Warm homes plan beats Rosebank for bills and jobs, E3G finds
Research by E3G estimates the warm homes plan would save households £1bn a year on energy bills, while the government weighs cuts to the programme.
By
Callum Fairbairn
In brief
- E3G says the £15bn warm homes plan would trim household energy bills, especially for low earners.
- The thinktank puts Rosebank at about 1,100 jobs, against roughly 50,000 for the plan.
- Adura, the Equinor-Shell venture, says approval would support £35.3bn in UK economic value.
- The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on the findings.
Insulating homes and installing heat pumps would do more for the cost of living, jobs and the economy than drilling the Rosebank oilfield, according to research by the thinktank E3G, reported by The Guardian. The government’s £15bn warm homes plan is already under threat of cuts as ministers look for budget savings.
What E3G expects from the plan
The thinktank says the scheme would be felt most by households on low incomes, and that it would reach small firms across the country rather than a single region. Up to 5m homes would be insulated, and E3G says this would draw in a further £15bn of private investment.
James Huw Dyson, a senior researcher at E3G, put the political choice bluntly: “When the first cold snap rolls in, the public aren’t going to thank the government for cutting home insulation while giving big oil tax breaks to drill for polluting energy that keeps our bills high.”
Dhara Vyas, chief executive of Energy UK, which represents the energy industry, added: “We need government to stick to its ambitions on electrification.” The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on E3G’s findings or on the plan’s future.
The plan and Rosebank, side by side
| Measure | Warm homes plan | Rosebank |
|---|---|---|
| Jobs | About 50,000, spread across the country | About 1,100 direct and indirect, concentrated in the North Sea and in two companies |
| Effect on GDP | 0.08% if delivered in full | About 0.025% on average over its lifetime, assuming oil returns to $70 a barrel |
| Public finances | Draws a further £15bn in private investment | Potential £258m loss to the government through tax breaks and incentives |
Research by WWF and the campaign group Uplift puts Rosebank’s profits for backers Equinor, Shell and Ithaca Energy at about £1.5bn over its 25-year lifespan. North Sea tax revenues were around £4bn in 2025-26, but upstream relief and support measures came to an estimated £3.26bn. Revenues are projected to fall to about £100m by 2030, and taxpayers are likely to be asked for £12bn to decommission the basin’s infrastructure. E3G says that if taxpayers fund decommissioning, the cost would outweigh any positive GDP effect from Rosebank.
Why more oil would not lower bills
Experts have repeatedly noted that new North Sea oil and gas would not bring down fuel prices or ease supply pressures linked to the Iran war, since oil and gas are sold on international markets.
The political decision is still open. Energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh said a ruling on the Jackdaw gasfield was imminent and that Rosebank would take a little longer. Labour promised in its 2024 manifesto to halt new oil and gas licensing, but both projects were already in the licensing system and could be exceptions. Ten major unions wrote to the government on Thursday opposing a Rosebank licence, scores of Labour MPs object, and 600 scientists wrote to ministers over the summer.
The case made by the developers
Adura, the Equinor-Shell joint venture that owns both fields, argues the projects would pay off for the UK. The Guardian adds caveats to each claim.
Adura’s case
- Approving Rosebank and other planned North Sea developments would support £35.3bn in UK economic value between 2026 and 2035.
- Rosebank alone means £8.7bn of private investment, three quarters of it spent in the UK.
- With Jackdaw, it would add £4.1bn in tax revenue over the next decade.
- Equinor earlier estimated 3,500 jobs at peak for the two fields combined.
The Guardian’s reservations
- The £35.3bn covers the company’s wider operations, and counts supply chain and employee spending, which are uncertain.
- The tax figure ignores reliefs estimated at more than £2.4bn.
- Contrary to standard HM Treasury practice, the estimates do not appear to apply a discount rate to future income.
Photo: Ira Bowman / Pexels
