Energy news in general

Doc_N

stripling said:

.@Scot_39
 

They'll have the kids back up chimneys in a few years... 😳

Already on the Reform agenda.

spot1034

Don't forget juvenile credits which you used to get for the years including your 16th, 17th and 18th birthdays. Many people were at school throughout this period. I think they've stopped now but anyone retiring now and for quite a long time to come will have got them. 

GingerTim

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

It's almost as though the status quo is the least worst option...

Chrysalis

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

I hear this said often by those who oppose means testing, but it doesnt cost a fortune to admin, especially when means testing data is already there.

MattMattMattUK

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

Another day, another absolutely awful idea to mess around with the energy sector. No social tariffs, no wealth tariffs, just charge what it costs, plus infrastructure maintenance and investment, plus a small profit. If the government wants to set social policy that should be done through taxes and benefits, not through messing around with different service costs. 

mmmmikey

MattMattMattUK said:

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

Another day, another absolutely awful idea to mess around with the energy sector. No social tariffs, no wealth tariffs, just charge what it costs, plus infrastructure maintenance and investment, plus a small profit. If the government wants to set social policy that should be done through taxes and benefits, not through messing around with different service costs. 

Yes - it just gets sillier and sillier. The same effect could be had simply by adjusting tax or benefit levels using the democratic processes that are already in place. The only reasons I can think of to mess around using standing charges to implement tax or benefit changes (with all the bureacracy that would entail) are (a) to disguise the cost in tax terms, or (b) appease the whinging masses who continue to whine about standing charges (and anything else they can think of to complain about). Neither of these strike me as being good reasons.

MattMattMattUK

mmmmikey said:

MattMattMattUK said:

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

Another day, another absolutely awful idea to mess around with the energy sector. No social tariffs, no wealth tariffs, just charge what it costs, plus infrastructure maintenance and investment, plus a small profit. If the government wants to set social policy that should be done through taxes and benefits, not through messing around with different service costs. 

Yes - it just gets sillier and sillier. The same effect could be had simply by adjusting tax or benefit levels using the democratic processes that are already in place. The only reasons I can think of to mess around using standing charges to implement tax or benefit changes (with all the bureacracy that would entail) are (a) to disguise the cost in tax terms, or (b) appease the whinging masses who continue to whine about standing charges (and anything else they can think of to complain about). Neither of these strike me as being good reasons.

This is the problem with most things at the moment, we pander to the loud idiots rather than listen to those with intelligence.

WiserMiser

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

> It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”.  This could be combined with other ideas, such as standing charges that vary depending on how much electricity the consumer uses at peak times.
Ah, the infamous Block Tariffs. Now you know why they're pushing smart meters so hard !

Scot_39

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

Arguably their last warning about only shuffling costs not cutting costs without extra govt cash might have helped lead to the recent extension of WHD to 2.7m more homes from 2026.

This arguably asking to effectively see that increased so those not in receipt subsidise those in receipt - regardless of cureently how marginal their relative income or wealth is - or their actual heating needs if elderly, disabled etc.  So perhaps could be fairer to those just above whatever harsh hard cut off threshold rathef than taper approach our stupid system all too often comes up with.

Its as you say a nightmare - and seems to seek to turn energy bills into even more of a progressive taxation by adding even more cross subsidy.

We have a progressive tax system in the UK.

Those on benefits should be compensated by it, so rates cover essential needs including heating.
Even if that means Labour have to give up on their zero personal tax rate rise promises.

Its ultimately of course a basic admission of failure - despite the greenwashed nonsense - promises like Milibands £300 cheaper by end of term pre election soundbites - which is of course now far more carefully presented only as a relative to some future crisis saving.
  
An admission that renewables and its network costs (physical and operational) are only making our energy far far more eexpensive than should be and as such unaffordable to millions of those on benefits, poorer pensioners and ordinary workers and of course businesses.

The so called "war defense" some repeatedly have to stoop to to now justify the £bns renewables and net zero 95% by 2030 are now adding to our and our employers bills.
Shows a clear desperation, despite gas averaging far lower than that cost over decades including past crisis.
And current renewables like FOS wind in AR6 with a significant jump expected in AR7 in coming weeks, have already been awarded CfDs higher tthan current spot gas ggeneration rates - and that of course before the additional network costs are added in.

But there are problems for future gas costs too - a failure to invest in new plant and of course the £10s bn projected net zero costs of new with CCS projects and CCS enhancements to older stations.  That the last set of figures were estinated to add around iirc £25 to our bills plus taxes for EMs £22bn subsidies plan.

Ignoring CfD and physical network spend financing, just take NESO £8bn operational forecast (balancing and curtailment) - thats an average of £250 per connection (domestic and small/medium businesses - the split by domestic vs business and for domestic total into sc vs unit - who can be sure).

We already seeing that already in our bills - last year estimated c£40 at average on our electricity bills (NGESO figures) - bouncing back from operational savings in previous years as more rebewables came on stream but with more capacity being added that and things like curtailment rising sharply - that may well increase dramatically. 

As our generation capacity now exceeds our demand - certainly our summer demand - with over 30GW wind and 18GW solar (13GW commercial and 5 GW domestic).

And even if you think this is just my opinion.

Perhaps the current green policy advocates should reflect themselves on why the FOS wind jewel in the ar6 crown - despite a near 60% rate increase vs ar4 less than 3 years earlier - why Orsted have shelved  their Hornsea 4 2.4 GW FOS wind farm project.

And why the AR7 cap rate for it has been increased another 10.8 %.  3x the current 3.6% CPI rate (itself arguably policy inflated as Eurozone 2%) inflation in UK.

Yet more evidence of tge "orthodoxy" that puts net zero - a very imbalanced net zero - rushed to 95% by 2030 for our electricity generation - ahead of all else - inflation, jobs, living standards etc etc.

And evidence of the imbalance - well yet afaik no extra EM driven corresponding massive cost increases to penalise domestic gas emissions to meet a 95% by 2030 carbon free target capability for all home heating.

Which as donestic gas boilers are used to generate far more energy than gas does in commercial power plants for dual fuel homes.  Just look at the cap median tdcv balance 11500 vs 2700 kWh - over 4x.  Even if assume old gas plant 50% efficient thats still over twice.  And arguably should face twice the extra costs.

95% by 2030 A policy that by this Official Ofgem public admission largely penalises us all, but as focussed on electric, more so those with all electric homes.

People who already face disproportionately high energy bills for conventional electric heating sources.

mmmmikey

WiserMiser said:

stripling said:

"It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”. 

UK energy bills could be set according to ‘wealth’, says regulator 

Apart from the outrageous invasiveness of ascertaining 'wealth' and 'income' it would cost an absolute fortune to administer. Their consultations are often a 'box-ticking' exercise.   🙁

> It suggests an “income-based standing charge” and a “wealth-based standing charge”.  This could be combined with other ideas, such as standing charges that vary depending on how much electricity the consumer uses at peak times.
Ah, the infamous Block Tariffs. Now you know why they're pushing smart meters so hard !

Hi - interesting comment, why do you describe block tariffs as infamous?