Introducing the UK Subsidy Clock

The numbers are public. Every one of them. They sit on the data portals of the LCCC, Elexon, NESO, Ofgem, HMRC and DESNZ, in the formats those bodies happen to prefer, on the cadences they happen to publish, under the names they happen to use. What does not exist – anywhere – is the sum. No department adds them up. No minister is ever handed the total and asked to defend it.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Richard Lyons

FOR SOME YEARS NOW, David Turver has been doing a job that properly belongs to the state. Month after month, on his Eigen Values Substack, he takes the published settlement data and reconstructs what the energy transition actually costs us: the Feed-in Tariffs, the hidden network and balancing charges, the subsidies that never quite make it into the headline figure. Forensic, sourced and relentless. He does by hand, one careful article at a time, what no government department appears willing to total in public.

I have leaned on his work for years. This piece is partly to say so.

And partly to make a confession. Reading Turver, the thought that kept returning was not how much – it was why is this so hard to find out? The numbers are public. Every one of them. They sit on the data portals of the LCCC, Elexon, NESO, Ofgem, HMRC and DESNZ, in the formats those bodies happen to prefer, on the cadences they happen to publish, under the names they happen to use. What does not exist – anywhere – is the sum. No department adds them up. No minister is ever handed the total and asked to defend it.

After a while you stop believing that is an accident.

This is the seventh point of the blueprint at the end of my forthcoming book The Energy Trap. The United Kingdom audits its money. The Office for Budget Responsibility marks every Budget against reality, and no Chancellor escapes its arithmetic. There is no equivalent for energy – the physical claim, and the financial one, behind every pound. There should be. Until there is, the cost of the largest peacetime industrial programme in the country’s history remains a thing the public is invited to feel strongly about and forbidden, by sheer scatter, from actually counting.

I do not think a minister is going to fix this. Opacity is not a bug they have failed to patch; it is the working condition of the policy. A number nobody adds up is a number nobody has to answer for. If the total is to exist, we are going to have to build it ourselves.

So I did. It is at subsidyclock.co.uk, and it has been running since I switched it on.

Here is what it does.

At the top is a live counter: the subsidies paid to British renewable and low-carbon generators since 2002, in pounds, ticking forward as the settlement data lands. It is past £100 billion in direct payments alone. Add the costs that reach you less visibly – through taxation, and through the network, balancing and carbon charges loaded onto every unit you buy – and the figure passes £200 billion.

Under the headline, the parts. Every figure splits into two layers that are never invisibly blended. There are direct subsidies, which are measured: Contracts for Difference, the Renewables Obligation, Feed-in Tariffs and wind constraint payments – money traceable to named generators in official settlement data. And there are indirect costs, which are estimated: the Capacity Market, the carbon taxes, the transmission and balancing charges that the settlement data does not pin to any one generator. Each estimate carries a published attribution rule and is labelled as an estimate. Where a figure combines the two, it says so. The measured headline is never quietly inflated with the guesses. That distinction is the whole discipline of the thing.

Then it lets you look. You can see where the money lands – the largest recipients grouped into the physical power stations they belong to, plotted on a map of Great Britain, each bubble sized by what it has been paid. You can see the cost over time, in today’s money and in the pounds of the day, and as a share of the electricity bill. And you can take the lot: every series downloads as a CSV, free to reuse, so anyone who wants to check me – or argue with me – starts from the same numbers I did.

None of it asks to be believed. Every retrieved data point links back to its source URL, the moment it was fetched, and a hash of what was fetched. The methodology page sets out each scheme, its source, and how confident I am in the attribution. The raw data is committed in full, so every published figure reproduces from scratch with no faith required. I would rather hand you the working than ask for your trust.

I won’t pretend it was easy to assemble. It was not. The data is strewn across half a dozen bodies in incompatible shapes, some of it annual, some daily, some buried inside indirect charges that take real work to disentangle without double-counting. That difficulty is not incidental. It is the moat. A cost spread thinly enough across enough schemes stops looking like a cost at all, which is a convenient property for a policy whose total nobody wishes to defend.

Which brings me to the part I care most about. The clock is built to be audited, not admired. If you find an error in a published figure, tell me – there is a corrections page and an issue form, and confirmed errors are fixed and logged in public, in the open, dated. Nothing is ever silently edited. When an official source revises its own history, that is logged too, alongside the old version, never over it. The point of radical transparency is that it has to survive being checked by people who would dearly love to catch it out. So check it.

