
Why Britain pays such a crippling price for electricity
At a vast stainless steel plant on the edge of Sheffield, Christian Brüggmann's job is to keep things running.
The factory, owned by Italian manufacturer Marcegaglia, is the only one of its kind left in Britain, producing primary stainless steel used in everything from pipes to cutlery.
Yet rather than focusing on production, an increasing amount of Brüggmann's time in recent years has been spent worrying about something else: sky-high electricity prices.
'It's been a roller-coaster ride ever since Covid,' says Brüggmann, the German operations chief at the facility.
'In one day now, you can have swings of £200 per megawatt hour in the price – it just creates so much uncertainty and makes it very hard to plan.'
The Marcegaglia plant is more exposed than most.
It uses a massive electric arc furnace to melt down scrap metal and combine it with other alloys in a large cauldron, with this mixture then poured and cast into slabs.
Even turning the furnace on is a commitment, as it triggers a production process that must continue for three days, regardless of swings in the power price.
Yet Brüggmann's experience is far from unique.
All across Britain today, businesses and households are complaining about the seemingly unstoppable rise of electricity prices.
In the Government's new industrial strategy, ministers singled out the problem as one of the biggest challenges facing domestic factories.
And at the same time, regulator Ofgem has warned that higher prices are forcing more households into poverty.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, blames the rise on our dependence on gas for generating electricity. His critics claim it is the Government's gung-ho pursuit of net zero that is responsible.
Shocking rise
At her home in Horncastle, Lincolnshire, Sheila Correll often goes from room to room to check she has turned off as many appliances as possible to avoid wasting electricity.
With a weekly income of around £200 from the state pension and pension credit, she often resorts to hand-washing clothes to avoid switching on her washing machine, as she fights to keep her bills to 'as little as possible'.
Yet the 83-year-old widow, who was a legal secretary before retiring, says the task only seems to be getting harder.
'Whatever I do, the electricity bill still seems so high, but I am using the minimum I can use already and there's nothing much left to live on,' she says.
'You never used to have to worry this much about electricity. Looking back, we never even really thought about it. It wasn't the way it is now.'
Take a look at the numbers, and it isn't hard to see why millions of people like her are struggling.
Following Russia's attack on Ukraine, energy prices surged to eye-watering levels as all of Europe scrambled for gas supplies for heating and electricity.
But even with the worst of that crisis now behind us, prices remain much higher than they were beforehand.
Last week, Ofgem published shocking new figures showing that household debts have breached the £4bn level for the first time, up from £1.3bn in 2020.
The explanation for this is simple.
Between 2019 and 2024, wages and the state pension increased by 32pc and 31pc respectively, while power prices surged 58pc for medium-sized households, according to official figures.
For a typical household that consumes around 3,100 kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity per year, this has led to an annual power bill of about £930, up from £589 in 2019, with taxes included. (A washing machine typically consumes about 1KWh of power per cycle.)
Yet even the cost of abstinence has grown.
In the past five years, the average standing charge for a household that consumes no electricity has also jumped from about £7 to just under £15 per month, according to regulator Ofgem.
'The standing charges are horrendous,' says Mrs Correll, in Lincolnshire. 'And with all the taxes as well, it's even worse. Without them I'd be a damn sight better off.'
And it isn't just households that have had to swallow bigger costs.
Businesses are arguably even worse off, with British factories paying the highest electricity prices of any developed country, according to the International Energy Agency.
Their costs more than doubled between 2019 and 2023, the most recent year for which data is available.
British industrial users paid 25.85 pence per kilowatt hour when taxes were included, up from 11.55 pence just four years earlier.
Crucially, this was 45pc higher than in France and Germany and four times what American companies paid.
In Marcegaglia's case, paying for power directly accounts for roughly 25-30pc of the Sheffield plant's outgoings, says David Scaife, the company's chief financial officer in the UK.
'We're obviously happy that electricity has dropped to lower levels than two years ago,' Scaife says. 'But prices are still much higher than they were before the pandemic.
