We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Which.co.uk - help Which tackle energy tariffs campaign
Support Which in its crusade to Ofgem
"Energy tariffs are confusing and unfair. They're so complicated that customers can't work out if they're paying the right amount for their energy, and tiered rates mean that those who use less energy are actually paying more per unit.
By forcing energy companies to introduce a new simpler tariff we can make them fairer and help all energy customers get a better energy deal"
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/tackle-tariffs/tackle-tariffs---email-ofgem/
"Energy tariffs are confusing and unfair. They're so complicated that customers can't work out if they're paying the right amount for their energy, and tiered rates mean that those who use less energy are actually paying more per unit.
By forcing energy companies to introduce a new simpler tariff we can make them fairer and help all energy customers get a better energy deal"
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/tackle-tariffs/tackle-tariffs---email-ofgem/
SO... now England its the Scots turn to say dont leave the UK, stay in Europe with us in the UK, dont let the tories fool you like they did us with empty lies... You will be leaving the UK aswell as Europe 
0
Comments
-
Sorry, I for one cannot support that campaign which I believe is fundamentally flawed.
...The Which? tariff would have two charges:- A daily standing charge, ...
- A cost per unit for your energy, ...
That's exactly what it would do.
It's going back to the pre-open market days, when everyone was charged that way. It penalised the low users. I know it's selfish, but if I don't uses any energy I don't want to pay anything for it. A standing charge does not allow that.
On a straight comparison of comparable tariffs (where a supplier offers the choice of SC or NSC on the otherwise same basis) in >99% of the cases you will never lose out by choosing what Which calls the expensive primary unit (NSC) basis.
At the other extreme, the complicated tariffs allow those who can be bothered to consult a comparison site to get a really good deal with a discount for this and a discount for that and lower prices for the other. This crusade seems to be wanting to do away with that too.
Sorry, as a MSE veteran, that is a lose-lose for me whichever end of the spectrum I happen to be.
But if anyone does want this type of billing, then I think the co-op for one offers it.
Also check the suppliers standard tariffs; if they offer NSC standard tariff options then that is probably what you want.
If anyone wants it any simpler, then take a look at ebico who simply charge a flat unit rate no matter how much or little you use, and no standing charge.
Now if someone wishes to start a campaign to get rid of service/standing charges for telephones and just allow me to be charged the cost of making calls, I'd be be happy to support that
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
A very good initiative. All those discounts and complicated structures are only there to confuse the consumer. It's very simple: if there is no technical or administrative reason for the company to offer the "discount", it is a gimmick to confuse you.
A typical example is when companies started to offer the " no standing charge " option. If you are a very low user e.g. on a small gas hob, you are quids in. The other 99% are just being conned in believing they got a great deal.0 -
I argue that the standing charge or first unit rate is ridiculous from several perspectives. (they are the same, unless you use a _very_ low amount per year)
Firstly, it penalises, not rewards low users.
Secondly, any energy savings by low users are proportionately much more expensive.
Thirdly, it's effectively a tax paid more for by the poor.
If the per-unit expensive units were per-day, so you could avoid them on days you don't use that much electricity, that might be an argument in their favour, but no(?) company implements them like this.
All tariffs should be replaced by a single per-unit cost, and nothing else. (for the first meter into each residence)0 -
Oh please, what's next, power to the workers?rogerblack wrote: »... it's effectively a tax paid more for by the poor...
It is a reasonable charge for a necessary service, and doesn't even remotely resemble a tax.
Your standing charges pay for the free 24/7/365 emergency service, and the upkeep of the distribution network including your meter.
Those charges stand, regardless whether you use 1 kWhr per minute or per year, and cost the same per household irrespective of the use. That is why they are called "standing charges" and originally were the same for every one.0 -
If you don't use any energy then you wont pay for it, thats why meters exist. However by keeping a connection to the network, it is there for when you do need it and you pay for that facility.I know it's selfish, but if I don't uses any energy I don't want to pay anything for it. A standing charge does not allow that.
