Outrage has swept through the readership of The Independent following a major decision by the UK's energy regulator that will see household bills increase to fund network upgrades. The move has ignited fierce debate over who should bear the cost of vital infrastructure investment.
Consumers to foot the bill for £28bn upgrade
On Friday 5 December 2025, the energy watchdog Ofgem gave the green light to a £28 billion investment plan aimed at upgrading the nation's gas and electricity networks. This substantial funding package is expected to add an average of £108 per year to household energy bills. The regulator stated the investment is essential for maintaining energy security and facilitating the transition to cleaner power sources.
However, the announcement was met with immediate and widespread condemnation from consumers. A central theme of the criticism is the belief that energy companies, which have recorded significant profits in recent years, should be the ones funding these improvements from their own reserves, rather than passing the cost directly to the public.
Readers demand profits fund investment, not shareholders
The reaction from the community highlighted a profound sense of injustice. Many readers argued that years of underinvestment in the national grid are a direct result of energy firms prioritising shareholder dividends over long-term infrastructure spending. They contend that now, when investment is critically needed, the bill is being handed to consumers, allowing corporate profits and shareholder payouts to remain unaffected.
One reader, juscott, articulated a common sentiment: "If investment needs to be made... I expect the companies to be using all available funds to do so. Only then should they be allowed to raise prices... They most certainly shouldn't be allowed to pay any shareholder dividends during this time." This perspective frames profits as capital for business improvement, not merely as returns for investors.
Another commenter, PAULT2, echoed this, stating the bill increase is "not because of the need for investment but rather because they need investment and want the same, if not bigger, profit."
Watchdogs accused of failing the public
Beyond the issue of profits, a significant portion of the anger is directed at the perceived failure of regulatory bodies. Readers expressed frustration that watchdogs like Ofgem appear powerless to prevent companies from transferring costs to consumers, leading to accusations that they merely "watch us get ripped off."
Commenter Grumpyoldman38 asked pointedly, "What's the point of having 'watchdogs'… just to watch?" This sentiment fuels arguments for more radical solutions, including government intervention to renationalise energy utilities. The belief is that public ownership would ensure profits are reinvested into the system rather than distributed to shareholders.
DrG highlighted a shift in funding models, noting, "It used to be that companies used the money of investors to improve the service. Now the regulator... constantly pushes those costs onto the consumer."
While the necessity of upgrading the ageing energy grid was acknowledged by some, such as JoeNinety who called it "desperately" needed, the method of financing remains deeply contentious. The debate underscores a broader public clash with the principles of privatised utility management, where the balance between private profit and public service is under intense scrutiny.