A last word on Turver, because the debt is concrete as well as moral. The station groupings, the per-station Renewables Obligation allocation and the transmission-charge series all rest on datasets he compiled, each traced through to its primary source and cited on the site. Eigen Values is the kind of patient, unglamorous, properly referenced work this whole argument depends on, and you should read him. What the clock tries to add is reach: to take the arithmetic he and others have done the hard way and put it behind a single live figure that anyone can send to anyone, in one link, and that nobody can wave away as a vibe.

The numbers were always public. They were simply never added together, because added together they ask a question. The meter is running while you read this. Go and watch it, and decide for yourself whose figures to trust.

And then do three things. A number nobody adds up is a number nobody answers for – so the job now is to make this one impossible to ignore.

  1. Send it. Copy subsidyclock.co.uk and put it where the cost of energy is being discussed. Forward it to one person who would find it clarifying. Post it. Paste it into the comments under the next ‘bills are falling’ announcement. One link, no caveats, no login – that is the whole design.
  2. Use the number – there’s a kit for it. I have put everything you need on one page: subsidyclock.co.uk/share. It holds ready-made image cards, sized for a post and refreshed every day, so whatever you grab is always carrying the latest figure. Hit Download to save one, or Copy image to paste it straight into a post, an email or a thread. Run a website or a newsletter? There is a one-line snippet on the same page that drops the live counter onto any page as a self-contained widget. The next time someone tells you renewables are cheap, you reply with a current, sourced figure and a picture to go with it. All free to republish – just credit the clock.
  3. Check it, and subscribe. Try to catch it out. If you find an error, file it – confirmed mistakes are fixed in public, with your name on the correction if you want it. And subscribe here, so you don’t miss what the numbers turn up next: who is being paid, what the latest contracts lock in, and where the bill is heading.

That is how a thing the government totals nowhere becomes a thing everyone has seen.

This article was first published on Richard Lyons’s Substack The State of Britain. You can subscribe here. His book, The Energy Trap: Why the Renewable Energy Transition Can’t Work – and What Can is published in September.

Bravo, Trump Administration for Increasing Transparency at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Breitbart News posted an article discussing the re-opening of a public online portal hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where Americans can access straightforward information about regulations so that they don’t run afoul of environmental rules unwittingly.

A stylized illustration of a man speaking at a podium with a microphone, advocating for transparency at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with a speech bubble stating the message.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

Sign for the United States Environmental Protection Agency displayed on a building.
FILE PHOTO: Signage is seen at the headquarters of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 10, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

Breitbart News posted an article discussing the re-opening of a public online portal hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where Americans can access straightforward information about regulations so that they don’t run afoul of environmental rules unwittingly. This is a great move towards transparency by the EPA, and important that Breitbart helped spread the word so that business and land owners are aware. The massive body of environmental regulations that exist can be complex to navigate, and the EPA absolutely should provide an easy-to-understand guide, as it continues its worthwhile and justified deregulatory efforts.

In the post, “Exclusive: EPA Relaunches Guidance Document Database, Continuing Trump Tradition of Transparency,” Breitbart received exclusive comments from EPA deputy administrator David Fotouhi regarding the new “Guidance Portal.”

The goal of the portal, Fotouhi told Breitbart, was to “compile all of those in one searchable, publicly accessible database, so that if you’re a small business owner, if you’re a farmer or rancher, if you’re in any way subject to one of our regulatory requirements or statutory obligations, you can go on there and conduct a search and see very clearly what the agency’s interpretation of that requirement and how it applies to your situation.”

The portal will include guidance documents intended to outline the steps a business or landowner should follow to best ensure they don’t run afoul of regulatory requirements. Feedback on the portal will also help the agency figure out places they can make EPA guidance simpler, getting rid of redundancies and bloat, Fotouhi told Breitbart. Additionally, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the portal should help small business owners navigate the Clean Air or Water Acts without needing to hire “a high-priced lawyer.”

This is something that seems very common sense: regulations people can understand. It was a program that the previous Trump administration attempted to implement by executive order, but strangely the Biden administration rescinded it as part of their own environmental agenda. Biden’s EPA was unable to hide the portals completely without an official rulemaking, so they simply failed to keep them updated. This was just one more example of the lack of transparency embraced by the Biden administration as it expanded the reach of its environmental agenda.

