Energy bill - To increase energy bills

Graham_Devon

Interests me this one, following on from my flooding insurance thread.

Up to £100 a year will be added on to our energy bill to pay for the governments green energy reform.

Big business however, who are energy intensive, may well be exempt from paying the higher charges. Not small business though, they can go do something nice to themselves.

Apparently the biggest change to the industry since privatisation. Great.

Think the coalition have messed up here on this one to be honest. I know it's got to be paid for, but to go on and possibly exclude the big companies from paying for it is just a little too tory stereotypical. It's just uncalled for to put an exemption in, and shows just who pulls the strings.

For once, labour have soemthing real to jump on. (and have, obviously!). Giving a free ticket to make a mockery of the coalition, to Caroline Flint of all people....just a shambles, though oddly, she agrees big business should be exempt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20539981

sheffield_lad

Big business should be exempt they all have this right in my view. We are in a global market and need to encourage firms to invest and stay put. We are already losing out to ROI over commercial tax rates do we really want to increase costs when the jobs are needed here?

dori2o

howee wrote: »

Big business should be exempt they all have this right in my view. We are in a global market and need to encourage firms to invest and stay put. We are already losing out to ROI over commercial tax rates do we really want to increase costs when the jobs are needed here?

How fair is it to increase the cost of homeowners energy to fund the Governments project, especially when this will affect the those with the lowest incomes, especially those incomes which are fixed.

How many more increases in the price of energy can people simply accept.

We pay £130 a month for Gas and Elec in a 2 up 2 down Terraced. We have an A rated Combi boiler, we have cavity wall and loft insulation, e have A rated double Glazed windows, we only have on the items we need on. we only have 1 or 2 lights on at a time, we use the CH very little (2 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night).

There's not much more we can do to reduce our consumption.

It will reach a point where we will simply no longer be able to afford to pay more, and thats when they energy company will get told, thats all we have, you're getting no more.

If anyone should be paying for the Governments green energy schemes it is big business, not the little consumer. They've been squeezed enough, there's nothing more to give.

Wookster

If the increases actually led to an increase in energy security or making homes more energy efficient than they currently are then it would be reasonable.

However, in true government style, money is being spent on energy sources with low efficiency & reliability such as wind-farms.

Where additional spending should go is on really good sources such as tidal (i.e. Severn barrage), more nuclear power stations, building a more robust grid, making existing homes more energy efficient, opening up fracking.

We are being let down wholly by our dear leaders... again.

grizzly1911

dori2o wrote: »

How fair is it to increase the cost of homeowners energy to fund the Governments project, especially when this will affect the those with the lowest incomes, especially those incomes which are fixed.

How many more increases in the price of energy can people simply accept.

We pay £130 a month for Gas and Elec in a 2 up 2 down Terraced. We have an A rated Combi boiler, we have cavity wall and loft insulation, e have A rated double Glazed windows, we only have on the items we need on. we only have 1 or 2 lights on at a time, we use the CH very little (2 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night).

There's not much more we can do to reduce our consumption.

It will reach a point where we will simply no longer be able to afford to pay more, and thats when they energy company will get told, thats all we have, you're getting no more.

If anyone should be paying for the Governments green energy schemes it is big business, not the little consumer. They've been squeezed enough, there's nothing more to give.

Interestingly Davey is still banging on about insulating lofts and walls.

Many savvy people have already done just that and more and are still being hit.

As wookie says we need to concentrate our resources on volume, resilient, efficient generation than inefficient, dispersed, unreliable and expensive sticking plasters.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Interests me this one, following on from my flooding insurance thread.

Up to £100 a year will be added on to our energy bill to pay for the governments green energy reform.

Big business however, who are energy intensive, may well be exempt from paying the higher charges. Not small business though, they can go do something nice to themselves.

Apparently the biggest change to the industry since privatisation. Great.

Think the coalition have messed up here on this one to be honest. I know it's got to be paid for, but to go on and possibly exclude the big companies from paying for it is just a little too tory stereotypical. It's just uncalled for to put an exemption in, and shows just who pulls the strings.

For once, labour have soemthing real to jump on. (and have, obviously!). Giving a free ticket to make a mockery of the coalition, to Caroline Flint of all people....just a shambles, though oddly, she agrees big business should be exempt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20539981

My reading is that they are not proposing an exemption for all big business, but an exemption for specific high energy use industrial businesses like steel producers for whom increased costs might be a tipping point. It's not like a bunch of bankers in canary wharf will be leaving the lights on all night and laughing at 'hard working families'. It does seem sensible to make provisions to ensure that particular businesses which are prone to relocate overseas, especially those in areas with already low employment, are not incentivised to migrate elsewhere.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

My reading is that they are not proposing an exemption for all big business, but an exemption for specific high energy use industrial businesses like steel producers for whom increased costs might be a tipping point. It's not like a bunch of bankers in canary wharf will be leaving the lights on all night and laughing at 'hard working families'. It does seem sensible to make provisions to ensure that particular businesses which are prone to relocate overseas, especially those in areas with already low employment, are not incentivised to migrate elsewhere.

I agree, the need to support vulnerable business but is loading the fuel price for all domestic consumers the right way to do it?

In effect it is another form of regressive stealth taxation that will lead more disadvantaged people into greater fuel poverty, which a decreasing number of "affluent" will also have to subsidise, through loadings to tariffs.

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I agree, the need to support vulnerable business but is loading the fuel price for all domestic consumers the right way to do it?

In effect it is another form of regressive stealth taxation that will lead more disadvantaged people into greater fuel poverty, which a decreasing number of "affluent" will also have to subsidise, through loadings to tariffs.

It's only the equivalent of having enterprise zones where businesses in the zone pay less tax. Everyone else pays more tax to fund that. What's the alternative? The cost has to be met - you can call it a different tax but the same people will end up paying. If the result of no tax break is thousands of job losses then we'll all still pay - some of us with our jobs and others in increased taxation to fund the resulting welfare bill.

I would prefer it if we stopped building wind farms and built nuclear power stations instead but I doubt the "greenest government ever" agrees.

vivatifosi

dori2o wrote: »

How many more increases in the price of energy can people simply accept.

We pay £130 a month for Gas and Elec in a 2 up 2 down Terraced. We have an A rated Combi boiler, we have cavity wall and loft insulation, e have A rated double Glazed windows, we only have on the items we need on. we only have 1 or 2 lights on at a time, we use the CH very little (2 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night).

A bit off topic (apologies) but we pay £95 per month to heat and light a 3 bed semi which is all electric (modern storage heaters) and doesn't yet have cavity wall insulation. You probably can't get yours much cheaper but I thought I'd chuck that in as by rights mine should be higher and it could be a useful comparison.

I agree with the other tenet of your post - there's only so far you can push people and the areas where prices are going up - food, energy, transport - are ones that are price inelastic and hurt everyone.

posh*spice

Wookster wrote: »

Where additional spending should go is on really good sources such as tidal (i.e. Severn barrage), more nuclear power stations, building a more robust grid, making existing homes more energy efficient, opening up fracking.

We are being let down wholly by our dear leaders... again.

I don't want more nuclear power or fracking....The German's don't feel they need nuclear power I'm not sure why we do?

posh*spice

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree with the other tenet of your post - there's only so far you can push people and the areas where prices are going up - food, energy, transport - are ones that are price inelastic and hurt everyone.

We've run out of cheap gas from the North Sea and we've now entered an era of expensive enegy - what are you proposing energy companies do? Run at a loss and let the tax payer pick up the bill that way?