The standing charge isn't anything to do with energy usage or even the cost related in generating the energy, the Standing charge covers the original cost of building, and the continued running and maintainance of the network which brings electricity into your home. Like any business there are fixed costs in relation to running and maintaining the infrastructure which 'transports' the services or goods provided. Not to mention paying the wages of those, who at 3AM on December morning, are working around the clock on lines in snow and ice in order to restore supplies to you during bad weather power outages. Then there is the cost of reading meters and safety checking them every 2 years. These are all additional costs, which go beyond the cost of actually generating the actual energy which is registered by the meter, and these additional costs have to come from somewhere.
As I can see, low users use exactly the same national grid network to supply energy as everybody else, and demand the same level of service and speedy reconnection after bad weather outages as everybody else and so the cost of maintaining that connection to their home and retaining them as a customer is the same. Why should the 'standing charge' be any different?.
I'm sure that low users would be the first to complain if there were two networks, one for low users and one for everyday users, and their neighbours got power restored several hours before they did, during a local power outage. Be careful what you wish for.
Then about those benefitting from feed in tariffs? they are using the same network as a two way street, and are profiting from using the network to feed back in the solar energy they generate and are making money from doing it. The rest of us only use the network for consumption and not for profit, shouldn't they be paying a higher standing charge on this basis?
Its no different to BT charging its customers for line rental, which for most low users who only use their lines for internet, emergency and incoming calls etc, the line rental can be 10 times the cost of the actual dialled calls. Just as 'unfair' surely? Yet that point rarely gets a mention."Dont expect anybody else to support you, maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when each one, might run out" - Mary Schmich0 -
Its no different to BT charging its customers for line rental, which for most low users who only use their lines for internet, emergency and incoming calls etc, the line rental can be 10 times the cost of the actual dialled calls. Just as 'unfair' surely? Yet that point rarely gets a mention.
The government is not however committed to reducing the amount of time people spend on the phone, with incentives going to people who use walkie-talkies.0 -
If you don't use any energy then you wont pay for it, thats why meters exist. However by keeping a connection to the network, it is there for when you do need it and you pay for that facility...
But I don't want to, and why should I? (As I said I'm selfish in this respect)
When I fill my car with LPG I pay for the LPG. I don't pay a standing charge to have that LPG transported, nor a standing charge to keep the pump maintained, nor a standing charge for the pleasure of being able to go to the pump whenever I wish to draw fuel.
I have a PAYG mobile. If I use it to make calls, I pay for those calls. If I don't use it, I pay nothing. It remains connected to the network and available to use, but until I use the service, I don't pay, and when I use it I pay for what I use and nothing else. (but obviously well aware the cost includes a proportion that covers the infrastructure costs)
Why's it any different for gas & electric? I'm willing to pay for what I use. If I use nothing I don't wish to pay anything. How simple and fair is that?
I appreciate that that means if I use nothing, then someone else is paying the infrastructure costs, but that is how business runs (and you can call me selfish in that respect). I'm in business; I spend much of my time and effort preparing quotations for customers. That costs me money. I don't charge the customer money for that (directly), it's a hidden overhead in the bill if they eventually decide to buy from me. If they don't buy, then other customers who do buy from me carry the cost.
Take a look again at my previous post...Its no different to BT charging its customers for line rental, which for most low users who only use their lines for internet, emergency and incoming calls etc, the line rental can be 10 times the cost of the actual dialled calls. Just as 'unfair' surely? Yet that point rarely gets a mention. "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
So, if you clearly dont like or agree with the terms of the connection / network you are connected to, why not excercise the freedom of choice and disconnect from it and seek out alternatives?.But I don't want to, and why should I? (As I said I'm selfish in this respect)
There was a forum somewhere with discussions in relation to many people actively living 'off the grid'. If you are interested i'll search through my bookmarks and see if I can find it, its quite an interesting read even if you aren't seriously actively seeking to join them.
Actually the consumer will pay all of these costs, but its added to the cost of the sale of the actual fuel in the forecourt retailer's mark up, which isn't a lot different in principle to the higher cost of the first 'xx' number of units which cover the standing charge in energy use. The LPG retailer also isn't coming out to your house to fill your tank for you, and to occasionally read your fuel gauge in your car and sending you a bill for your usage, nor is he safety testing your car every two years.I don't pay a standing charge to have that LPG transported, nor a standing charge to keep the pump maintained, nor a standing charge for the pleasure of being able to go to the pump whenever I wish to draw fuel.
