Leading energy trade body, EUA, has today raised serious questions over whether billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are being spent in the most effective way, as scrutiny grows over the Government’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS).

With £2.4 billion committed to subsidising heat pumps over the next four years, Mike Foster, CEO of EUA, in his weekly blog has asked a simple but pressing question: is this really the best use of scarce public funds?

Drawing on the classic economic principle of “guns or butter”, the idea that governments must choose how to allocate limited resources, the debate has been reignited by calls to rethink spending priorities. The point is not whether heat pumps have a role, but whether subsidising installations, often for better-off households, is the right priority at this moment in time.

Mike Foster, Chief Executive of EUA, said:

“Every pound of taxpayers’ money is a choice. The question for ministers is not whether they support net zero, but whether, in the current economic and political climate, this is the best way to spend £2.4 billion. From cuts to the UK’s aid budget to meeting our defence needs, this is a huge question to be addressed.”

A Question of Priorities

Set against other potential uses, the scale of the spending becomes stark.

For example, that same £2.4 billion could:

• Provide around £133,000 for every primary school in England and Wales
• Pay school energy bills for three years or replace outdated heating systems
• Fund 20,000 additional police officers or expand early intervention programmes for hundreds of thousands of at-risk young people
• Deliver 45,000 new nurses or refurbish 1,000 hospital wards
• Upgrade insulation in up to one million homes, cutting bills by £450–£800 a year for some of the poorest households

Each option represents a different political choice—with very different outcomes for communities, public services, and the wider economy.

Targeting Support Where It Matters Most

The EUA warns that, in its current form, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme risks directing significant subsidies towards households that are already able to invest in low-carbon technologies, rather than prioritising those most in need.

At a time when many families are still struggling with energy costs, targeted investment in home insulation could deliver faster and fairer results—lowering bills, improving health outcomes, and reducing pressure on the NHS.

Mike Foster added:

“If the aim is to cut emissions and help households, there are more cost-effective ways to do it. Insulating homes properly could reduce bills immediately, improve living conditions, and ease pressure on public services—all while cutting carbon.”

Time for an Open Debate  

EUA is calling on policymakers to openly reassess how public funds are allocated across competing priorities.

This is not a binary choice between energy policy and public services—it is about ensuring every pound delivers maximum value for the public.

As the Government continues to face difficult spending decisions, EUA is urging ministers to revisit the core question:

When resources are limited, is subsidising heat pumps for a minority the right priority or should funding be directed towards solutions that deliver broader, more immediate benefits?

🔗Blog  - https://www.eua.org.uk/guns-or-butter-the-heat-pump-subsidy-comes-under-scrutiny/