Net zero levy of £170 a year on energy bills from July 1st

Swipe

No, I'd rather it were completely scrapped and more pressure put on stopping the deforestation of the Amazon.

CSI_Yorkshire

Swipe said:

No, I'd rather it were completely scrapped and more pressure put on stopping the deforestation of the Amazon.

I didn't realise they were the two competing options.

dealyboy

NorfolkCanary said:

dealyboy said:

This regressive charge on all our bills reappears after the falling away of the Energy Price Guarantee. The cost of the levy had been moved to general taxation for two years, last autumn, but this has been reversed.

Do you agree with this? Several Conservative MPs of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group are unhappy, as is The Daily Telegraph who have referred to it as 'the net-zero poll tax' in its editorial today.

I for one do not want to be subsidizing the development of renewables, rather than investing in fracking, oil exploration and new coal mining enterprises. As someone whose income is below the personal tax allowance I also do not want to be subsidizing social tariffs. The green levy should remain being paid from general taxation.

The day that a Tory MP + Torygraph disagree with each other, will be when hell freezes over, of course they'll be unhappy, it means their mates may lose some money for general good. Any mentions in the other 'daily' rags you'd care to mention?

'the net-zero poll tax'...great soundbite gotta keep those readers happy, sorry, voters stay blue! Can't be having a positive environmental policy championed!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/mar/19/david-cameron-green-crap-energy-prices  Whoops!

I assume you'll be happy with fracking & mining in your local village? I also assume given the mjaority of carbon based exploration is paid for by private companies not the govt., there should be no issue with funding.

I assume you'll be happy with fracking & mining in your local village? I also assume given the mjaority of carbon based exploration is paid for by private companies not the govt., there should be no issue with funding.

Well when I was growing up there were three coalmines near villages in east Kent. They provided jobs and the workers were part of our communities and were welcome. Today extraction technology has improved as has health & safety regulation.

A recognition of mistakes of the past and a regeneration of our industries would be welcomed in many parts of the country, this does not need direct subsidy but a strategic licencing authority.

Sea_Shell

Is this already included in the published SVT from July?  Or is it to be added separately?

Also would it be added to agreed fixes, as they can with other "legislative"  changes to VAT etc?

QrizB

Sea_Shell said:

Is this already included in the published SVT from July?  Or is it to be added separately?

It part of the Ofgem cap calculations, and always has been. So yes, it's included in the July SVT.

The government claimed to be paying them as part of the EPG, but really that's just accounting sleight of hand. If they'd left them for consumers to pay in the EPG, they'd have had to pay an equivalent amount of subsidy elsewhere to get average bills back down to the £2500 headline amount.

[Deleted User]

Does anyone know how much of this so-called "net zero levy" actually relates to net zero targets? As I understand it, the £170 is a charge for "policy costs" - i.e. the cost to the energy suppliers of implementing various Government policies. This includes social policy initiatives such as the Warm Homes Discount as well as environmental policy iniatives.

njm123

Don't dispute it's needed but like a lot of Govt "stealth taxes" I'd rather it was implemented in a less regressive way. Which penalises the less well off.

In this case add it to unit cost's rather than the standing charge so the contribution is based on usage with high users paying more as they can cut their payment by using less.

matt_drummer

njm123 said:

Don't dispute it's needed but like a lot of Govt "stealth taxes" I'd rather it was implemented in a less regressive way. Which penalises the less well off.

In this case add it to unit cost's rather than the standing charge so the contribution is based on usage with high users paying more as they can cut their payment by using less.

If you added it to the unit cost and then people used less, the government  wouldn't get the amount of money required would they?

I am reasonably well off, I imported 5kWh of electricity in May, how much do they need to add to each unit to get £170 a year from me?

Gerry1

njm123 said:

In this case add it to unit costs rather than the standing charge so the contribution is based on usage with high users paying more as they can cut their payment by using less.

You'd get a lot of complaints from seniors who are more likely to be at home all day and/or require a higher temperature setting.

dealyboy

@[Deleted User] said:

Does anyone know how much of this so-called "net zero levy" actually relates to net zero targets? As I understand it, the £170 is a charge for "policy costs" - i.e. the cost to the energy suppliers of implementing various Government policies. This includes social policy initiatives such as the Warm Homes Discount as well as environmental policy iniatives.

I think you're right the 'net zero levy' or 'green levy' was all over the newspapers this past weekend and its contribution to energy bills, but it is just shorthand. It includes developmental costs for renewables plus social costs ... WHD, insulation subsidies and social tariffs.

I have read the OFGEM breakdown of the standing charge (linked previously by @GreenHornet12) which includes all these but I have also read a charge of around 0.8p per kWh, but this may be historical. I found this article interesting ... https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/green-levy .