'When we're looking at our ability to compete in the world market, that is pretty damaging. We export more than 90pc of our production, mostly to the EU and the US, both of which have pockets where power is far cheaper than it is here.
'So our competitiveness is very dependent on getting lower electricity costs.'
The high price of power was recognised as 'one of the most pronounced challenges to the competitiveness of our energy-intensive sectors and the attractiveness of the UK to foreign investment', according to a government report last week released as part of the industrial strategy.
In a worst-case scenario, it also puts Britain 'at risk of de-industrialisation', a report by manufacturers' body Make UK warned – a scenario that some have warned is already playing out.
Between 2021 and 2024 alone, the output of heavy industrial firms such as paper mills, steel makers, glass blowers and potteries fell by a third because of high energy prices, a recent analysis by the Office for National Statistics found.
And high power prices are threatening not just Britain's traditional industries but also those of the future. Under plans to reach net zero by 2050, the consumption of electricity will only become more crucial as production processes are electrified to cut carbon emissions.
Yet even those at the top in Westminster struggle to fully explain just how Britain became saddled with such crippling electricity costs.
When Labour's Sarah Jones, the industry minister, was quizzed about the cause on BBC Radio 4's PM programme last week, she said the full reasons 'would take all day to explain'.
France, she said, was cheaper, because it had 'huge amounts of nuclear power' while Germany 'has been better historically in terms of industrial energy prices because they've put extra costs on to consumer bills'.
That answer hinted at the failures of past governments to build new nuclear power stations. But it also failed to mention that nearly of a quarter of Germany's power is generated by the cheapest fuel of all: coal.
However, another reason Jones was unable to unpick the cause is the sheer complexity of our energy bills.
They include not just the cost of power but also a multitude of taxes, green levies and other charges that have been introduced over time.
'Growing complexity is a very serious issue,' says Michael Grubb, professor of energy and climate change at University College London.
'It's hard for politicians to understand. And that makes it easier for companies to game the system or to lobby for stuff that sounds plausible.'
So how did things get like this?
Hooked on gas
The way our bills are constructed is key to understanding what is happening to electricity prices.
Look closer, and you'll see that the amount of power you consume only accounts for about one third of your monthly bill.
Another 23pc pays for grid costs such as transmission and distribution, while 20pc pays for green energy subsidies. Another 23pc is set aside for miscellaneous items such as supplier profits, operating costs, metering and bad debt provisions.
'Fundamentally, you've got the price of electricity, then you've got the costs of distributing it, and then you've got all sorts of levies and charges,' says Michael Liebreich, an independent energy consultant and investor.
At the moment, the biggest single factor affecting electricity prices is gas.
Following the discovery of huge gas reserves in the North Sea, the 1990s 'dash for gas' saw a string of gas-fired power plants built across Britain, and they have since become the backbone of our power grid.
Before that, burning coal power plants were our biggest source of electricity.
But in recent decades, successive governments have sought to phase them out with heavier taxes due to their higher carbon emissions.
The rise of renewables is now pushing gas down the pecking order of the power system as well. But because of a market system called 'marginal pricing', gas still continues to influence prices heavily.
Grid operators must constantly keep the supply and demand of electricity in balance at all times by continuously fine-tuning both.
To decide which power plants to use on a daily basis, grid officials will work their way up a list of generators.
They start with the cheapest and carry on until demand is met, eventually sourcing energy from the most expensive supplier.
At the end of this process, the price paid for power is set not by the cheapest but by the most expensive.
This means that even if wind, solar, batteries and other clean power sources provide the bulk of power, but gas-fired plants are used to deliver the final fraction, every generator still receives whatever the gas plant was paid.
'It could be that there's only one of these plants that's needed somewhere, and yet the whole country will pay the peak gas price, which is just insane,' says Liebreich.
The driving idea behind this is efficiency, as power plant owners are incentivised to offer lower prices so they stay on the list of generators for longer.