That 'per litre' mark up added to the retailers LPG price to cover his running costs also remains the same for both low and high LPG consuming customers, just the same as low and high energy users pay the same standing charge for their energy connection. After all if you are a low consumer of LPG / petrol / diesel etc, you dont get a discount off the price of the actual fuel as a reward, just because you are a low user.
Personally, although I dont agree with the ever increasing prices levied by energy suppliers, I do believe that compared to some parts of the world, I think we have an enviable, and reliable energy network infrastructure in place. Some countries have regular and long term black outs, unstable supplies and highly variable voltages. Others limit each household to 15A or 20A of maximum energy consumption, compared to the 60A / 80A / 100A supplies which most households have in the UK. If creating and maintaining such a network costs each household an average of around £27 per year (using my parent's Electricity bill difference between the first 728 KW/H's and subsequent KW/H's as an example) to create and run this network then I would say it still represents good value for money.
The Government has incentives?. If it wants to promote saving energy and for everyday folk to use less, maybe it needs to start with local councils. Ours has a 3ft statue in the park lit up with a dedicated 250W SON Floodlight on a dawn-dusk sensor all night. In a world which is supposedly approaching an energy crisis, and a Government dedicated to cutting energy usage can anybody explain the growing fad in lighting public buildings, statues and even TREE's with batteries of high wattage lamps?. I guess these examples prove that the 'incentives to saving energy' don't extend to those unmetered amenity supplies owned by Councils, eh?The government is not however committed to reducing the amount of time people spend on the phone, with incentives going to people who use walkie-talkies.
What about the local deserted town hall with its 'great hall' illuminated with rows of 10 Arm chandeliers burning traditional filament lamps all night, Is this all leading by example?"Dont expect anybody else to support you, maybe you have a trust fund, maybe you have a wealthy spouse, but you never know when each one, might run out" - Mary Schmich0 -
rogerblack wrote: »I argue that the standing charge or first unit rate is ridiculous from several perspectives. (they are the same, unless you use a _very_ low amount per year)
Firstly, it penalises, not rewards low users.
Secondly, any energy savings by low users are proportionately much more expensive.
Thirdly, it's effectively a tax paid more for by the poor.
If the per-unit expensive units were per-day, so you could avoid them on days you don't use that much electricity, that might be an argument in their favour, but no(?) company implements them like this.
All tariffs should be replaced by a single per-unit cost, and nothing else. (for the first meter into each residence)
Yes, low users would have too pay a s/charge if Which had their way. However, they also wouldn;t have to pay more per unit for the first x number of units used each quarter. Swings and roundabouts.
I support the idea - why should utility companies overcomplicate things? It just makes things more inefficient all round - billing errors are bound to occur and ewhen they do, they are more difficult for the utilty providers to solve when their tariffs are over-complex. In addition, to the fact that it is blinding people with science, and thus allows suppliers to get away with dodgy practices (eg: NPower's sculpted billing system for gas).
A compex system just means suppliers can offer a really cheap tarriff under-cutting the competition, whilst at the same time charging really high pricess on their standard tariff (which most of their customers will be on). They can then treat the competitive tariff they offer as a loss-leader.
If everyone went onto the cheap tariff, then the supplier would just increase the price per unit considerably in future. I fail to se ehow that is to the benefit of anyone.0 -
Oh please, what's next, power to the workers?
It is a reasonable charge for a necessary service, and doesn't even remotely resemble a tax.
Your standing charges pay for the free 24/7/365 emergency service, and the upkeep of the distribution network including your meter.
Those charges stand, regardless whether you use 1 kWhr per minute or per year, and cost the same per household irrespective of the use. That is why they are called "standing charges" and originally were the same for every one.
Plenty of poor people are heavy users of power as they are at home for much of the day and/or have families. So Rogerblack's argument about not charging s/charge benefiting poor people does not stand up anyway0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 245.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards