No.
The government stepped in because poor people (and many not so poor) could not afford to heat their homes over winter.
It is (was) an emergency measure. The transition to green energy is well under way in the UK, regardless of temporary subsidies.
Saying "but the poor" while throwing money at the rich is pretty self-contradictory IMHO. If they'd at least made cash payments, even if it was the same per household, it would at least have incentivised people not to waste energy. But no, it specifically rewarded people for increasing their consumption.
And yes, some kind of flat cash payment that advantaged poorer people would've been better. And much as I loathe the Tories, I doubt they took the route they did because they wanted to give money to the rich in this case, or even encourage electricity usage growth. Assume incompetence before malice: they needed to do something to staunch the flow, and a price cap per unit was something they could do there and then without engaging extra bureaucracy, which a cash payment would've required.
I do agree the implementation of the scheme was very poor.....
....the reasons for which are down to our current governments unfortunate mix of poor competence and fruity ideology (thank $Deity Liss Truss wasn't around for too long!)
It's a bad policy, but it's from the same government that paid people to eat out at restaurants during a viral pandemic, rather than a specific response to the war.
But is there any evidence that's been the case, that people have increased their consumption?
Anecdotally, I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't actively reduced their usage