Energy news in general

stripling

@WiserMiser
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.

Did you actually read what I wrote? 

And you did muddle two things: 1) load limiting 2) demand-side response. 

Load Limiting can be used in multiple ways, including, potentially in the UK (not Spain), to permit prepayment meters that have run out of credit to continue to supply a minimal amount of electricity to maintain things like freezers etc., 

When it is used for banded tariffs, it doesn't 'cut you off if more than a certain amount of power is drawn'. It usually only reacts if this line is crossed several times. It has not legally been permitted to function instantly afaik because it could cause medical or other important equipment to malfunction and because 'normal' electricity demand fluctuates even without adding further appliances.

Yes it will cut your supply briefly if you don't reduce your 'overload' BUT you know in advance what your limit is - you chose it- so it's not 'sudden' and beyond that brief cut, if you continue to cross the line, all that happens is you are pushed up to the next, more expensive, tariff band.  

Demand-side response is literally the Uberisation of energy tariffs and is not Load Limiting. In this case surge pricing is applied to high grid demand times. You pay more per KWh between say  4-7pm. It is supposed to "incentivise" [🤦🏻‍♀️ coerce] load shifting. Of course, what happens is those with batteries etc, are unaffected while Jo Public with kids and homework and dinner and no batteries plus not much money, is likely to pay through the nose. 

IF the customer agrees to it by signing up, suppliers can use the auxiliary load control switch (ALCS) within the meter to control demand (as in economy 7 type tariffs) or in emergencies.

We already have another version of this when energy suppliers (🐙 only atm, I think) can control equipment in your home - eg when exactly to charge your car or potentially to switch things off during peak demand times. 

Ildhund

Chrysalis said:
I wouldnt be opposed to doing it all directly (spend via general taxation instead of SC, and subsidise via benefits instead of SC discounts),

It would be really good to see the difference for different classes of payers and beneficiaries between (general taxation and benefits - TB) on the one hand and standing electricity charge on the other. It's fair to say that almost every taxpayer is also a domestic electricity consumer, but the converse isn't quite so true.

• The obvious difference at first glance is that SC is in general levied per household while TB applies to individuals. 
• There is a presumably not-insignificant proportion of households with no payer of income tax. 
• SC is levied on business customers, too. Are they liable to pay for social schemes as well as environmental ones?   

  
I'm sure it would be possible to devise systems that would in the main satisfy the requirements whether vis SC or TB. What isn't at all clear is who would be on the swings and who on the roundabouts in each case. 

mmmmikey

WiserMiser said:

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 !

You've confused block tariffs with load limiting. Block tariffs don't necessitate load limiting. A good example of one is the Utilita zero standing charge tariff where you pay more for the first 2 kWh / day and less for subsequent units. There's no load limiting involved, you can use as much as you want, you just pay more once you move into the higher block.

As far as block tariffs are concerned, your suggestion is that various industry bodies are working together to create a plan to use them in conjunction with smart meters to sneak in price rises. This is the conspiracy that you describe. AFAIK you have no actual evidence of this, which is what makes it a theory. You may believe it and it may not involve Elvis Presley, Bill Gates or little green men from Mars but it is still a conspiracy theory by any reasonable definition.

That's not to say that there aren't pros and cons associated with block tariffs and views on this will vary of course.

michaels

Chrysalis said:

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 wouldn't 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.

Problem is give the money as a benefit and there is no certainty it will get spent on energy or healthy food or the kids and that it won't go on 'other priorities' and then the recipients will be back in the public eye talking about energy poverty, food banks and 'think of the children'

HillStreetBlues

michaels said:

Problem is give the money as a benefit and there is no certainty it will get spent on energy or healthy food or the kids and that it won't go on 'other priorities' and then the recipients will be back in the public eye talking about energy poverty, food banks and 'think of the children'

And then the double whammy that the energy might have to write off at least some of their debt.
If the decision is made to fund schemes from direct from utility companies then make sure they can only use that money for energy.

Scot_39

michaels said:

Chrysalis said:

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 wouldn't 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.

