Ofgem Energy Price Cap: Energy bills to fall in July 2025
The decrease means that a typical household in England, Scotland and Wales will now pay £1,720 on average for energy, down from £1,849under the current price cap.
Energy regulator Ofgem changes the price cap for households every three months, largely based on the cost of energy on wholesale markets.
It's worth noting that the cap does not set the maximum a household will pay for their energy but limits the amount providers can charge them per unit of gas or electricity, so those who use more energy will always pay more.
While a saving is welcome news, average energy bills continue to be 10% higher (almost £150) than this time last year, and 65% (almost £700) above winter 2020/21 levels and a third higher (around £450) than pre-Ukraine invasion.
Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, says: 'The Government's u-turn on the Winter Fuel Payment is a clear sign it knows people are struggling with energy bills – but sticking-plaster solutions won't keep people warm next winter or the one after that.
'While bills may fall slightly in July, they're still significantly higher than before the energy crisis and remain tied to the unpredictable cost of fossil fuels. Without urgent reform and real investment, millions will continue to face unaffordable bills and cold homes.
'The Warm Homes Plan offers a long-term fix: lower bills, warmer homes, and greater energy security. But this essential plan is now under threat. If Ministers walk away from it, they are effectively condemning households to years more of hardship.
'Short-term relief must not be used as an excuse for long-term neglect. The Government must fully fund the Warm Homes Plan and deliver the reforms needed to bring down bills for good.'
Before the announcement, consultancy BFY Group predicted that the cap would fall by approximately £1,715 – a £134 decrease from the current April cap. Matt Turner-Tait, Senior Manager at BFY Group, says: 'This shows a decrease of about £134 from the current level of £1,849, set in April.
"This reflects recent declines in wholesale gas and electricity prices and will provide some short-term relief for households on standard variable tariffs. While energy prices typically dip in summer due to reduced demand, market signals indicate that prices could stay at current levels through the winter as well, challenging expectations of the usual seasonal rebound.
"Adjustments to the amount suppliers are allowed to recover for operating costs could reduce bills by up to £15 per year, but these savings could be offset by the rising bad debt among suppliers and other pressures, such as volatile wholesale markets, the rising costs of decarbonisation, inflation-driven operational expenses and regulatory compliance.
More energy customers have been switching to fixed tariffs, which are always cheaper than the Price Cap, and are currently significantly so - by around £250 to £300 for a typical customer.
Matt says: "While the gap between fixed deals and the capped rate may narrow as the Price Cap falls, fixed tariffs are still expected to offer savings in the near term."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Terrorism the only issue Starmer handling well, poll finds
Terrorism is the only issue that British people think Sir Keir Starmer is handling well, new polling suggests. In a damning audit of Labour's first year in office, voters gave the Government bad marks on 14 out of 15 key policy areas, from taxation to immigration. The YouGov survey, conducted over the past month, makes grim reading for the Prime Minister, who has struggled with plummeting approval ratings since entering No 10. It indicates the scale of the challenge he faces to win back the public's trust amid the rise of Reform UK, with Labour still reeling from disastrous results at last month's local elections. Asked how the Government was faring in 15 key policy areas, voters indicated that terrorism was the only one they thought Sir Keir was handling well, with a net score of +3. The 14 other issues all received net negative ratings, with immigration the lowest at -60, followed closely by taxation on -58 and welfare on -53. Sir Keir also got bad marks on the economy, with a net score of -52, as well as housing, the NHS, crime, inflation, unemployment, Brexit, the environment, education, transport and defence. The survey, published on Thursday, was conducted between May 3 and June 2, using a representative sample of 8,538 British people. It will come as a blow to the Prime Minister before the spending review next week, at which the Chancellor is expected to unveil cuts to day-to-day spending to keep within her self-imposed fiscal rules. The positive feedback on Labour's handling of terrorism will be encouraging for the Government, suggesting Sir Keir is broadly trusted to keep the country safe. But the lack of confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to tackle the small boats crisis will concern No 10 as Reform storms ahead in the opinion polls. A similarly dire score on welfare suggests Sir Keir has work to do to win back Labour's traditional supporters on the Left, many of whom were dismayed by his sweeping cuts to benefits earlier this year. No 11 will also be disappointed by the lack of faith in Labour's ability to handle the economy, despite Rachel Reeves's attempt to put fiscal responsibility front and centre of her plans. Sir Keir declared Reform his main opposition last month, setting him up for a battle with Nigel Farage on highly charged issues such as migration and net zero. Meanwhile, the Reform leader parked his tanks on Labour's lawn by promising to reverse the cut to winter fuel payments for pensioners in full and lift the two-child benefit cap. The YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of voters thought Sir Keir was doing 'very badly' or 'fairly badly' on immigration, compared to just 13 per cent who thought he was doing well. Labour has been accused of losing control of Britain's borders after close to 1,200 small boat migrants crossed the Channel in a single day.
