MINISTERS must urgently scrap the “energy postcode lottery” for households paying higher costs based on where they live.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak has been warned to end regional differences that leaves homes more than £100 worse off a year for the same amount of gas and electricity.
2
Accusations were targeted at the government saying they were not serious about levelling-up the country of the levies remain.
Analysis shows high energy using families living in the North East would pay the least at £2,671 a year with those in Merseyside and North Wales paying £126 more.
Costs for properties in the South West come in at £109 more and those in London pay £97.59 extra. Amounts are based on a family living in a three to four bedroom home.
Pensioners living in a small house in the East Midlands would pay the lowest rate at an estimated £1342 but this would be £54 more if they lived in the south west.
The differing costs are based on which of the 14 regional firms operate the cables and towers that bring power into homes.
Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat Leader said: “It is grossly unfair that at a time millions are facing eye-watering increases to their energy bills, some people are paying more based simply on where they live.
Most read in Money
“If the Conservatives were serious about levelling up, they’d end this energy postcode lottery now.”
The call comes as households face an unprecedented cost of living crisis with regulator Ofgem announcing average energy bills will rise to £1971 in April.
A government spokesperson said: “We are providing support for energy bills across the UK with a £200 discount on bills this autumn and a £150 reduction in Council Tax bills for eligible households.
“This intervention comes on top of the existing £12 billion of support we have in place over this financial year and next, targeted at households that need support the most.
“Network charges are a matter for the independent energy regulator Ofgem and are designed to reflect the costs of using the grid, which ensures its efficient use and limits overall costs to consumers.”
2
