Emma Pinchbeck

And the reason for that is...

Underneath this, cheap electricity coming from renewables, coming from clean sources of power, flowing through to electric technologies in people's homes, will already be saving some households money.

But if electricity were cheap, it would be saving many, many more households money, particularly for things like driving costs.

Some of the reason that people are paying more on their bills is a political choice rather than the cost of transition.

But the thing that I want to say is that we've done some analysis on the exposure to a price spike.

The entire cost of the net zero transition from 2025 to 2050 is less than the cost of a spike in fossil fuel prices of the kind we saw in 2022.

So we've just done a piece of additional analysis that shows that really clearly.

So we save...

I think about £30 billion worth of wasted energy through a net zero energy system rather than the one that we have today because it's just more efficient to move energy around the system.

If you say to people, we are throwing £30 billion worth of energy at the wall at the moment in the middle of an energy crisis, that in itself is...

I think, a common sense reason for moving to something more efficient.

So just reducing our dependency on volatile markets really does help.

Now, I'm not trying to escape the idea that you have to pay for the infrastructure, but I think the advice of the committee is you have to pay...

What, £6.9 billion?

£6.9 trillion over the next 25 years to invest in the economy, in infrastructure, in new gas, in new cars.

And that's business as usual, though.

That's just to run as we are because cars get old, power stations get old, grid gets old.

The cost net zero on top of that is about £110 billion over 25 years.

It's about £4 billion a year, 0.2% of GDP.

But for that, you get benefits at household level.