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
New pension changes for 20m people in Pension Schemes Bill
The Government's new Pension Schemes Bill is designed to support working people plan for their retirement by making pensions simpler to understand, easier to manage, and drive better value over the long term. Keeping track of pensions is notoriously challenging, with the average worker accumulating 11 different pension pots over their lifetime. This has resulted in £26.6 billion in lost pensions across the UK, according to the Pensions Policy Institute and the Association of British Insurers. One of its biggest benefits is the merging of small pension pots. The bill also introduces a new system to show how well pension schemes are performing, this will help savers understand whether their scheme is giving them good value and protect them from getting stuck in underperforming schemes for years on end, to help working people feel more secure about their retirement savings. For those approaching retirement, the changes will mean clear default options for turning savings into a retirement income. This means people will have clearer, more secure routes to decide how they use their pension money over time. The full changes are listed in detail here. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall says: "Hardworking people across the UK deserve their pensions to work as hard for them as they have worked to save, and our reforms will deliver a huge boost to future generations of pensioners." Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves describes the bill as "a game changer", giving "bigger pension pots for savers and driving £50 billion of investment directly into the UK economy– putting more money into people's pockets." Government launches plans to automatically combine small pension pots, here's what it's likely to mean for you... — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) April 24, 2025 What do these pension changes mean for workers? The bill will transform the £2 trillion pensions landscape to ensure savers get good returns for each pound they save, and drive investment into the economy, through a suite of measures, including: Requiring DC schemes to prove they are value for money, to protect savers from getting stuck in underperforming schemes. Simplifying retirement choices, with all pension schemes offering default routes to an income in retirement. Bringing together small pension pots worth £1,000 or less into one pension scheme that is certified as delivering good value to savers, making pension saving less hassle and more rewarding. New rules creating multi-employer DC scheme 'megafunds' of at least £25 billion, so that bigger and better pension schemes can drive down costs and invest in a wider range of assets. Consolidating and professionalising the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), with assets held in six pools that can invest in local areas infrastructure, housing and clean energy. Increased flexibility for Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes to safely release surplus worth collectively £160 billion, to support employers' investment plans and to benefit scheme members. What is the difference between a Defined Benefit (DB) scheme and a Defined Contribution (DC) pension? There are two different ways pension schemes work. With a Defined Benefit (DB) pension scheme, also referred to as final salary pension schemes, the amount you get is usually based on your salary and how long you've been part of the pension scheme. For a Defined Contribution (DC) pension, the figure you get is based on how much you and your employer invest in the pension and how your investments perform. Recommended reading: What's the expert view on the new pension changes? Nausicaa Delfas, chief executive of The Pensions Regulator (TPR) says: "The Pension Schemes Bill is a once in a generation opportunity to address unfinished business in the UK pension system. "Making sure all schemes are focused on delivering value for money, helping to stop small, and often forgotten pension pots forming, and guiding savers towards the right retirement products for them, will mean savers benefit from a system fit for the future. "We have long advocated for fewer, larger well-run schemes with the size and skill to deliver better outcomes for savers. As such we are also pleased to see the proposed legislative framework for DB superfunds, providing options and choice in defined benefit consolidation." Andy Briggs, CEO, Phoenix Group says: "The bill sets a clear direction for the future of pensions with the emphasis on building scale and ensuring savers receive value for money. "People across the country will feel the impact of these changes with plans to consolidate small pots, ensure the dashboard delivers and provide default retirement income options at the point of retirement. Patrick Heath-Lay, Chief Executive, People's Partnership adds: "This is a pivotal moment in pension reform. The bill contains many measures that will require providers to deliver better outcomes for savers and improve the workplace pension system."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Russia is about to suffer its millionth casualty. For Putin, that's a price worth paying
