David Cameron & energy prices

coastline

If we've got 6 main suppliers...with standard tariff...fixed term deal...and an economy/nighttime deal...then thats enough for the customer to be chewing on..there'd still be competition..

pqrdef

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Time, I think, for Channel 4 Dispatches (or similar) to stick hidden cameras on the walls of these Millbank Muppets and watch them sitting there painting their nails, watering their expensive pot plants, while writing huge cheques to their 'board of directors' to come in and have lunch every quarter. What else (if anything) are they doing?

They're existing, because their existence was necessary to make privatisation palatable. But they seem to have been shorn of their powers.

I notice the DfT was to blame for the West Coast cockup. Didn't the rail regulator used to sell the franchises? (Not hugely successfully)

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

basically sensible people who always make sure they are on the best tarriffs will get screwed as the prices are just all increased to the standard tarriff.

If we all benefit overall then I wouldn't be that bothered. You could cut out tiers of administration and waste (dealing with all the swapping, tariff creation, etc) within the companies reducing prices further.

Even if you continually swap you are still on the same escalator just one or two treads behind.

grizzly1911

coastline wrote: »

If we've got 6 main suppliers...with standard tariff...fixed term deal...and an economy/nighttime deal...then thats enough for the customer to be chewing on..there'd still be competition..

I agree but then they would want to layer up the different payment options for all plus prepayment and disadvantaged tariffs. Then there would be standing charge/no standing charge. Standing charge per day even throughout the year or against annual utilisation.

I personally don't see why you should be penalised for quarterly payment on bill providing it is paid on time either. Fair enough if you miss the payment deadline then there should be a penalty fee.

I do think they should all have to quote on standard bill formula with an equivalent basic charge per therm so you could easily compare offerings. A bit like supermarkets when they give a price per 100g for instance. Split billing for any commodity really gets my goat, same goes for telephones.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If we all benefit overall then I wouldn't be that bothered. You could cut out tiers of administration and waste (dealing with all the swapping, tariff creation, etc) within the companies reducing prices further.

Even if you continually swap you are still on the same escalator just one or two treads behind.

i'm not sure how we would "all benefit" from a situation where everyone gets moved to the highest tarriff. i can see how shareholders would benefit.

switching about between providers of a product is what a consumer has to do within a competitive marketplace and it is hardly unique to utilities.

perhaps we should just tell tescos and sainsbury's what they have to charge for a tin of tomatoes and remove all of the different brands - all cans to look the same so poor old consumers aren't all confused. when tescos says he wants to put tomatoes in a different can and sell them for 10p less to attract price savvy consumers, tell him he can't because it would confuse all the others.

everybody benefits!

thor

CLAPTON wrote: »

We do, of course need 'surplus' capacity to cater for outages but with wind power we need 100% of its capacity as backup as the wind over the whole of the Uk doesn't always blow.

I can see this problem being solved in the near future with the new research going into storing energy by liquefying air. When this happens all the wind power naysayers will not have a leg to stand on.

robmatic

CLAPTON wrote: »

We do, of course need 'surplus' capacity to cater for outages but with wind power we need 100% of its capacity as backup as the wind over the whole of the Uk doesn't always blow.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that wind power should be our primary source of electricity.

CLAPTON

thor wrote: »

I can see this problem being solved in the near future with the new research going into storing energy by liquefying air. When this happens all the wind power naysayers will not have a leg to stand on.

I hope the liquefying air process proves feasible althought the fact that loads of big companies aren't queueing up to use it is a little worrying.

When and if the technology and the price is right, then that's the time to put the technology into production.

At the moment we are all paying large sums of money to subsidise mainly foreign companies to produce useless power at times we don't need.

CLAPTON

robmatic wrote: »

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that wind power should be our primary source of electricity.

I believe our 'legally binding obligation' is to product 80% of our power by renewable sources by 2040 (need to check the date).

At the moment we are spending huge sums on wind power that requires 100% backup from other power sources.

sheffield_lad

Yes they have messed this one up a tad but some weird arguments have popped up in doing so, First of all the moaning that there are only 6 big firms? I never hear arguments that there are 5 main supermarkets where 99% shop? Or 6 Main broadcasters for tv? or 4 major mobile phone providers.

Everyone can't be on the lowest tariff or there would not be a low tariff.

The one issue I have with online comparison sites is the commission taken from the utilities. Just turn a tv on and not see an ad is amazing think of the money spent yet all people like Martin Leiws need to say is call your own provider and go on their online tariff.