Problem is give the money as a benefit and there is no certainty it will get spent on energy or healthy food or the kids and that it won't go on 'other priorities' and then the recipients will be back in the public eye talking about energy poverty, food banks and 'think of the children'

Their are already mechinsms in place - or proven to pay bills direct from govt or via benefits office.

The EPG route - was univeral then went prepay only for last 9 monhts - for govt to channel money to suppliers rather than paying it direct.

And there is also a way to have benefits pay for your gas / electric direct - Fuel Direct - but its primarily targetted as a debt mechnism currently iirc - to clear debt but whilst in debt to pay DRP and current - but could just become the norm for those on benefits.

As as you say their are risks associated with paying direct in cash for essentials like energy and food - but unlike other nations - where say benefits are paid in part as energy and as food tokens - too many of the "worthies" object - no matter how feckless or even addicted - alcohol, gambling, drugs etc - the recipients might be.

Rent arreas spiked significantly when they stopped UC paying the rent direct - at some HA - tennants had to be taken to court to get missed payments back and to apply to get "third party deductions" in place.  At great cost - you guessed it - to all the other tennants.  Just ot get back to where they were before the change.

stripling

@Scot_39
As as you say their are risks associated with paying direct in cash for essentials like energy and food - but unlike other nations - where say benefits are paid in part as energy and as food tokens - too many of the "worthies" object - no matter how feckless or even addicted - alcohol, gambling, drugs etc - the recipients might be.

"Other nations"..... nasty America more like. Nowhere in Europe does that in the benefits system. If it operates it's usually charitable, like British food banks, to top up benefits cut by 'Austerity' or low wages.  

This sweeping judgement of Universal Credit claimants, a high percentage of whom will be in full time work, is breath taking.  Let's clear a few things up here. There's no correlation between being on any benefits and this mythical stereotype of feckless, alcohol consuming, drug addicts.  You want to see the latter? Go to the City of London... they wear suits. 

The gap between what Universal Credit will pay in rent and the reality of the actual rent and council tax costs gets ever bigger.  THAT is why most people fall into rent arrears. Wages are so low that companies get subsidies to employ people (that's what Working Tax Credit now Universal Credit is - a subsidy to businesses); benefits for the unemployed are virtually impossible to live on.  Add Zero hours insecurity, disappearing safety nets or long waits for medical treatment and it's no wonder...

This was all due to the invention of the local Housing Allowance which came shortly after the deregulation of tenancies and the simultaneous abolition of a) the Fair Rent Act; b) the end of social housing and the introduction of Right To Buy. All these things which were brought in over several years were intended to fundamentally alter the post WWII housing policies that had been so phenomenally successful.  This is one of several reasons why Britain's productivity plummeted - insecurity is not good for the nation. Or its health. 

Britain has the meanest, most punitive benefit system in Europe. It's shocking. It's not designed to get people back into work at all. You can't train or study while claiming benefits unlike in other countries (or indeed even here a few years back). The entire system is designed to undermine, diminish and make compliant the cannon fodder for the bottom-of-the-rung labour system.  

So to then dehumanise people by not giving them the dignity of cash to decide for themselves what they spend it on, to issue 'tokens' or whatever to be 'controlled' ( and being the UK outsourced to some offshore company to profit from) is an awful idea and smacks of Victorian ideas of the undeserving poor.  Please don't think like this. 

Most European countries have various versions of social tariffs for energy. That is the fairest way to ensure a basic source of heat & light. You cannot add it to Universal Credit because not all low income people claim UC and our system is so punitive and makes so many mistakes that can take years to rectify - the Carer's Allowance horror show for example - that claimants could be wrongly disconnected with no resolution for huge amounts of time. 

In Spain when you sign up for an energy tariff you give the usual details plus your NIE number - tax/social insurance number - that makes it easy to claim a social tariff if you need one. The only other addition may be a medical certificate to cover a high energy user for health reasons. 

The attitude to low income people in this country never ceases to shock me. But I guess it shouldn't - those further up the food chain than us have spent years and years working hard to push these ideas in news and TV.  Please, please don't buy into it. 

Scot_39

Nothing to do with "nasty America", but the outburst telling.

My experience of food vouchers as a large part of state income support wasn't in USA but was in fact in Europe.
The old Eastern Europe.
Slovakia to be specific, but by no means unique from comments from other neighbouring nationals.
So far more a result of their communist / socialist history.

