ENERGY costs will hit £613 for January, and be “unaffordable for many” according to a grim new report from a well-respected think tank.

The Resolution Foundation says those on pre-payment meter will be the hardest hit as unlike other customers who pay by direct debit they are unable to spread the costs over multiple months. 

They will have to find all of the money or risk losing their power. 

The report warned that the soaring energy bills “risk causing serious physical and financial damage to families across Britain."

Ofgem is set to announce the new energy price cap tomorrow, with analysts forecasting it more than double to at least £3,600 for the average household from the start of October.

It could then top £5,000 in January, and rise above £6,000 in April.

The hike in the price will hit just as winter forces households to turn on the central heating.

The result, the foundation says, is that the cost of energy for the typical household this financial year will be £3,478, up from £1,472 last year.

"After a decade and a half long stagnation in living standards, low-to middle income Britain does not have £2,000 per household to spare," they warn.

“A catastrophe is coming this winter as soaring energy bills risk causing serious physical and financial damage to families across Britain,” said Jonny Marshall, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation.

“We are on course for thousands to see their energy cut off entirely, while millions will be unable to pay bills and (will) build up unmanageable arrears.

“The new prime minister will need to think the unthinkable in terms of the policies needed to get sufficient support to where it’s needed most.

“Significant additional support should be targeted at those most exposed to rising bills and least able to cope with them, and be watertight so that no-one falls through the cracks.

“But none of the proposals from the leadership candidates or the opposition parties currently do this.”

In a report, the foundation found that the plan by Conservative Party candidate Liz Truss to reverse national insurance rises would benefit the fifth richest households by twice as much as the poorest half.

It said her rival Rishi Sunak’s plan to push £5 billion to the poorest households would focus help closer to where it is needed.

But this approach is also risky because it does not account for the different amounts of energy that different low-income families might need. It also does not help families outside the benefit system.

If a family earned £1 too much to qualify for Universal Credit it would mean they lose out on £1,300 of support.

They also said that Labour's plan to cap energy prices at their current level, funded partly by scrapping the planned £400 household rebate, would get support to those who need it swiftly.

However, 22 per cent of gains would go to the richest 20% of households – making it a "very expensive solution."

The think tank called for the Government to introduce a new social energy tariff for low and middle income households.

This could be funded by a “solidarity tax”, which would add 1% to all income tax rates.

“An innovative social tariff could provide broader targeted support but involves huge delivery challenges, while freezing the price cap gives too much away to those least in need,” Mr Marshall said.

“This problem could be overcome with a solidary tax on high earners – an unthinkable policy in the context of the leadership debates, but a practical solution to the reality facing families this winter.”

The SNP's Shadow Chancellor Alison Thewliss said the government was "missing in action" and "too consumed by its own internal chaos to get on with the day job of protecting households."

She added: "These latest warnings of a looming catastrophe and millions of families being left out in the cold due to unmanageable bills must serve as a wake-up call for the UK government to act before more people are pushed over the brink.

"People are frightened to open their bills and are struggling to make ends meet. They need help now. Instead, the Tories are more focused on their own interests in the leadership contest than the interests of struggling households."