Its claw back time - they are reneging on the deal!

Martyn1981

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

Of course, you are correct. By using a water butt you are using less metered water and although you pay fixed charge this may not provide fully for the fixed costs of water production and distribution. People who contrive to use less water really ought to be punished by a special charge.

And if you grow your own veg, you have to pay a fee to enter Tesco's or Asda!

If standing charges are fair, then what's the problem.

If we want cleaner leccy, then what's the problem?

Unlike other products, energy causes more problems and costs as demand goes up, so high users should pay more, and low users should be rewarded. Sometimes folk forget that the purpose behind 'all of this' is CO2 reduction.

Demand side generation reduces the amount of grid side generation, that means less demand from the most expensive source (the NG asks for more supply as demand rises, they naturally ask for the cheapest first and most expensive last), so all demand side generation helps to reduce the annual average wholesale price, this saves everyone money - if reduced use is a cost, then the benefits need to be considered too, for a fair, contextualized and balanced argument .... as always.

As battery storage on the demand side starts to roll out, all leccy consumers will see the benefits as the peak demand and peak priced leccy gets pushed off the grid. And, of course, for 6 months of the year, PV and PV'ers do this anyway. My system generates up until 6pm to 9pm during the BST months.

ard123en

They also mentioned charging car at peak times how will they know I'm charging the BMW or cooking a Sunday roast the draw is about the same.

Unless I was on economy 7 why would I charge it at night when it can be assisted by my solar during the day

So double hit electronic car and solar for me. Will have to start running my 2.7 Hyundai coupe more push out some co2

Btw I'm on the low 4.5p fit so well screwed if if happens

silverwhistle

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

However, I am sure that whatever method ofgem uses to claw back some of these profits they will make a complete balls up of it by making it overly complicated.

Well, if this did go ahead you can be sure of that! It would smack of regulator capture and be a completely political decision.

It would hit those on low FITs or with just a small installation. Might it affect councils and social housing too, if payment is on an installation basis and not kWp?

Martyn mentioned standing charges which one would presume covers the costs they are talking about? I, and a few others on here I suspect, have an interesting perspective on this as we are on zero standing charges. It only makes sense if you are a very low user as the unit rates are eye-watering, but with my gas for example, almost all annual standing charges are more than my actual annual bill.

If they don't choose to penalise other low users, as others here have pointed out, how can they justify penalising people who have made an investment in infrastructure? Unless people like ard123en on the low FIT use most of their production themselves they could even be worse off.

I've mentioned before that I have a decent wodge of (ex-employee) SSE shares, and the returns have been good. For a safe utility the margins are good, and perhaps I should be thanking OFGEM, but I'm afraid equity and common-sense overrides personal self-interest.

ard123en

Building of my DIY Powerwall has definitely been given more focus that's for sure.