You can read the entire thing here, but this piece in the Telegraph summarizes what was left out — the cost:

Householders face a £300-a-year rise in their gas and electricity bills and significant cuts in how much energy they use if Britain is to “keep the lights on” and meet its climate change targets, the Government has said.
In the Coalition’s first annual energy statement to the Commons, Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, outlined plans to transform Britain’s power system and cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent within the next 40 years. He announced 32 separate measures, from the use of smart meters in all homes to a major expansion of renewable energy sources, including a new generation of nuclear power stations and up to 44,000 wind turbines.
However, Mr Huhne’s department admitted that such policies could increase the price of electricity by up to a third and gas by up to a fifth. This would make the average family’s annual energy bill of £1,100, £300 more expensive.
To offset this, the Energy Secretary said people would have to make “ambitious” cuts in their own consumption and improve the energy efficiency of their homes, including installing energy generators such as solar panels.
Effectively it means people will have to pay more for their energy, but use less of it.

The addition of nuclear power is important, but the editors of the Telegraph don’t think the UK government is going far enough. An excerpt from their July 25 editorial:

Mr Huhne has admitted that the existing plans for “new nuclear” set in motion by Labour will probably go ahead, although he explicitly rejects any suggestion of public subsidy. Yet by making nuclear power the poor relation among potential energy sources, Mr Huhne is making a strategic error. Although the exploitation of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power is undoubtedly sensible, Britain will imminently require substantial and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, and there is little chance that renewables can deliver the assured quantity of energy in the necessary time-frame.
In the years to come, we will need both renewable and nuclear energy, but also honest thinking and straight talking about how they work in concord. Judging by what Mr Huhne says today, the necessary elements of a long-term strategy may be in place – but the correct emphasis is not.

More to come, I’m sure.