Energy news in general

Ildhund

QrizB said:
  

I would suggest that "helping the poorest" is the job of the Welfare State, not of the energy regulator.

If benefits are too low, increase them ...

How about giving every poor household £200 or £300 every year to help with the cost of winter fuel, for example?

Gerry1

michaels said:

stripling said:

Why am I not surprised.... 🤔

Energy network owners have made £3.9bn from higher bills, says report

Offgem claim it is a rounding error but I work it to be about £60 per household per year based on 3.9bn / 3 years / 20m households.

It should be based on four years and 28.4 million households.  That works out at up to about £34, but it's still too much.

michaels

Gerry1 said:

michaels said:

stripling said:

Why am I not surprised.... 🤔

Energy network owners have made £3.9bn from higher bills, says report

Offgem claim it is a rounding error but I work it to be about £60 per household per year based on 3.9bn / 3 years / 20m households.

It should be based on four years and 28.4 million households.  That works out at up to about £34, but it's still too much.

The article in the Guardian is not clear on how many years the 3.9bn has accrued over but I will believe you on the number of households.

michaels

Ildhund said:

QrizB said:
  

I would suggest that "helping the poorest" is the job of the Welfare State, not of the energy regulator.

If benefits are too low, increase them ...

How about giving every poor household £200 or £300 every year to help with the cost of winter fuel, for example?

Are those the people who are poor if they earn £218.14 a week but rich if they earn a penny more than that?

stripling

@QrizB
Or are you suggesting that energy companies are less error-prone than DWP are?

Surely the checks you need to pass to qualify for a access to social tariffs or for exclusion from higher tariff bands are just as prone to error as the means testing of benefits? So still sanctions, cuts and no energy for the wrongly-deprived?

Neither......
I don't object to tax rises because our benefits are too low. End of story. I do not think benefits should be linked to energy.  And not everyone who is energy poor is on benefits anyway. 

There's no need for 'checks' by energy companies (except a medical record) in banding systems. 

The banding (or block the BBC calls it) works on your consumption. You sign up to a consumption band and a certain rate. Usually if you accidentally excede it once or twice nothing happens but if you take the Micky you are forced up a band and billed accordingly. 

So the basic block is at a low Kwh price, the next block is a higher Kwh and the 3rd is super high. Medical cases are exempted (Spain relies on medical records for this).

Some countries just have tiered pricing - everyone gets the first X amount of KWhs at the low rate, the next amount of Kwhs over that is at a higher rate and if you use even more Kwhs you pay top $ per Kwh for the number of KWhs that exceed the 2nd tier.  So high users are billed at 3 rates.

It means everyone has a fair base line and it helps to encourage energy thrift. 

Gerry1

michaels said:

Gerry1 said:

michaels said:

stripling said:

Why am I not surprised.... 🤔

Energy network owners have made £3.9bn from higher bills, says report

Offgem claim it is a rounding error but I work it to be about £60 per household per year based on 3.9bn / 3 years / 20m households.

It should be based on four years and 28.4 million households.  That works out at up to about £34, but it's still too much.

The article in the Guardian is not clear on how many years the 3.9bn has accrued over but I will believe you on the number of households.

"The analysis, by Citizens Advice, argued that energy network owners were able to make the “excess profits” over the past four years after the industry regulator misjudged their costs."

But to be fair, I missed it when I did the sums the first time.

Gerry1

stripling said:

Some countries just have tiered pricing - everyone gets the first X amount of KWhs at the low rate, the next amount of Kwhs over that is at a higher rate and if you use even more Kwhs you pay top $ per Kwh for the number of KWhs that exceed the 2nd tier.  So high users are billed at 3 rates.

That'll go down really well with impoverished seniors who don't get pension credit and have lost their Winter Fuel Allowance but have high usage because they are at home all day.