But it means consumers are being forced to pay for the rollout of supposedly cheaper renewables, while still paying the price of gas.
For instance, a study in the journal Energy Reports found that in 2021, gas was used to generate around 43pc of Britain's electricity but set the national power price 97pc of the time.
This dependence has also left the country vulnerable to global crises such as the Ukraine war, which sent prices soaring and prompted the Government to intervene with a massive support scheme.
The renewables rollout is also leaving us more exposed to gas in other ways, too.
We have not yet upgraded the power network to carry all the electricity being generated by wind farms in Scotland, so when the grid becomes too congested, we are instead switching turbines off.
At the same time, grid operators will then fire up a gas plant elsewhere to make sure demand is met.
This leads to huge so-called 'curtailment' compensation payments to wind farms, all of which are paid via household bills.
Green contradiction
Subsidies are another key driver of power prices. Successive governments have loaded energy bills with a multitude of levies, from those designed to support the rollout of clean power to those meant to help poorer households with their bills.
All are expensive, says the Renewable Energy Foundation, which puts the total annual cost of energy subsidies at around £25bn.
The origins go back to 1990 when Margaret Thatcher's government created the non-fossil fuel obligation, a levy on coal and gas generators.
Its aim was to support privatisation of the nation's nuclear stations, which produced power so expensive that they couldn't attract buyers.
The money funded guaranteed prices for their power, but the key innovation was that levy costs were passed directly to consumers – a mechanism integral to the levies driving bills up today.
Of all of these, the biggest levy is the renewables obligation.
This levy awarded certificates to wind, solar and other renewable generators for each megawatt hour (MWh) of power generated, on top of what they received for power.
At the same time, electricity suppliers were obliged to buy the certificates to compensate for their carbon emissions.
The result was a renewables gold rush, with wind farms springing up across the UK.
The scheme has since been closed to new entrants but owing to the length of contracts awarded, it continues to account for £6.8bn of levies on bills. The cumulative costs since 2002 come to a whopping £67bn.
In 2008, Ed Miliband, in his previous stint as energy secretary, also helped to create the feed-in tariff (FiTs) to boost small-scale renewables such as solar and low-carbon electricity generation.
This pays property owners who put solar panels on their roof for every unit of power generated, even if they use the power themselves.
FiTs have added a cumulative £15bn to bills.
Other similar schemes include the energy company obligation and the warm homes discount.
Altogether, say analysts at Cornwall Insight, such policy costs add a total of £198 to the average consumer bill per year.
And those costs exclude the fastest-growing subsidy of all, contracts for difference (CfDs), under which low-carbon generators are guaranteed a fixed price for their power.
This means developers can build wind farms, solar farms or nuclear power stations safely in the knowledge that, even if power markets plunge, they will be guaranteed a profit.
Last year, CfD subsidies added about £2.5bn to Britain's bills – but you won't see that information set out on your power charges because they are hidden within the figures for wholesale prices.
John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity which tracks the cost of such subsidies, says they now amount to costs of £25.8bn a year, or about 40pc of the total cost of supply.
The sheer scale of these subsidies means it is misleading for politicians to keep blaming gas prices alone for high energy costs, argues Adam Berman, policy director at Energy UK, the trade body for energy suppliers.
'It's true that wholesale power prices are driven partly by gas,' he says. 'But wholesale power prices only account for 40 to 50pc of our bills.
'The rest is driven by additional charges, subsidies for renewable energy, and policy costs.'
The combined effect of these issues has created a contradiction: renewables are supposed to bring abundant and cheap supplies of electricity, but the more we add, the more prices are going up.
'You've got to make a distinction between costs and investments,' argues Liebreich. 'We're a generation that's pouring money into our infrastructure. There will be a benefit to all this. But that's been very poorly explained to people.'
How soon those benefits materialise is a crucial question, he admits. 'Saying it will be better in the 2040s is clearly not an answer.'
