Narrowly, members said no to moving more electricity levies onto general taxation, and plenty of No voters were not defending the status quo at all. They wanted the levies gone.
The most-respected No case was blunt: the move would “hide the true cost” of renewables from bill payers. A more technical No voice argued that levies in unit rates mean households “actually have control”, while taxation lets frugal households end up subsidising heavy users. Another put it flatly: moving the money “doesn't reduce costs, it just hides them.”
A recurring No alternative was that energy firms should carry the burden. One voter wrote, “The firms should pay for the net zero rubbish themselves”, and another, “How about companies pay from their almighty profits?” Others, like the voter who “voted no but I’d prefer them to be abolished”, felt the question never offered their option.
The most-respected Yes case was about fairness: flat levies are “highly regressive”, hitting poorer households hardest, and progressive taxes would spread the load. No opinion replied to that point directly. A second Yes voter turned to business, saying firms that need significant power cannot operate with some of the dearest electricity on earth.
The argument sits inside the long dispute over who pays for the energy transition, bill payers or taxpayers. In this debate, the No side kept coming back to wanting the price visible.
58 Opinions
The only reason to move net Zero subsidies into general taxation is to hide the true cost of "cheap" renewables. Let the bill payers know the cost of Milibrain's religious convictions.
But it shouldn't be put on the public. The firms should pay for the net zero rubbish themselves.
There should be no levies or subsidies - if net zero is financially viable the company’s involved should be able to foot the bills themselves.
Funding green infrastructure through flat electricity levies is highly regressive, hitting poorer households the hardest. It forces working class families to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the energy transition. Shifting these costs to general taxation is far fairer, ensuring the wealthy pay their share through progressive taxes. Lowering electricity bills this way will also actively encourage the switch to heat pumps and electric cars.
The law should be changed and net zero declared the fraud it is.
If these green policy costs are baked into unit rates instead of standing charges or tax grabs, households actually have control... use less energy, pay less money. Moving levies to general taxation means non-users and frugal households end up subsidising heavy energy users.
The entire net zero scheme is ridiculously ambitious and needs to be dramatically scaled back to avoid destroying our economy. This isn’t saving the world, it’s just showing every country how it destroys your economy and therefore put them off similar efforts. Where they could make a difference. Remember even if we accomplish this it’s only 1% of world emissions. We would do better setting a good example without creating a warning to others looking to do the same.
How about companies pay from their almighty profits?
I voted no but I’d prefer them to be abolished.
Moving energy levies onto taxation doesn't reduce costs, it just hides them. We should cut wasteful subsidies, demand better value from energy companies and encourage private investment. The priority should be genuinely cheaper energy, not making taxpayers pay through another route.