MSE News: Anglian Water SoLow customer? It's axing the tariff meaning bill hikes

Eagalitarian

Everything put forward here to justify the removal of the tariff mentions that "small households" rather than "water efficient households" were benefitting unfairly. Can't a "small household" be "water efficient" at the same time? Surely there must be some of that category amongst the 300,000 households affected. How is it "fair" that such households should be penalised by these extortionate increases?

Cardew

Eagalitarian wrote: »

Everything put forward here to justify the removal of the tariff mentions that "small households" rather than "water efficient households" were benefitting unfairly. Can't a "small household" be "water efficient" at the same time? Surely there must be some of that category amongst the 300,000 households affected. How is it "fair" that such households should be penalised by these extortionate increases?

Conversely how is it fair that larger households, who are even more 'water efficient' per occupant than those in receipt of the SoLow tariff, to have been penalised by UW and have to pay a subsidy towards the SoLow tariff that many small households enjoyed.

Eagalitarian

Doesn't really answer the question does it? Or are you assuming that ALL larger households are more water efficient than smaller ones? Surely it would be fair if all water efficient househiolds, regardless of size, were rewarded for the parsimonious use of water in a part of the country with low rainfall? Introducing/constantly increasing a Standing Charge, hardly incentivises people to use less water.

Cardew

Eagalitarian wrote: »

Doesn't really answer the question does it? Or are you assuming that ALL larger households are more water efficient than smaller ones? Surely it would be fair if all water efficient househiolds, regardless of size, were rewarded for the parsimonious use of water in a part of the country with low rainfall? Introducing/constantly increasing a Standing Charge, hardly incentivises people to use less water.

That is exactly what happens now. On a meter everyone in AW(and every other company) is incentivised to be more water efficient as the less water used, the less you pay.


Of course I am not assuming large households are more water efficient. What I, and AW, are saying is that a large household can be more water efficient than those on a SoLow tariff yet are paying toward a subsidy for those on that SoLow tariff.

From quotes from AW.

To make sure all of our customers pay fair charges based on the actual costs to provide them the water and sewerage services they use, we are making some changes. This includes phasing out the SoLow tariff.

The lower charges for SoLow favours households with only 1 or 2 occupants, not necessarily households that are most water efficient.

However, as more and more households have switched over to meters, the water consumption data suggests that the cross subsidy for SoLow has been supporting a much broader range of customers.

Why is this Happening

In short, SoLow customers receive a subsidy on their bill and that subsidy is paid for by other customers. The subsidy amounted to every non-SoLow customer paying an £7 extra per year to fund the preferential SoLow rate.

At the time we introduced SoLow it was appropriate to provide preferential rates for customers who were switching to metering and had low consumption. All SoLow customers have benefitted from their time on the tariff as they’ve been paying less than the standard rate for their water services. However, 80% of customers now have meters and are equally water efficient as those on SoLow. Yet, only a small percentage (5%) are benefitting from the SoLow incentive.

With six million customers, we have to ensure fairness for all and hence the need to phase out SoLow.

Recent analysis of the data also showed the SoLow tariff was on average benefiting smaller households rather than water efficiency. While some people were benefitting, others were losing out despite their best efforts to use less water; larger families for instance.

The two factors combined meant that offering the preferential rate SoLow tariff was unfair to the majority of our six million customers and was no longer sustainable as a tariff.

It was a decision we put much thought and consideration into, and that’s why we have consulted with Consumer Council for Water throughout, and have been at pains to make the changes gradual.

I cannot see how any thinking person can disagree with the logic in those statements.

Eagalitarian

Why do you have to adopt such a patronising tone? I am quite sure that your fellow forum members are perfectly capable of thinking, even if those thoughts do not always align with your views.

Yes, of course I realise that my bill reflects my metered usage. Thats precisely why I asked for a meter to be installed many years ago. My point is that the SoLow customers are facing a steady rise in the standing charge although this is being partly offset by a reduction in the volumetric charge. Therefore a greater proportion of my bill will be fixed whilst a smaller proportion will relate to actual water usage.

That does not mean I intend to become profligate in water usage, I was simply pointing out that the nature of this new tariff will mean that the incentive to use less water will progressively diminish over a period of time (albeit without completely disappearing) and in my view this seems a questionable pricing policy to implement. Will it help to encourage "water efficiency"? It comes across as unsound from an environmental point of view. Similar views have been voiced elsewhere on this thread.

I'd appreciate input from anybody on this forum as to what precisely constitutes "water efficiency". It is referred to a lot, but do Anglian Water have a defintion of this?

Cardew

Eagalitarian wrote: »

Why do you have to adopt such a patronising tone? I am quite sure that your fellow forum members are perfectly capable of thinking, even if those thoughts do not always align with your views.

Yes, of course I realise that my bill reflects my metered usage. Thats precisely why I asked for a meter to be installed many years ago. My point is that the SoLow customers are facing a steady rise in the standing charge although this is being partly offset by a reduction in the volumetric charge. Therefore a greater proportion of my bill will be fixed whilst a smaller proportion will relate to actual water usage.

That does not mean I intend to become profligate in water usage, I was simply pointing out that the nature of this new tariff will mean that the incentive to use less water will progressively diminish over a period of time (albeit without completely disappearing) and in my view this seems a questionable pricing policy to implement. Will it help to encourage "water efficiency"? It comes across as unsound from an environmental point of view. Similar views have been voiced elsewhere on this thread.

I'd appreciate input from anybody on this forum as to what precisely constitutes "water efficiency". It is referred to a lot, but do Anglian Water have a defintion of this?

You might wish to look at the tone of your post#154.


IMO the generally accepted definition of water efficiency' is water consumption per occupant - the average in UK is around 50 to 55 cubic metres(m3) per person per year. Thus if a couple are using, say, 80m3 pa and 5 occupants using, say, 160m3 pa, then the latter are more water efficient.


Undoubtedly SoLow customers will be facing increased charges but as AW clearly state this is to remove the cross-subsidy they have been receiving from other AW customers; and thus all will be treated equally. Importantly the incentive to reduce their bills, by saving water, will be the same for all customers* in that a 10m3 reduction in consumption will attract the same reduction in their bill.


This is how it works for all other water companies in England and Wales.


* except those on social tariffs.

MiserlyMartin

Cardew you seem to be the only person who believes that the SoLow tariff includes a subsidy. When the price per cubic metre is so high compared to standard prices its obvious to anyone that it is not. And you aren't even an Anglian Water customer! If I were you I'd give up arguing about prices of water companies that you can't even access and concentrate on something more relevant that directly effects you personally. Go and switch your gas and electricity or something...

matelodave

I'm with AW and agree with Cardew wholeheartedly. Make everyone pay the same per cu.m for water & sewerage and then those who use less pay less.

Cardew

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Cardew you seem to be the only person who believes that the SoLow tariff includes a subsidy. ...

All the Directors and Management of Anglian Water not only believe, but KNOW, that the SoLow tariff gets a subsidy from the rest of AW customers.


Isn't it obvious that the reason SoLow customers are going to pay more is because the subsidy is going to be withdrawn and they are going to pay the same rates as all other AW customers - it ain't rocket science!


They have written this on their website and in letters to their customers. If it were not true you and all others who cannot, apparently believe what is blindingly obvious, could report AW to the Regulator and AW would get censured.


As for me 'arguing about prices of water companies that you can't even access' Have you not seen this website:


http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/household/your-account/bills-and-payments/tariffs/solow/

veryintrigued

Anyone else feeling guilty that their Gas and Electricity tariff is being 'subsidised' by other customers at the same energy supplier who are on on higher tariffs?


No me neither.....