Almost two centuries ago, the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz cautioned against the temptation to 'shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality.' One milestone betrays the sheer scale of the butchery in Ukraine: by the end of June, Russian forces will, in all probability, have suffered their millionth casualty in this war. When Vladimir Putin sent some 200,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine in February 2022, he expected to seize Kyiv by the third day of a lightning offensive. Today, his troops remain hundreds of miles from the capital, while the number of Russian dead and wounded has grown to nearly five times the size of that initial invasion force. 'Overall, a high of 250,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, with over 950,000 total Russian casualties,' notes a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank based in Washington, DC. Those numbers conjure an image of Putin casting the entirety of his first invading army into a furnace, then gathering another and doing the same – over and over again. On an average day in April, about 1,200 Russians were killed or wounded on Ukraine's battlefields, where killer drones and heavy artillery have together created the most lethal expanse of territory on Earth. If this casualty rate is sustained, the CSIS study concludes, 'Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025.' By way of comparison, the combined death toll in every Soviet or Russian conflict since 1945 – from the invasion of Hungary in 1956 to the Second Chechen war in 1999, including the Afghanistan campaign of 1979-89 – came to less than 50,000. Putin has sacrificed about five times that number in the space of three years and four months in Ukraine. Having been thrown back from Kyiv, Putin is now waging what the CSIS calls a 'grinding contest of attrition', in which Russia loses 'vast quantities' of men and materiel for 'mere metres of ground'. Since January 2024, Putin has captured about 1 per cent of Ukraine at the cost of between 800 and 1,600 Russian casualties per day. By comparison, 179 British military personnel were killed during six years of combat operations in Iraq. Yet Putin's frame of reference is almost certainly not the conflicts since 1945. He is steeped in the history of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War – the Soviet Union's epic struggle against Hitler's invasion between 1941 and 1945. That titanic confrontation claimed the lives of at least 24 million Soviet or Russian citizens, amounting to 12 per cent of the entire population of the Soviet Empire. The Battle of Stalingrad alone, lasting less than six months, killed almost 675,000 Russians. The siege of Leningrad – the city of Putin's birth – was even more deadly. His parents lived through those harrowing years from 1941 to 1944; his father fought in the city's defence, while his elder brother was among the children who died of hunger and privation. In total, over 1 million Russians gave their lives to save Leningrad from the Nazis. If that is your perspective, then 250,000 dead and a million casualties in Ukraine become far more acceptable. Putin will doubtless see these figures as just a fraction of the cost of preserving his home city from Hitler. And that is not even to consider earlier episodes of suffering. The Russian civil war that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 claimed some 10 million lives, mainly from starvation, while Stalin's Great Purge, between 1936 and 1938, is estimated to have claimed between 700,000 and 1.2 million. If, like Putin, your historical memory is dominated by events before 1945, then you take a different view of a million Russian casualties in Ukraine. And the Kremlin's propaganda campaign is designed to ensure that the Russian people think like their leader. Not even the prospect of Putin soon having sacrificed a million of their sons in the country's bloodiest war in 80 years appears to be stirring popular discontent. In March, polling by the Levada Center, a Russian independent, nongovernmental research organisation, found that a 'majority of respondents support the actions of the Russian military and believe that the special military operation is progressing successfully.' For Western policy-makers, by contrast, Putin's cold indifference to suffering presents a strategic dilemma. Effective deterrence depends on an adversary believing that any act of aggression will incur an overwhelming and unacceptable cost. But what constitutes an unacceptable cost in Putin's eyes? Given that a million Russian casualties in the crucible of Ukraine seem to leave him unmoved, sustaining effective deterrence becomes far more difficult. Hence the continued importance of nuclear weapons – perhaps the only price even Putin would be unwilling to pay. Meanwhile, his dogged assault on Ukraine has forced his neighbour to defend itself with ever greater force, vindicating the bleak words of Clausewitz: 'If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit; each will drive its opponent towards extremes.' Russia's extreme violence has killed between 60,000 and 100,000 Ukrainians, according to the CSIS, inflicting around 400,000 casualties in total – an astonishing toll reminiscent of the pre-war era. Given that Ukraine's population is less than a third of Russia's, the target of the invasion has endured a heavier toll per capita – a butcher's bill greater even than that of its aggressor. Ukrainian soldiers on the front line know better than anyone that the prospect of a million Russian casualties will not deter Putin. The only counterweight is still greater force.
