Big Six collapse? Ofgem puts advisers on standby

Ultrasonic

Gerry1 said:

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

That's one of the reasons why there's been such a push to install smart meters.

I think that's potentially more to do with when energy is being used but I absolutely support the use of smart meters as a tool to try and make better use of a finite use.

I also strongly disagree with those who always seem to assume that the introduction of smart meters is just some sort of evil plot to enable energy companies to make more money. 

Gerry1

Ultrasonic said:

Gerry1 said:

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

That's one of the reasons why there's been such a push to install smart meters.

I also strongly disagree with those who always seem to assume that the introduction of smart meters is just some sort of evil plot to enable energy companies to make more money. 

I haven't said that.

Ultrasonic

Gerry1 said:

Ultrasonic said:

Gerry1 said:

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

That's one of the reasons why there's been such a push to install smart meters.

I also strongly disagree with those who always seem to assume that the introduction of smart meters is just some sort of evil plot to enable energy companies to make more money. 

I haven't said that.

I didn't say, or even suggest, that you had  .

zagfles

Verdigris said:

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

I've been banging on about pricing energy in this way for some time. It seems unfair that heavy users pay less per kWh, than somebody struggling on benefits, because the daily charge is effectively diluted. A certain amount of "social energy", that provides a basic level of comfort should be available to all, at a price that can be paid for at prevailing benefit rates. Anything above the should get increasingly more expensive per kWh, on a "polluter pays" basis.

As you say, it will be fiendishly complicated. People with he least money tend to be in rented accommodation, so I think a tightening of the EPC requirements for rentals should be implemented, perhaps in stages. I think a property has to have an EPC of E or above to be lettable at the moment. That needs to go up a letter every 5 years, say, with perhaps some incentive for landlords if the jump faster.

Here endeth the pipe dream.

Yup, won't happen. It would turn into another "bedroom tax". There'd be sob stories in the media about a single parent with a disabled child with a medical condition that requires high room temperatures or extra space being faced with high bills, and even if they put in exemptions for this sort of thing it'll be horrendously complicated and inevitably a few will slip through the net, and journalists will seek them out, and opposition politicians will take full advantage and up their insult level...

Liku

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

As long as it includes things like increased use to due health conditions/disabilities, I agree. Perhaps anyone with a disability/health condition wouldn't be subject to it if the use was higher due to it. If the 'normal' use was set too high it'd only hit those that mine crypto or grow certain things!

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

Verdigris said:

Ultrasonic said:

I wonder if a tiered energy pricing might be a good longer term solution, where some sort of agreed minimum energy amount was cheaper (intended to cover minimum heating, hot water, lighting etc) but then use above this was significantly more expensive (intended to what could be viewed as more discretionary use). I can see that any such system would be very complicated and controversial, and would need to in some way account for property size and number of occupants. Just musing...

I've been banging on about pricing energy in this way for some time. It seems unfair that heavy users pay less per kWh, than somebody struggling on benefits, because the daily charge is effectively diluted. A certain amount of "social energy", that provides a basic level of comfort should be available to all, at a price that can be paid for at prevailing benefit rates. Anything above the should get increasingly more expensive per kWh, on a "polluter pays" basis.

As you say, it will be fiendishly complicated. People with he least money tend to be in rented accommodation, so I think a tightening of the EPC requirements for rentals should be implemented, perhaps in stages. I think a property has to have an EPC of E or above to be lettable at the moment. That needs to go up a letter every 5 years, say, with perhaps some incentive for landlords if the jump faster.

Here endeth the pipe dream.

Yup, won't happen. It would turn into another "bedroom tax". There'd be sob stories in the media about a single parent with a disabled child with a medical condition that requires high room temperatures or extra space being faced with high bills, and even if they put in exemptions for this sort of thing it'll be horrendously complicated and inevitably a few will slip through the net, and journalists will seek them out, and opposition politicians will take full advantage and up their insult level...

Agreed. The cost of administration would outweigh the benefits of any tiered charging scheme. ‘Taxing’ the rich to support the poor can also have unintended consequences. 

DiseasedBunny

grandadgolfer said:

oliverbrown said:

I wonder how electric-only households afford to heat their homes. If I converted my gas usage to electric my bills would be astronomical. 

But you'd be green.....Greta & friends would be happy never mind that your bill would have gone through the roof

Unfortunately she wouldn’t, she won’t be happy till we’re back in the stone ages - though she can fly to all these conferences to lecture us mortals of course

QrizB

Gerry1 said:

Seems that Parliament was seriously misled when several Secretaries of State said that no-one would be forced to have a smart meter.

It's a general principle that no Government can bind the hands of the next, and that Parliament can make and un-make laws as it feels fit. If Parliament was that bothered about compulsory smart meters they could have written it into the law (which, nevertheless, could have been changed subsequently).

But, after the Parliamentary to-ings and fro-ings of the past few years, most people who are paying attention should know this already?

Shedman

Article in the FT yesterday suggesting that even if a cold winter this level of high gas prices won't continue and that there could well be a sharp correction 🙏.

Surging gas prices likely to reverse course

 https://www.ft.com/content/f2ca6690-0390-4374-a9d5-29caf2d651dd

merchcon55

Very interesting read - thanks for posting