Energy news in general

wrf12345

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

MeteredOut

wrf12345 said:

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

Households are too fluid and therefore household income is. It would be a nightmare to administer, complicated given all the different scenarios (eg, second homes), costly to operate and open to abuse. It will never happen, but Ofgem need to be seen to be considering things in order to justify their existence to detractors.

bristolleedsfan

MeteredOut said:

wrf12345 said:

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

Households are too fluid and therefore household income is. It would be a nightmare to administer, complicated given all the different scenarios (eg, second homes), costly to operate and open to abuse. It will never happen, but Ofgem need to be seen to be considering things in order to justify their existence to detractors.

Broadband Providers offering social tariffs are able to check means tested benefits existence with DWP, Energy billing companies likely to be able to do the same.

MeteredOut

bristolleedsfan said:

MeteredOut said:

wrf12345 said:

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

Households are too fluid and therefore household income is. It would be a nightmare to administer, complicated given all the different scenarios (eg, second homes), costly to operate and open to abuse. It will never happen, but Ofgem need to be seen to be considering things in order to justify their existence to detractors.

Broadband Providers offering social tariffs are able to check means tested benefits existence with DWP, Energy billing companies likely to be able to do the same.

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Scot_39

MeteredOut said:

bristolleedsfan said:

MeteredOut said:

wrf12345 said:

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

Households are too fluid and therefore household income is. It would be a nightmare to administer, complicated given all the different scenarios (eg, second homes), costly to operate and open to abuse. It will never happen, but Ofgem need to be seen to be considering things in order to justify their existence to detractors.

Broadband Providers offering social tariffs are able to check means tested benefits existence with DWP, Energy billing companies likely to be able to do the same.

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Means tested benefits are also tied to savings including accessible children's savings.  To stop parents hiding money from state.

Combined limits used to be around £6000  when doing mums forms.

So it's not just income based.

So wouldn't strictly be income dependent.

bristolleedsfan

MeteredOut said:

bristolleedsfan said:

MeteredOut said:

wrf12345 said:

Just Ofgem finding ways to fill the energy company coffers, again, rather than admitting they made a terrible mistake increasing the s/c by such a huge amount rather than phasing it out. Again, energy companies are buying electric wholesale and selling it on with a 2.2-2.5 multiple, so making them absorb the cost of s/c phase out is the best way to go, say twenty percent drop in s/c every year until it is zero, with the possibility of them paying back some of the money they have taken over the decades via a negative s/c once that is done. Phasing out Ofgem as well would save a bit of dosh.

If they do go for zero s/c for the low paid it will probably be done by applying via the energy company, perhaps after generating a confirmation number from the inland revenue or council (who can access the revenue's databases to some extent even though it is possibly illegal under data protection laws), although the revenue itself does have problems on household income, so if the bill is in the name of a low earner and their partner or kids are on high incomes it might go awry. This would be one tax year behind, I guess.

Households are too fluid and therefore household income is. It would be a nightmare to administer, complicated given all the different scenarios (eg, second homes), costly to operate and open to abuse. It will never happen, but Ofgem need to be seen to be considering things in order to justify their existence to detractors.

Broadband Providers offering social tariffs are able to check means tested benefits existence with DWP, Energy billing companies likely to be able to do the same.

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Universal Credit

Chrysalis

GingerTim said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Increased bills for higher earners could fund UK energy upgrade, Ofgem says

Regulator to consult industry on how to recover network costs via standing charge in a ‘more progressive’ way

Wealthier households could be made to shoulder higher costs for running and upgrading the UK’s network of energy cables and pipes to help low-income bill payers under new plans to be considered this summer.

The proposals could mean that high-income households will pay more via the standing charge on their energy bills, while those who are not in work or are on low pay are charged a discounted rate.

Increased bills for higher earners could fund UK energy upgrade, Ofgem says | Energy bills | The Guardian

That'll cost an arm and a leg to administer.

They could use existing data to pick people out for the discount such as those eligible for the WHD (this is what I expect them to do, as it will be the easiest way to do it).
Also yeah BristolLeedsFan reply makes sense as well, this is already a thing for social tariffs on broadband (and some water companies).

HillStreetBlues

bristolleedsfan said:

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Universal Credit

It's not tied to the whole household only the claimant(s).

bristolleedsfan

HillStreetBlues said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Universal Credit

It's not tied to the whole household only the claimant(s).

Tied to household income ???

HillStreetBlues

bristolleedsfan said:

HillStreetBlues said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Which means tested benefits are tied to household income? ie. whole household, including working adults.

Universal Credit

It's not tied to the whole household only the claimant(s).

Tied to household income ???

The meaning of household is all those in the house, others adults may well be in the household (eg adult children) but won't form part of the UC claim.
Sadly DWP wording isn't the best at times.