we have a large sector of the population too thick to see that all the ‘free stuff’ (“Our” NHS) and all the giveaways and ‘help’ with bills and cost of living is paid for with their money.

Too thick to understand if we got rid of the Government middle-man and paid for stuff directly, it would be cheaper and better because the middle-man would not be taking his 25% for expenses and as commission.

But…

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  JXB

The cost of the levies was shifted from consumer bills to consumer taxes.

This means it’s moved from direct taxation (ie, the income tax) to indirect taxation (tax people pay as necessary side effect of spending money on something they want/ need to buy). That’s actually a material difference for two reasons:

1) The government no longer has to budget for it, ie, no longer needs to use some of the money it collects for it which could otherwise be allocated to something different.

2) Direct taxation is supposed to affect people in proportion to their income: Richer people pay more tax than poorer people. With indirect taxation, it’s the opposite: The poorer someone is, the higher the percentage of his income he needs to spend on indirectly taxed items. Hence, a higher proportion of his income taxed.

StickyWicket
2 years ago

It’s time Rishi dropped these subsidies altogether, the whole Net Zero plan is falling apart.

https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/uk-net-zero-plans-falling-apart?r=nhgn1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Philip Neal
Philip Neal
2 years ago

A Treasury source insisted that the move was “not an active decision of this administration”. 

No decision ever is nowadays. Politicians no longer make policy.

Corky Ringspot
2 years ago

Forgive the naive question, but is it possible to refuse to pay this £170 tax?

Epi
Epi
2 years ago

Forget all this baloney just scrap Net Zero and stop being led by the stupid and disastrous socialist/communist policies. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous.

Kornea112
Kornea112
2 years ago

Simply put, the climate change movement is an attack on the working class by elites. The working class will be impoverished and controlled by them while their lives and consumption are protected.

SomersetHoops
SomersetHoops
2 years ago

Where is the justification for this? I don’t want to subsidise other companies to make money from this rip-off. Typical a***hole multi-millionaire Sunak adding to his instigated already big tax burden on ordinary people. I hope nobody forgets what he has done when it comes to election time. He has never won an election and will take the Tories down with him. Although, he won’t be down because he can return to being a hedge fund spiv and make more millions from other people’s misery. He is a despicable person with the objective of destroying our country which he has no care for and is just waiting until he has doe his worst, so he can clear off to America

SussexDon1
SussexDon1
2 years ago

Why don’t we all boycott this crazy tax?