Energy news in general

debitcardmayhem

Chris_b2z said:

arnoldy said:

Reward the ordinary grafter not make them pay for all the hangers on.

Perhaps OFGEM expects the ordinary grafter to invest in energy companies. Centrica alone made nearly £2bn profit just in the first 6 months of this year and handed out generous dividends to their shareholders. The value of Centrica shares have increased 133% over the past year.

Yes but their shares are only 10% up over five years, and the generous dividend is about a 1/4 of what they paid 5 years. Oh and Centrica are not just about British Gas, they make profits from several countries. 

spot1034

So generous are they with their dividends that they stopped paying them altogether for three years - and that is a decision a company like Centrica will not have taken without very good reason. 

ArbitraryRandom

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

2. We are concerned that smart meters are not achieving the consumer benefits they are supposed to and are benefitting certain, often wealthier, consumers more than others.

Smart meters benefit anyone who uses them to minimise their energy consumption, or chooses to take advantage of ToU tariffs etc. I do not really see that as benefitting wealthier consumers, so much as benefitting those who choose to make the most of ToU tariffs. 

The issue with these things is always around indirect discrimination and perverse incentives - generally speaking people who have more disposable income have the ability to maximise their benefit - because their income simply means they have more choices. 

The question is if social landlords (likely with subsidy/central funding), for example, should have a duty to upgrade housing stock to allow those on lower incomes to equally benefit from things like solar and heat pumps and if there should be (centrally funded) schemes to help people on lower incomes with disabilities afford ev cars to maximise the benefit of ToU, etc. 

deano2099

ArbitraryRandom said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

2. We are concerned that smart meters are not achieving the consumer benefits they are supposed to and are benefitting certain, often wealthier, consumers more than others.

Smart meters benefit anyone who uses them to minimise their energy consumption, or chooses to take advantage of ToU tariffs etc. I do not really see that as benefitting wealthier consumers, so much as benefitting those who choose to make the most of ToU tariffs. 

The issue with these things is always around indirect discrimination and perverse incentives - generally speaking people who have more disposable income have the ability to maximise their benefit - because their income simply means they have more choices. 

The question is if social landlords (likely with subsidy/central funding), for example, should have a duty to upgrade housing stock to allow those on lower incomes to equally benefit from things like solar and heat pumps and if there should be (centrally funded) schemes to help people on lower incomes with disabilities afford ev cars to maximise the benefit of ToU, etc. 

I know "trickle-down economics" is largely nonsense, but it does come from somewhere and it does feel like it applies here right? Yes, the more well off can load-shift and get paid for it, but it ultimately allows us to import far less energy and thus keeps prices down somewhat for everyone. I don't believe every penny saved just goes right to those helped save it - the benefits *are* socialised, but only to an extent, in order to provide an actual incentive for people to load-shift in the first placece.

MultiFuelBurner

debitcardmayhem said:

Chris_b2z said:

arnoldy said:

Reward the ordinary grafter not make them pay for all the hangers on.

Perhaps OFGEM expects the ordinary grafter to invest in energy companies. Centrica alone made nearly £2bn profit just in the first 6 months of this year and handed out generous dividends to their shareholders. The value of Centrica shares have increased 133% over the past year.

Yes but their shares are only 10% up over five years, and the generous dividend is about a 1/4 of what they paid 5 years. Oh and Centrica are not just about British Gas, they make profits from several countries. 

Sadly, looking at this users post history(which is open for all to view) they appear the sort of poster that when questioned on their comments, they don't appear to return to evidence.

ArbitraryRandom

deano2099 said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

MattMattMattUK said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

2. We are concerned that smart meters are not achieving the consumer benefits they are supposed to and are benefitting certain, often wealthier, consumers more than others.

Smart meters benefit anyone who uses them to minimise their energy consumption, or chooses to take advantage of ToU tariffs etc. I do not really see that as benefitting wealthier consumers, so much as benefitting those who choose to make the most of ToU tariffs. 

The issue with these things is always around indirect discrimination and perverse incentives - generally speaking people who have more disposable income have the ability to maximise their benefit - because their income simply means they have more choices. 

The question is if social landlords (likely with subsidy/central funding), for example, should have a duty to upgrade housing stock to allow those on lower incomes to equally benefit from things like solar and heat pumps and if there should be (centrally funded) schemes to help people on lower incomes with disabilities afford ev cars to maximise the benefit of ToU, etc. 

I know "trickle-down economics" is largely nonsense, but it does come from somewhere and it does feel like it applies here right? Yes, the more well off can load-shift and get paid for it, but it ultimately allows us to import far less energy and thus keeps prices down somewhat for everyone. I don't believe every penny saved just goes right to those helped save it - the benefits *are* socialised, but only to an extent, in order to provide an actual incentive for people to load-shift in the first placece.

Sure, and I'm not debating the merits of either view - just the idea that benefiting is a question of 'choice' rather than wealth, when in reality having more money means in practice you have more choices. 

(As it happens, that's one of the reasons I can sympathise with people who are frustrated with the current system but would never agree with the people who say they should just spend all their money and rely on the state paying for everything... in reality you have little choice and control and I could never be happy like that) 

The_Green_Hornet

UK bill payers may have to cover £6bn cost of failed energy firms, warn MPs

Public accounts committee issues ‘sobering reminder’ there are no guarantees money spent will be recovered after collapse of Bulb

Bill payers could be on the hook for almost £6bn to cover the cost of bailing out suppliers that went bust during the energy crisis, according to the government’s spending watchdog.

UK bill payers may have to cover £6bn cost of failed energy firms, warn MPs | Energy bills | The Guardian

MattMattMattUK

The_Green_Hornet said:

UK bill payers may have to cover £6bn cost of failed energy firms, warn MPs

Public accounts committee issues ‘sobering reminder’ there are no guarantees money spent will be recovered after collapse of Bulb

Bill payers could be on the hook for almost £6bn to cover the cost of bailing out suppliers that went bust during the energy crisis, according to the government’s spending watchdog.

UK bill payers may have to cover £6bn cost of failed energy firms, warn MPs | Energy bills | The Guardian

I did read that article, but it does seem to have a significant dose of hyperbole as the chance of Octopus being unable to meet their obligations is minimal at most. The reality is the cost will be around £3.25 billion which whilst still being a cost that we should have not had to pay it is also not the £6 billion headline figure. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

From the same source

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/29/bulb-bailout-may-cost-uk-government-billions-less-than-feared-says-watchdog

Bulb bailout may cost UK government billions less than feared, says watchdog

The bailout of the bust energy supplier Bulb is expected to cost the government billions of pounds less than originally feared because of a sharp fall in wholesale gas prices, according to the National Audit Office.

The public spending watchdog said the government may end up spending £246m on saving the supplier, which has 1.5 million customers and was acquired by Octopus Energy late last year.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ArbitraryRandom said:

The question is if social landlords (likely with subsidy/central funding), for example, should have a duty to upgrade housing stock to allow those on lower incomes to equally benefit from things like solar and heat pumps and if there should be (centrally funded) schemes to help people on lower incomes with disabilities afford ev cars to maximise the benefit of ToU, etc. 

Increased regulation is apparently hitting smaller landlords forcing them out, large companies will take their place:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o

Lloyds aiming to become giant UK landlord

Lloyds is planning to become one of the UK's biggest landlords as it aims to buy 50,000 homes in the next decade.

Similar is happen in the US with asset management companies buying family homes. 

They'll take as much as possible whilst giving as little as possible back and due to their size will have some influence over government to limit further regulation.