Energy price cap cut by 7% for households across Great Britain
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Newsflash: domestic gas and electricity prices for millions of households across Great Britain will fall by 7% from July – the first drop for a year.
Energy regulator Ofgem has announced that its quarterly cap on domestic gas and electricity charges would fall from July by the equivalent of £129 a year for the average home, due to the drop in wholesale energy prices in recent months.
The cut, to the maximum cost of a unit of electricity and gas, means a typical annual dual-fuel bill will drop to £1,720. But, there's no cap on how high a bill can be.
You can see the details from Ofgem here.
Households which buy their energy through variable tariffs will see an immediate impact on their bills as the cap takes effect in July. But bill payers could still face higher bills if they use more than the typical amount of energy.
However, prices would still be higher than a year earlier, and significantly above levels seen at the start of the decade.
Four years ago, for example, the price cap was set at £1,138 for an average household.
Reaction to follow…. Share
Charities fear that many households will struggle to pay their energy bills, even if the price cap is lowered this summer.
Matthew Cole, CEO of Fuel Bank Foundation, warned this week:
'The drop in the energy price cap from July may sound like good news, but for many people already struggling to make ends meet, it won't go far enough. Even in summer, when heating isn't needed as much, energy is still essential; people need it to cook meals, run a washing machine, stay clean, and keep fridges and medical equipment running. These are basic needs, not luxuries.
'The cost of living is still incredibly high, and many people, especially those who are vulnerable or have low incomes, are dealing with energy debt built up over the last few years of sky-high bills.
'A slight drop in prices won't fix that. People are still being forced to make tough choices — between topping up the meter or putting food on the table. Share
Today's price cap announcement comes just two days after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer signalled a partial U-turn on cuts to pensioners' winter fuel payments, after a backlash. Share
Good morning. British households may learn today that energy bills will fall this summer, for the first time in a year.
Energy regulator Ofgem is poised to announce its latest price cap on bills in England, Scotland and Wales this morning, at 7am, and industry analysts predict it will be cut.
The cap limits how much firms can charge customers for units of gas and electricity, and is set every quarter.
This time, experts are forecasting the cap will be cut for the first time in a year, due to recent falls in the wholesale gas and oil prices. That would lower the energy bills of millions of households across Britain in July-September.
Earlier this week, consultancy Cornwall Insight predicted the cap will be cut by 7% – that would slash around £129 off the annual bill for a typical dual-fuel household this summer, from £1,849 under the current limits.
However, it's important to note that the cap applies to the cost of a unit of energy – there's no cap on how large a bill a family can run up.
And as Dr Craig Lowery, a consultant at Cornwall, pointed out on Monday, energy bills were still too high for many.
'Prices are falling, but not by enough for the numerous households struggling under the weight of a cost of living crisis, and bills remain well above the levels seen at the start of the decade.'
'The fall is also a clear reminder of just how volatile the energy market remains – if prices can go down, they can bounce back up, especially with the unsettled global economic and political landscape we are experiencing. This is not the moment for complacency.' The agenda 7am BST: Ofgem to announce latest energy price cap
7am BST: Retail sales report for Great Britain in April
9.30am BST: Latest estimate for how many UK young people are not in education, employment or training
3pm BST: US new home sales data Share
READ SOURCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK Timeline for US Deal Is Too Ambitious, Ex-Trade Adviser Says
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. Prime Minister Keir Starmer would need President Donald Trump to be 'extraordinarily generous' to meet his ambition of finalizing the UK-US tariff deal in two weeks, according to Britain's former top trade negotiator. Crawford Falconer, who led British trade negotiations until late last year, cast doubts on the UK government's efforts to settle remaining issues within a fortnight. While Starmer and Trump announced the so-called Economic Prosperity Deal to great fanfare in early May, numerous details have yet to be finalized. 'My assumption is that they're expecting the US to be extraordinarily generous and understanding toward them,' Falconer told Bloomberg News. 'Because otherwise I think it would take longer than two weeks.' That assessment will come as a blow to Starmer as he tries to seize on the UK's status as the first country to agree to a trade deal with Trump this year. On Tuesday, the White House ramped up the pressure, giving the UK five weeks to resolve outstanding issues or risk a doubling of US tariffs on British steel and aluminum imports to 50%. Trump's tariffs are already weighing on the UK's beleaguered steel industry, with some manufacturers saying American orders have dried up. Starmer dismissed concerns in Parliament on Wednesday, telling lawmakers he expected a resolution within a 'couple of weeks.' 'The deal we agreed is a good deal for UK steel producers,' the government said in a statement on Friday. 'We will continue to work with the US Commerce Department to implement our agreement as soon as possible so all UK steel producers can start to feel the full benefit.' Key to the deal is Trump's promise to remove all tariffs on British steel exports to the US. Although Trump spared the UK the 50% rate imposed on steel from the rest of the world, he reserved the option to apply it if negotiations haven't concluded by July 9. Remaining hurdles include the Chinese ownership of British Steel, the struggling producer the UK government took over in April. There's also a question about whether the US will require British steel to have been melted and poured in the country. Tata Steel UK can no longer fulfill that provision. It closed down its last blast furnace in 2024 and a new electric arc furnace isn't yet up and running, so the company has been importing steel substrate from abroad. In a statement Friday, Tata Steel UK Chief Executive Officer Rajesh Nair said his company would need to import steel substrate until late 2027. 