Energy bills slightly falling won't be enough

A slight fall in energy bills is welcome, but much bigger change is needed

In April 2026, energy bills in the UK will apparently fall by 7%. But considering the massive rise in bills in recent years, this change will just be a drop in the ocean.

Uswitch reports that average households are paying about £1,758 per year for a dual bill including electricity and gas. The BBC says that the annual saving with the April fall will be about:

£117 for a household using a typical amount of energy.

Total energy prices, however, would still be higher than when Labour came into office in 2024, and still:

a third higher than before the war in Ukraine

Following privatisation in the UK, prices rose steadily through the 2000s before surging upwards after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This surge meant the proportion of spending people had to dedicate to paying energy bills was at its highest since the 1980s, and possibly even the 50s.

In October 2025, trade union Unite reported that average households were paying “£500 a year in energy profits” to the private companies running the system.

A much bigger change needs to come

Campaign group We Own It has called out the transfer of increasing amounts of money from ordinary people to big companies via privatisation. It says:

Shareholders around the world profit from our energy system and our outrageous bills.

Advocating for change, it asserts that:

Like Norway, the UK should introduce a permanent windfall tax on oil and gas companies like Shell and BP, at a rate of 56% (on top of corporation tax). Norway is paying 80% of people’s bills above a capped price. We should use the revenues to cut people’s bills, invest in renewable energy and pay for further nationalisation policies that will benefit the country.

It also calls for public ownership, insisting:

Right now privatisation means we
– Waste money on shareholder profits
– Fail to invest enough in connecting renewable energy to the grid
– Miss opportunities to drive forward the green transition, both in terms of new renewable energy and insulating housing

Public ownership could mean
– More stability in the retail market not chaos
– Saving money on shareholder dividends
– Planning ahead and investing more in renewables

We agree. A fall in under £10 a month in energy bills isn’t going to make a big difference to most ordinary people. What would make a difference is if we stop private energy corporations leeching money off us once and for all, and actually invest in preparing our energy system in a stable way for the future.

Featured image via the Canary

Comments 1

AussiMoi says:

3 months ago

I only use green electricity but my landlord refuses to disconnect my gas supply in case some future tenant wants to use gas. Every year the landlord arranges a ‘gas safety check’. Because gas has to be tested each year, I have to pay for a gas account. This means I pay for a dual fuel energy account which includes about £250+ per year simply for standing charges on gas plus an optional extra called ‘greener gas’ which is some kind of scheme for off-setting harm done by fossil fuels. It annoys me that I am forced to pay this charge ‘in case someone in future wants gas’. Why should I fund this theoretical future choice by a stranger? I am forced to pay it because otherwise landlord has to pay to remove my gas meter and maybe pay again in future to re-connect gas. It is presented as my funding the next tenant’s lifestyle but actually I am just paying for landlord’s refusal to disconnect gas from my home.

I only use renewables but when Putin invaded Ukraine and cut off pipeline to Europe so energy prices went up for fossil fuels, my prices went up too. I queried why. Although all my energy comes from solar, hydro or wind, and was not materially affected by Putin’s war, the industry pegs energy prices to the cost of fossil fuels. That meant although cost of supplying green energy did not change, the value of green energy, pegged to dirty energy, went up. Thus I ended up paying more and green energy generation got a massive boost to profits. Did they invest this in more green energy supply or just pocket it as fat cat windfall bonuses? Since many green energy suppliers are owned by fossil fuel companies, I am guessing they just paid it into their tax haven bank accounts and laughed their greedy heads off.

Green energy is already more expensive than fossil fuels, just like organic food – they charge more because buyers will pay it in the hope of doing some good. It is just anotger rip off. After Putin’s attack, prices on green energy rose higher than on fossil fuels as the dirty energy prices were subsidised by government, by tax payers. Green energy users, those not directly involved in fossil fuel industry, have been paying inflated prices ever since. We have been overcharged and forced to bail out dirty energy users both through energy bills and tax.

I am happy to help keep people out of fuel poverty. I do not mind paying more if it goes directly to helping those worse off than me. I am on a pension, most of my young neighbours are low paid, I want to help them. But I am totally pissed off that I am paying over the odds to give kickbacks to my landlord and to my energy supplier and, ultimately, to the fossil fuel industry and thus to Putin who is raking in the dollars despite war sanctions since he is smuggling out his fossil fuels to e.g. China and Western markets. I buy green fuel and I am helping fund the war in Ukraine. I am beyond pissed off.

This shows why trying to fix structural problems like climate change or loss of biodiversity or fuel poverty cannot be left to consumer choices. I make all the ‘right’ choices, I pay extra, and all that happens is I end up making the rich richer and funding war. We must have action by government and international agreement. Our problems are global, we need global solutions.