Greg Jackson, the boss of Octopus Energy, has issued a similar warning.
'The reality is, if prices continue to go up, one day the elastic snaps,' he said recently. 'And then you call an end to investment in renewables.'
In search of a solution
So what can be done to bring power prices down?
For environmental groups, the primary blame for high energy prices will always lie with fossil fuels.
They argue that the best way to cut bills is to drive down our reliance on gas by continuing to build more renewables, but crucially, alongside battery storage and grid upgrades.
One of the most influential climate groups is Ember, a London-based think tank that was called on by Labour and Mr Miliband to draft the party's plans for clean power.
In particular, Ember helped to inspire the pledge for clean power by 2030 and provided the workings behind Mr Miliband's ill-conceived pledge to cut £300 from household energy bills.
Josie Murdoch, an analyst at Ember, says: 'Before the energy crisis, the UK had similar electricity prices to other European countries.
'The price of electricity in the UK has remained high because the UK is over-reliant on gas for energy and grid stability, with gas almost always setting the price of electricity.
'Clean power generation and grid stabilising technologies such as batteries will free the UK from this pricing dynamic.'
Prof Grubb, at UCL, says Britain could consider boosting power supplies by building more nuclear power stations, with all but one of the existing fleet set to close by the end of this decade.
But nuclear plants are not cheap. They take years to build, cost tens of billions of pounds and will also generate electricity for significantly higher prices than gas plants.
Not to mention that Hinkley Point C in Somerset has busted its budget several times over, and is currently forecast to cost up to £47bn.
Another option being put forward is market reform. Octopus boss Jackson and Liebreich both advocate so-called zonal pricing, which would split the country's electricity market into regions.
Each would have its own wholesale price. This would mean that when there is too much wind power in Scotland, prices would plummet, while in other areas, higher prices would incentivise the construction of new wind farms closer to cities.
Meanwhile, the Climate Change Committee has called for ministers to take levies off electricity bills to make it cheaper for people to own electric cars and heat pumps.
Yet this idea is riven with political risk, not least because ministers would have to make up the revenue either by shifting the levies to gas bills or general taxation.
The Government insists that levies have successfully driven investment in renewables, reducing the UK's exposure to volatile global fossil fuel prices and protecting consumers against future price shocks.
'Through our clean power mission, we will get off the roller-coaster of fossil fuel markets – protecting business and household finances with clean, homegrown energy that we control,' a government spokesman says.
Ministers have also increased financial support for energy-intensive businesses by providing relief on network charges and other fees.
But Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, says that while in office she had to constantly battle with officials who wanted to add even more levies to bills.
'Cheap energy has to be our priority – otherwise we will keep offshoring British industry to China, which is just mad,' she says.
In Sheffield, Marcegaglia's Brüggmann says the plant is preparing to invest in a new state-of-the-art electric furnace that will reduce electricity costs and boost production capacity. It will also benefit from the new government scheme to cut power bills.
Yet even with that support, steelmakers will still face higher electricity prices than competitors in France and Germany, according to industry calculations.
'We want to produce more next year,' he says. 'We're the only producer of stainless steel still here. But what's the Government's commitment to this industry?'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's watered down welfare reforms will push 150,000 into poverty, modelling shows
LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) - New British welfare reforms are still expected to push 150,000 people into poverty despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government watering down the measures, according to fresh modelling ahead of a key parliamentary vote. Seeking to quell a rebellion threatened last week, Starmer revised his planned welfare cuts in an attempt to win over more than 100 lawmakers from his own party who had threatened to revolt over the issue in a vote on Tuesday. He amended the bill so that changes to make it tougher to collect some disability and sickness benefits would now apply only to new applicants, while the millions of people who already rely on benefits would no longer be affected. Publishing analysis of the updated policy, the government on Monday estimated that an extra 150,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty in 2030, 40% fewer than the 250,000 forecast to be affected before the changes. A spokesperson for Starmer told reporters that the analysis was not an impact assessment but poverty modelling. "What it doesn't reflect is the wider action we are taking to lift people out of poverty and raise living standards," they said. The government has said it is investing 1 billion pounds ($1.4 billion) a year to help people with disability and long-term health conditions into jobs, as part of broader employment support across the parliamentary term. Lawmakers opposed to the welfare cuts will now have to assess whether the changes Starmer has made are enough to convince them to back the bill. Starmer has argued that Britain's disability benefits system is too costly to sustain, and makes it too difficult for people who can work to do so, by penalising them for their earnings. Those who oppose the welfare cuts say the changes mean too many people will still be harmed and argue that a two-tier system will be created. ($1 = 0.7304 pounds)

Leader Live
31 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'


The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Savers should be warned about potential pitfalls of Lifetime Isas, MPs say
The complexity of Lifetime Isas could increase the risk of savers making poor financial decisions and the products may need to carry warnings for some people, according to a committee of MPs. The savings accounts enable people to save for their first home or their retirement in one pot. But the Treasury Committee said the dual-purpose design of the Lifetime Isa, or Lisa, may be diverting people away from more suitable products. MPs found that the objectives to help people save for both the short and long term make it more likely that people will choose unsuitable investment strategies. Lisas held in cash may suit those saving for a first home, but may not achieve the best outcome for those using accounts as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher-risk but potentially higher-return products such as bonds and equities, the committee said. It also described current rules penalising benefit claimants as 'nonsensical'. Under the current system, any savings held in a Lisa can affect eligibility for universal credit or housing benefit, despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes, the committee said. The report said: 'The Government provides higher levels of contribution through tax relief to many other pension products that are not included in the universal credit eligibility assessment, such as workplace pensions and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions). Treating one retirement product differently from others in that regard is nonsensical.' The report added: 'If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime Isa with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime Isa products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of universal credit. 'Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling.' Savers can put in up to £4,000 into a Lisa each year, until they reach 50. They must make their first payment into their Lisa before the age of 40. The Government will add a 25 per cent bonus to Lisa savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year. People can withdraw money from their Lisa if they are buying their first home, aged 60 or over or terminally ill with less than 12 months to live. People withdrawing money from a Lisa for any other reason face a 25 per cent withdrawal charge, and can end up with less money than they put in. The report said: 'The withdrawal charge of 25 per cent is applied to unauthorised withdrawals, causing Lisa holders to lose the Government bonuses that they have received, plus 6.25% of their own contributions. 'Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'.' There are also restrictions on when Lisas can be used to buy a first home, including that the property must cost £450,000 or less. The report said: 'Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap. 'However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending. The Lifetime Isa must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving.' It also added: 'Before considering any increase in the house price cap, the Government must analyse whether the Lifetime Isa is the most effective way in which to spend taxpayers' money to support first-time buyers.' The committee noted that in the 2023-24 financial year, nearly double the number of people made an unauthorised withdrawal (99,650) compared to the number of people who used their Lisa to buy a home (56,900). This should be considered a possible indication that the product is not working as intended, the committee said. At the end of the tax year 2023–24, around 1.3 million Lisa accounts were open, the report said. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the five years to 2029-30 – and the committee questioned whether this product is the best use of public money given the current financial strain. MPs also raised concerns that the product may not be well enough targeted towards those in need of financial support and could be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people. It said the data on this issue remains unclear. The report also highlighted the benefits of certain elements of the Lisa, including being an option for the self-employed to save for retirement. Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. 'We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping. What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age.' Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime Isa provider Moneybox said: 'The report marks a further opportunity to engage with policymakers and continue the conversations needed to ensure the Lisa continues to offer the best level of support to those that need it most.' He added: 'While it is right that the Government ensures the Lisa provides value for money as part of its review of the product, it is our view that it absolutely does… 'The Lisa has proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80 per cent of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less.' He continued: 'We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the Lisa would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement.'