Government environmental regulations have long crushed small business and landowners. The Clean Water Act, for example, was at the center of a 16-year legal battle that fortunately concluded in the favor of a family trying to build a home on property they owned in Sackett v. EPA. The family had begun to construct a house on a small lot in Idaho, when the EPA suddenly decided that their property contained wetlands that counted as “navigable waters,” and thus needed to replace the soil already moved. In reality, the Sackett property was merely near a ditch that only intermittently filled with water which fed to a creek. The Supreme Court finally determined the EPA was out of line, ending the so-called “significant nexus” standard for the Clean Water Act. Damage had already been done to other landowners and farmers who were not able to fight it out in court so long, while the EPA’s standards were not at all transparent, confusing, and often arbitrary.

Making any of this kind of permitting process easier to understand should be a no-brainer. It’s very good that the Trump administration is pursuing transparency in regulatory agencies again, it can only benefit Americans, and Breitbart News’ writers are to be applauded for recognizing how important these issues are and publicizing the Trump administration’s efforts to improve government transparency.

The Tide of Accountability is Finally Rolling In

What a spectacle! As the Trump administration reclaims the reins of power, the scientific elite are reacting with utter dismay to policies that prioritize accountability, budgetary discipline, and a reevaluation of priorities. Judging by the tone of despair emanating from recent articles, you’d think the very foundation of science had crumbled underfoot. But make no mistake—this isn’t the death of science; it’s the birth of overdue reform.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

What a spectacle! As the Trump administration reclaims the reins of power, the scientific elite are reacting with utter dismay to policies that prioritize accountability, budgetary discipline, and a reevaluation of priorities. Judging by the tone of despair emanating from recent articles, you’d think the very foundation of science had crumbled underfoot. But make no mistake—this isn’t the death of science; it’s the birth of overdue reform.

In an unprecedented move, research-grant reviews have been suspended indefinitely at the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00231-y

Both Nature and Science magazine lament the “unprecedented” decisions to halt NIH grant-review meetings, travel, and non-emergency communications. A chorus of voices within the research community describes these measures as “devastating,” “unfair,” and even a “cataclysm.” What’s actually happening? The Trump administration is simply pressing the pause button to evaluate how $47 billions of taxpayer money is being spent by the NIH​​.

Gone are the days of unchecked spending and ideological pet projects masquerading as science. The NIH’s controversial diversity initiatives, which critics argue prioritize optics over merit, have disappeared from the agency’s website overnight.

Diversity goals

Adding to the uncertainty among researchers, the Trump administration also seems to have erased all materials relating to structural racism and diversity from the NIH website. The NIH has been criticized by the research community over the years for a lack of racial and ethnic diversity in those who win grants from the agency — critiques that are “warranted” and urgent as the United States and its scientists become more diverse, Varmus says.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00231-y

Predictably, this move has sparked outrage, with some scientists claiming the reforms threaten inclusivity and progress. Yet, one can’t help but notice the silence around the persistent lack of genuine innovation and results in key areas of medical research​​.

Take, for example, the complaint about canceled travel and study panels. It’s as if presenting at conferences has become the end-all-be-all of scientific progress. What’s lost in these protests is any reflection on whether these gatherings provide real value to taxpayers or whether the grants being reviewed are delivering measurable benefits. The administration is asking the NIH to justify itself—an entirely reasonable request when tens of billions of dollars are on the line​.

Early-career researchers bemoan potential disruptions to their paths, but perhaps it’s time for the scientific establishment to reexamine how it supports young talent. Are these systems producing independent, innovative thinkers, or merely training another generation to perpetuate the same tired, ineffective paradigms? If reforms spark a reevaluation of this broken cycle, all the better​.

At its core, the uproar over these changes reveals an entrenched resistance to reform. Instead of introspection, the scientific community has opted for indignation. The reality is that hard-nosed accountability is long overdue. Taxpayers deserve transparency, measurable outcomes, and funding decisions rooted in merit—not ideological favoritism or bureaucratic inertia. For those panicking about their travel plans or pet projects, the message is clear: adapt or step aside.

Science is not under attack; it’s being rescued—from itself.