Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Keith601
    • By Keith601 4th Dec 17, 1:31 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Keith601
    Energy Cost Proposals, A Tax on Caring Citizens.
    • #1
    • 4th Dec 17, 1:31 PM
    Energy Cost Proposals, A Tax on Caring Citizens. 4th Dec 17 at 1:31 PM
    It appears from this report in my local paper, that Ofgem are looking to possibly tax homes with Solar Panels.
    I for one, as an owner (who paid a considerable sum to have these fitted), are definitely not happy about this.

    "A PLAN to put up the energy bills of a million households who have installed solar panels has been criticised by an expert as an unacceptable tax on caring citizens.
    Green householders pay below average to!wards the upkeep of the electricity networks because they generate their own power on sunny days and use less supplied via the mains. grid. They also benefit by selling back their extra en!ergy produced. Regulator Ofgem has said the present decades-old system is unfair because on dark winter evenings the off-grid customers still have to draw as much power from the electricity networks as their neighbours who do not have solar panels.
    But Ron Fox, of Noreus Ltd in Staffordshire, said: "Conscientious people who are moving over to green energy to cut their global footprint and help save the planet are being penalised".
    With carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at the highest for 800,000 years and with the problem of limiting warming of the earth to the agreed 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, “these residents should be praised, not punished for their actions"
    At present, households pay an average of about £120 a year towards the upkeep of the electricity networks. This is levied as part of the unit rate that suppliers charge for power supplied via the mains grid, meaning that the more a household buys, the more it contributes to the grid costs. Now Ofgem wants to overhaul the way Britain's electricity networks are funded and has begun consulting on a new system that it wants in place by 2020/21.
    One of their proposals is to make all households pay a fixed fee for their grid connection, or a charge linked to the maximum capacity they draw from the network at peak times. This would probably mean that homes with Solar panels would pay more than they do now.
    Mr Fox is encouraging owners of solar panels to contact Ofgem and object to the proposals for higher bills for green householders by phoning 020 7901 7295 or emailing consumer affairs@ ofgem.gov.uk
Page 1
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 4th Dec 17, 4:07 PM
    • 27,103 Posts
    • 13,219 Thanks
    Cardew
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 4:07 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 4:07 PM
    Whilst you may have spent a considerable sum on installing solar panels solely motivated by the need to save the earth, it is disingenuous to suggest that is/was the main motivation for most people.

    But Ron Fox, of Noreus Ltd in Staffordshire, said: "Conscientious people who are moving over to green energy to cut their global footprint and help save the planet are being penalised".
    The primary reason house owners bought solar panels originally was to profit from the stupidly generous subsidies(Feed in Tariff - FIT) paid to house owners and the scores of thousand systems installed by Rent a Roof companies.

    I wonder how many people realise that early adopters are now getting over 50 pence for every kWh(unit) they generate and they don't need to export a single kWh if they can use it in the house. Moreover this huge subsidy is not paid by the Government, but by a levy on all electricity consumers. Thus, say, a retired couple in an all electric flat are paying a subsidy to house owners and venture capitalists who invested in Rent a Roof companies.

    It also an inescapable fact that the heaviest load on the National Grid is always at a time when solar generation is Zero/zilch. So properties with solar panels will be drawing the same power as other properties. Of course if those 'green householders' were really motivated by environmental concerns they could buy batteries to store their free excess energy; thus reducing the load on the grid. However, as you can see in other sections of this forum, the batteries are not yet cheap enough for a profit to be made from the investment; so environmental concerns again take second place to the profit motive.

    Personally I have no problem with the people who took advantage of an over-generous system of subsidies, but please spare us from the disingenuous nonsense that the majority are driven by the desire to be Green.
    Last edited by Cardew; 04-12-2017 at 4:10 PM.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 4th Dec 17, 4:31 PM
    • 3,264 Posts
    • 6,005 Thanks
    EachPenny
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 4:31 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 4:31 PM
    One of their proposals is to make all households pay a fixed fee for their grid connection, or a charge linked to the maximum capacity they draw from the network at peak times.
    Originally posted by Keith601
    The first of these options would appear to be likely to hit very low energy consumers disproportionately as well. So those who have invested in energy saving measures or are careful to minimise their consumption would also be disadvantaged compared to higher users.

    I also thought the idea of a standing charge was meant to loosely reflect the fixed-costs of getting supplies to people's homes.

    Surely the issue being consulted on is actually one smart metering is meant to fix? All that is needed is to introduce ToU tariffs to dissuade people from consuming in peak times.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Keith601
    • By Keith601 4th Dec 17, 6:01 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Keith601
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:01 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:01 PM
    I am not suggesting anything, but my own motivation was to try and save energy by the use of natural resources, as opposed to the environmental damaging use of Fossil fuels.
    Are you suggesting we should not be doing this?
    To my mind as a pensioner who expects to use more electricity for heating/lighting etc, producing our own energy seems a reasonable solution, but to be penalised for it?
    It begs the question, “who in society will have to pay more”
    • molerat
    • By molerat 4th Dec 17, 6:48 PM
    • 17,469 Posts
    • 11,694 Thanks
    molerat
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:48 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:48 PM
    I am not suggesting anything, but my own motivation was to try and save energy by the use of natural resources, as opposed to the environmental damaging use of Fossil fuels.
    Are you suggesting we should not be doing this?
    To my mind as a pensioner who expects to use more electricity for heating/lighting etc, producing our own energy seems a reasonable solution, but to be penalised for it?
    It begs the question, “who in society will have to pay more”
    Originally posted by Keith601
    Very commendable that you produce energy to both save the planet and reduce your bills .......... but why should I be paying you to do it ?
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 4th Dec 17, 7:12 PM
    • 27,103 Posts
    • 13,219 Thanks
    Cardew
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 7:12 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 7:12 PM
    I am not suggesting anything, but my own motivation was to try and save energy by the use of natural resources, as opposed to the environmental damaging use of Fossil fuels.
    Are you suggesting we should not be doing this?
    To my mind as a pensioner who expects to use more electricity for heating/lighting etc, producing our own energy seems a reasonable solution, but to be penalised for it?
    It begs the question, “who in society will have to pay more”
    Originally posted by Keith601
    I specifically excluded you in the first sentence of my other post. Perhaps you don't get FIT subsidy??

    However in the title of this thread you have included the term 'caring people' which implies solar panel owners are motivated by Green aspect rather than a profitable scheme.

    There were not many people who installed Solar panels, which were available for years with a modest subsidy prior to 2010. It was the introduction of the overly generous FIT scheme which caused an explosion of 'caring people' keen to cash in on the available subsidy.

    Noreus Energy sell solar systems and understandably their prime sales pitch is the money saving aspects of their various installations. Their concern, again understandably, is that the proposed legislation could damage sales. However in the letter you quoted, this paragraph stands out:

    Conscientious people who are moving over to green energy to cut their global footprint and help save the planet are being penalised".
    Nobody can blame people with a vested interest attempting a pre-emptive strike to ensure their profits are not reduced. However the emphasis on caring/conscientious owners out to save the planet, rather than make a profit, is laughable.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

350Posts Today

2,714Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I realised I forgot in my links earlier. 1. Help to Buy ISAs, how they work and best buys...? https://t.co/BSCNPeqiVF

  • RT @whatdawndid: Thanks to uncle @MartinSLewis I just received £200 back, just like that from the student loan company! Turns out that the?

  • RT @LaraLewington: Shocked and saddened by Cheggers news. Working with him on It?s A Knockout was my 1st job in telly when I was just 19. H?

  • Follow Martin