Especially when they realise they're being penalised to subsidise affluent second home owners.

debitcardmayhem

Gerry1 said:

stripling said:

Some countries just have tiered pricing - everyone gets the first X amount of KWhs at the low rate, the next amount of Kwhs over that is at a higher rate and if you use even more Kwhs you pay top $ per Kwh for the number of KWhs that exceed the 2nd tier.  So high users are billed at 3 rates.

unsnipped from end of quote

It means everyone has a fair base line and it helps to encourage energy thrift. 

That'll go down really well with impoverished seniors who don't get pension credit and have lost their Winter Fuel Allowance but have high usage because they are at home all day.

Especially when they realise they're being penalised to subsidise affluent second home owners.

Not all high users are second home owners nor affluent , we are not impoverished, nor second home owners, but due to medical conditions we use a lot of energy. 

I have unsnipped the end of the quote for fairness, but I couldnt see where it said affluent……

Scot_39

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Backlash over energy standing charges shake-up

Charities and energy providers have criticised plans to change the way standing charges on bills are paid.

All households pay the fixed daily charges covering the costs of connecting to a gas and electricity supply.

Many billpayers consider them to be unfair as they have no control over how much is charged, prompting the review by the energy regulator Ofgem.

But the regulator's plans to offer a choice of tariffs that shift these fees elsewhere on people's bills have been described as complicated and misplaced.

Backlash over energy standing charges shake-up - BBC News

Exactly as I have said in the past - Ofgems proposals to simply rebalance bills - between rates and standing charges - is just like pedants arguing semantics.  It fails to help tge problem for our poorest - its the net total bill that is too high and not just the poorest are struggling with.

I would suggest that "helping the poorest" is the job of the Welfare State, not of the energy regulator.

If benefits are too low, increase them (and increase taxes to balance the books). DESNZ shouldn't be using Ofgem to redistribute wealth.

Neither should Ofgem be doing so in reverse - by introducing tariffs that potentially redistribute wealth from the poorest heaviest users to wealthy low users.

Like the c1.5m homes with solar or around c 0.7-1m plus depending on source - second home owners who's properties used e.g. as holiday homes - that are empty most days / weeks of the year.

Scot_39

stripling said:

@QrizB
Or are you suggesting that energy companies are less error-prone than DWP are?

Surely the checks you need to pass to qualify for a access to social tariffs or for exclusion from higher tariff bands are just as prone to error as the means testing of benefits? So still sanctions, cuts and no energy for the wrongly-deprived?

Neither......
I don't object to tax rises because our benefits are too low. End of story. I do not think benefits should be linked to energy.  And not everyone who is energy poor is on benefits anyway. 

There's no need for 'checks' by energy companies (except a medical record) in banding systems. 

The banding (or block the BBC calls it) works on your consumption. You sign up to a consumption band and a certain rate. Usually if you accidentally excede it once or twice nothing happens but if you take the Micky you are forced up a band and billed accordingly. 

So the basic block is at a low Kwh price, the next block is a higher Kwh and the 3rd is super high. Medical cases are exempted (Spain relies on medical records for this).

Some countries just have tiered pricing - everyone gets the first X amount of KWhs at the low rate, the next amount of Kwhs over that is at a higher rate and if you use even more Kwhs you pay top $ per Kwh for the number of KWhs that exceed the 2nd tier.  So high users are billed at 3 rates.

It means everyone has a fair base line and it helps to encourage energy thrift. 

No it does not produce a fair base line.

When all electric users get the same kWh thresholds as gas users - and those with solar or empty second homes pay their fair share of costs then we can talk about such strategies.

In fact Ofgem are curently excluding those on multirate electric from their examples on non SC tariff costings.

Despite them often paying far more to heat. So arguably in most need.

Neither system you or the three Ofgem curently propose as of today's announcement out for consultation for the non sc basis offers that.

Until then everyone paying their share per property of fixed costs and unit costs is the only fair solution.

And those needing help - as you say above - that's arguably a benefit and wages policy issue.