'It is therefore critical for our business that 'melted and poured in the UK' is not a requirement to access the steel quotas in any future trade deal,' Nair said. British Steel is facing a different set of problems. While the UK government took control of its plants earlier this year to prevent them closing, the company is still legally owned by China's Jingye Group. The general terms of the UK-US deal say the UK must meet 'US requirements' on the 'nature of ownership of relevant production facilities.' That is widely understood to mean that Trump would not grant preferential tariff rates to a company with connections to a strategic rival such as China. 'They will want clarity on what that means,' Falconer said. 'It's difficult for me to believe that the US will be confident that it would give the green light to Jingye, if it is uncertain about what the actual commercial arrangements are for British Steel going forward.' Finding a buyer for the loss-making manufacturer in the near-term seems unlikely. Meanwhile, fully nationalizing British Steel could bring its own problems, since the US generally tries to avoid giving state-owned entities preferential access to its market. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Cuts to US Aid Imperil the World's Largest HIV Treatment Program ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
UK Vows Due Diligence on China Embassy Amid Security Concerns
The UK government promised to assess any security concerns related to the construction of a Chinese embassy near the City of London, an issue that could potentially complicate trade talks with the US. President Donald Trump has warned Prime Minister Keir Starmer against letting China set up a mega-embassy near the country's key financial centers, after the plan was revived following personal lobbying by President Xi Jinping, the Sunday Times reported. The issue has been raised in trade negotiations between the US and UK, according to the newspaper.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
We've been here before: what the 1930s teach us about rearmament
We are living in a new era of threat. So writes the Defence Secretary John Healey in the just published UK Strategic Defence Review. This is a credible document, reflecting the serious team assembled to work on it. But it's come under fire for promising much without explaining where the funding will come from. Sir Keir Starmer has committed to lift defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament. This is a good first step. But laying out a plan, fully funding commitments and prioritising investments all matter. So, too, does discounting for the optimism bias around procurement. In defence, we commit in haste and are billed at leisure. The strategic environment has pivoted fast. We live in a world where great power competition is a reality. It took time for governments across Europe to wake up to the level of threat. Radek Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister, was an early proponent of higher defence spending. In a brilliant speech last summer at the Ditchley Foundation, he reminded his audience that: 'We are in a pre-war moment. The question is not whether we will be attacked, but whether we will be ready.' The Poles have been preparing. They have been there before. History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Our volatile world now looks and tastes more like the 1930s: competing nationalisms and a real threat of war. But there are differences, too. In 1935, even amid mass unemployment and economic hardship, Britain spent more of its GDP on defence then than the 2.3 per cent we spend today. That in a year when 2.5 million were out of work and industrial output had not yet returned to pre-1929 levels. The difference now is that other demands on the public purse have grown: the NHS, pensions, and a large welfare state. A more expansive government is more expensive. This is partly true – but Britain's levels of debt in the 1930s were much higher than they are today. We now need to invest in fresh capabilities as we did then. Just as air power represented the cutting-edge military technology then, cyber and space capabilities define today's defence frontier. All this takes us to the task ahead. There needs to be a vigorous national debate about defence and the current and likely threats we face. Despite social-media doomscrolling and breaking news, public understanding of the threat and what it means has yet to filter through. It's incumbent on all our politicians in government and opposition to be fostering that debate. There's a job for universities, too, where – with a few noble exceptions – teaching and talking about war and defence has withered. We need to be spending much more on defence. The UK risks falling down the league table of European defence spending as others commit to lifting their budgets. There is a logic for Britain to pursue a Nato-first approach and focus on the near-term challenge: Russian aggression. But there is also a logic in maintaining 'actor-agnostic' capability – you never know where the next threat comes from. Cyber attacks mean that hackers in North Korea or China can threaten UK national security. There is still a logic in keeping close to the United States: our firmest ally, a generous friend and the most powerful country in the world. Yet there is logic, too, in co-operating with European countries – while protecting our own strategic autonomy – because we need manufacturing and innovation as well as money. The Allies won in the Second World War because of money, technology and manufacturing prowess, as well as grit, leadership and sacrifice. Without committing enough money, Britain's rhetoric on defence will run hollow. The 2025 defence review is a major contribution, but what matters most is money. This Wednesday we will see that unfold when the Chancellor sets out the spending review. Prof Alexander Evans teaches at the London School of Economics Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
