Energy news in general

Scot_39

Because i guess they were largely blamed for making bills too complex opi the late 00s and early 2010s, leading to tariff si plication legislation.

The current 1 rate 1 standing charge regardless of consumption mantra ( even if zero pence).

But France for instance has many homes on kVA banded standing charges  - yes I do mean no h anc I do mean kVA not kW - apparent power, not real power or energy demand.  (Although not sure their network reactive loading domestically anymore more than ours, arguably a hinf about who resells their energy and runs power plants - and peak capacity implications - if you like the opposite of uk as reglects  non fixed cost component of networks ) 

Of coursecas more move to ashp, be careful what you wish for.

And arguably pc2 would need protection for things like nsh use  that take lots of power in a fraction  of the day.

superkoopauk

Confirmation of an increase to WHD allowance in the next price cap.  I hear from an industry source that the intention will be an £17 increase to the cap from October for 12 months.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/policy/policy-update-warm-home-discount-and-contracts-difference

Scot_39

Chrysalis 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.   🙁

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.

Wealth data isnt their if goes beyond savings which it does for those on the left.

bristolleedsfan

superkoopauk said:

Confirmation of an increase to WHD allowance in the next price cap.  I hear from an industry source that the intention will be an £17 increase to the cap from October for 12 months.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/policy/policy-update-warm-home-discount-and-contracts-difference

Taken from link you posted "We are working with government to ensure the costs of this scheme are offset by other changes in the bill so they are neutral over time"

WiserMiser

mmmmikey said:

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?

It's another way that smart meters will disadvantage you, price rises sneaked in and hoping you won't notice.  It'll charge more at peak times, and the kWh rates will go up in blocks the more you use.  Same thing will happen with water.

Take a look at @Parslee's meter: it says 'Load Limit Status Inactive'.  That means it's not (yet) restricting how many kW can be used right now.  But sooner or later, when demand exceeds supply, then it will.  Smart meter says no.

stripling

@WiseMiser
Take a look at @Parslee's meter: it says 'Load Limit Status Inactive'.  That means it's not (yet) restricting how many kW can be used right now.  But sooner or later, when demand exceeds supply, then it will.  Smart meter says no.

I think you are confusing a few things here. 

Smart meters aren't just manufactured for the UK. Thus I think you'll find that 'Load Limit Status' is for tariffs banded by average consumption. This is what we had in Spain - you pay different rates depending on which band you signed up for. It works really well and it has nothing to do with Time of Use Tariffs which are something else.

So when you sign up with an electricity provider you choose a band based on approximately what you use load wise but if you occasionally exceed it it doesn't shut you down, it only does that if you repeatedly exceed the band you signed up for and then they'll put you up a band. 

The exception to the bands are: 1) the base line social tariff (for low income consumers) 2) exceptions to high band prices for registered medical needs. It also has regulated or unregulated providers (you can choose) but there's not much difference because the state regulated providers existence keeps the 'free market' (huh...) providers in check. 

Many European countries have variations on this banded billing method and imo it is much more fair than the UK. It also makes people far more conscious of the energy demand of products they buy (which is much more front and centre in other countries than here).

Time of Use (or DSF) tariffs are already being drip fed into the UK market but eventually they will be imposed and you will have surge pricing - Uber style - during peak hours.   By this time I assume smart meters in the UK will be mandatory.

Spain already has ToU tariffs too - with 3 different rates through the 24 hours (low rated over night and all weekend which is great). 

Spain's electricity is far cheaper than the UK's and as more renewables come on stream the cheaper it has become. We get hung out to dry in the UK. 

mmmmikey

WiserMiser said:

mmmmikey said:

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?

It's another way that smart meters will disadvantage you, price rises sneaked in and hoping you won't notice.  It'll charge more at peak times, and the kWh rates will go up in blocks the more you use.  Same thing will happen with water.

Take a look at @Parslee's meter: it says 'Load Limit Status Inactive'.  That means it's not (yet) restricting how many kW can be used right now.  But sooner or later, when demand exceeds supply, then it will.  Smart meter says no.

Ah - OK, thanks for replying. It's not a conspiracy theory I recognised / had come across before.

WiserMiser

mmmmikey said:

WiserMiser said:

mmmmikey said:

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?

It's another way that smart meters will disadvantage you, price rises sneaked in and hoping you won't notice.  It'll charge more at peak times, and the kWh rates will go up in blocks the more you use.  Same thing will happen with water.

Take a look at @Parslee's meter: it says 'Load Limit Status Inactive'.  That means it's not (yet) restricting how many kW can be used right now.  But sooner or later, when demand exceeds supply, then it will.  Smart meter says no.

Ah - OK, thanks for replying. It's not a conspiracy theory I recognised / had come across before.

Delete the last six words and you'll be correct !

WiserMiser

stripling said:

@WiseMiser
Take a look at @Parslee's meter: it says 'Load Limit Status Inactive'.  That means it's not (yet) restricting how many kW can be used right now.  But sooner or later, when demand exceeds supply, then it will.  Smart meter says no.

I think you are confusing a few things here.

No, I'm not.  When implemented, if more than a certain amount of power is drawn, Load Limiting will trip the supply and lock you out for a short period.  If the power draw has not been sufficiently reduced then the procedure will repeat.  Three strikes and then the kill switch locks you out for half an hour.

Think of your smart meter like a speed camera.  Initially you get fined, but if you still don't do as you're told then you get banned...

Chrysalis

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.

The problem is, if benefits are increased there is public outcry, whilst things like this go much more under the radar without much whispers going on.  So we moving towards nothing higher than inflation on benefit uplifts, and adding social schemes on top such as energy subsidies and the household support fund.  I wouldnt be opposed to doing it all directly (spend via general taxation instead of SC, and subsidise via benefits instead of SC discounts), just trying to add logic to what they doing here.  Reading your comment again, I think we in agreement.