MSE News: Guest Comment - Why are energy prices increasing?

magyar

bengasman wrote: »

If you distort the facts that way, you could say it is quite alright to kill someone, as long as you realise that you go to gaol if they catch you.

You've lost me there. How have I distorted the facts?

bengasman

magyar wrote: »

You've lost me there. How have I distorted the facts?

Stating that suppliers don't have to meet quotas as long as they pay a fine if they don't.

magyar

bengasman wrote: »

Stating that suppliers don't have to meet quotas as long as they pay a fine if they don't.

Oh I see! No, it's not a fine as in they've done anything wrong. It's a 'buy-out' mechanism and totally within the rules.

The way it works is that each year the supplier has to meet a certain percentage of their supply from green sources (it's currently about 11%) and so for every 100MWh of electricity they sell, they have to submit 11 ROCs.

For every ROC they don't submit, they have to pay a 'buy out' penalty. This 'buy-out' money is then distributed to people who did actually submit ROCs. It's a clever mechanism because it means the further you are away from the target, ROCs become more valuable and thus it should encourage investment.

bengasman

magyar wrote: »

Oh I see! No, it's not a fine as in they've done anything wrong. It's a 'buy-out' mechanism and totally within the rules.

Call it what you will, but anything that cost you money if you don't do it, is a fine.
It is of course within the rules because the whole carbon footprint reduction malarkey is little more than an excuse to slap taxes here, there and everywhere.
The anthropogenic climate change balloon is leaking badly and coming down; it's a load of nonsense and I'm surprised it lasted this long.

magyar

bengasman wrote: »

Call it what you will, but anything that cost you money if you don't do it, is a fine.

I'm not 'calling it' anything, it's the rules set by Ofgem. You said I was 'distorting the facts' and I have pointed out I wasn't. Do you have a relevant point here?

bengasman

magyar wrote: »

Do you have a relevant point here?

I do indeed. The whole "green" leccie business is a scam to overcharge users.

magyar

bengasman wrote: »

I do indeed. The whole "green" leccie business is a scam to overcharge users.

A scam by whom? And for what benefit?

grahamc2003

magyar wrote: »

A scam by whom? And for what benefit?

It's debatable who is responsible for the loading on our bills to pay for these 'green' inspired outgoings. Just to clarify your recent posts (since i feel you may have confused many people), most people aren't concerned too much with whether the suppliers pay more for 'green' energy, but they are concerned with whether they themselves pay extra on their bills for them, which they are doing in increasing amounts. (And your point that suppliers don't pay more is patently incorrect anyhow - as I previously pointed out, they pay over 90p/kwh for solar power).

Your second point And for what benefit? - well all i can say to that is 'Exactly'.

magyar

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It's debatable who is responsible for the loading on our bills to pay for these 'green' inspired outgoings. Just to clarify your recent posts (since i feel you may have confused many people), most people aren't concerned too much with whether the suppliers pay more for 'green' energy, but they are concerned with whether they themselves pay extra on their bills for them, which they are doing in increasing amounts. (And your point that suppliers don't pay more is patently incorrect anyhow - as I previously pointed out, they pay over 90p/kwh for solar power).

No, you're just pushing your own agenda here. I was specifically responding to posts about whether it was fair or right of utilities to charge more for green tariffs; in which case it makes perfect sense to examine whether they themselves pay more for them. And as I have pointed out in Post 60, in all cases other than small home solar, they don't.

[QUOTE=grahamc2003;45440072Your_second_point And for what benefit? - well all i can say to that is 'Exactly'.[/QUOTE]

Well, I resisted getting drawn into a debate on the veracity of anthropogenic climate change with bengasman, since that would take it way off topic and there are a million threads on it in here.

Ultimately we need to build new generation. Long-term, we can build nuclear, but we will not see those until 2025 at the earliest. Realistically we can only build gas and renewables in the 2015-2020 timescale. We're already about 45% dependent upon gas supply for our generation. Do you really want to end up 60-70% dependent upon imported gas?

bengasman

magyar wrote: »

A scam by whom? And for what benefit?

Obviously by the leccie suppliers.
For the same benefit as any other scam: ripping people off.
They were obliged by the Labour idiots to source an x amount of renewable, nothing they can do about that. So now they present it as if it is their initiative to give the customers what they want and take the opportunity to charge the gullible sods more for the stuff that they are buying any way.