And no they weren't seen as dehumanising, just an everyday fact of life for lowcand moderate incomes.

Nothing at all to do with USA. 

And I have lived and worked in both.  And seen far worse systems in Africa, Central and South America.

I'm not sure if they still exist in that format now, but afaik the equivalent of luncheon vouchers might still be mandatory employee support 20+ years later.  They were still around in 2010s.

mmmmikey

stripling said:

@Scot_39
As as you say their are risks associated with paying direct in cash for essentials like energy and food - but unlike other nations - where say benefits are paid in part as energy and as food tokens - too many of the "worthies" object - no matter how feckless or even addicted - alcohol, gambling, drugs etc - the recipients might be.

"Other nations"..... nasty America more like. Nowhere in Europe does that in the benefits system. If it operates it's usually charitable, like British food banks, to top up benefits cut by 'Austerity' or low wages.  

This sweeping judgement of Universal Credit claimants, a high percentage of whom will be in full time work, is breath taking.  Let's clear a few things up here. There's no correlation between being on any benefits and this mythical stereotype of feckless, alcohol consuming, drug addicts.  You want to see the latter? Go to the City of London... they wear suits. 

The gap between what Universal Credit will pay in rent and the reality of the actual rent and council tax costs gets ever bigger.  THAT is why most people fall into rent arrears. Wages are so low that companies get subsidies to employ people (that's what Working Tax Credit now Universal Credit is - a subsidy to businesses); benefits for the unemployed are virtually impossible to live on.  Add Zero hours insecurity, disappearing safety nets or long waits for medical treatment and it's no wonder...

This was all due to the invention of the local Housing Allowance which came shortly after the deregulation of tenancies and the simultaneous abolition of a) the Fair Rent Act; b) the end of social housing and the introduction of Right To Buy. All these things which were brought in over several years were intended to fundamentally alter the post WWII housing policies that had been so phenomenally successful.  This is one of several reasons why Britain's productivity plummeted - insecurity is not good for the nation. Or its health. 

Britain has the meanest, most punitive benefit system in Europe. It's shocking. It's not designed to get people back into work at all. You can't train or study while claiming benefits unlike in other countries (or indeed even here a few years back). The entire system is designed to undermine, diminish and make compliant the cannon fodder for the bottom-of-the-rung labour system.  

So to then dehumanise people by not giving them the dignity of cash to decide for themselves what they spend it on, to issue 'tokens' or whatever to be 'controlled' ( and being the UK outsourced to some offshore company to profit from) is an awful idea and smacks of Victorian ideas of the undeserving poor.  Please don't think like this. 

Most European countries have various versions of social tariffs for energy. That is the fairest way to ensure a basic source of heat & light. You cannot add it to Universal Credit because not all low income people claim UC and our system is so punitive and makes so many mistakes that can take years to rectify - the Carer's Allowance horror show for example - that claimants could be wrongly disconnected with no resolution for huge amounts of time. 

In Spain when you sign up for an energy tariff you give the usual details plus your NIE number - tax/social insurance number - that makes it easy to claim a social tariff if you need one. The only other addition may be a medical certificate to cover a high energy user for health reasons. 

The attitude to low income people in this country never ceases to shock me. But I guess it shouldn't - those further up the food chain than us have spent years and years working hard to push these ideas in news and TV.  Please, please don't buy into it. 

I agree. A lot of dreadful stereotyping seems to be creeping into this forum in relation to various groups including benefits claimants who are increasingly being branded as feckless and the elderly being branded as incapable.

michaels

stripling said:

@Scot_39
As as you say their are risks associated with paying direct in cash for essentials like energy and food - but unlike other nations - where say benefits are paid in part as energy and as food tokens - too many of the "worthies" object - no matter how feckless or even addicted - alcohol, gambling, drugs etc - the recipients might be.

"Other nations"..... nasty America more like. Nowhere in Europe does that in the benefits system. If it operates it's usually charitable, like British food banks, to top up benefits cut by 'Austerity' or low wages.  

This sweeping judgement of Universal Credit claimants, a high percentage of whom will be in full time work, is breath taking.  Let's clear a few things up here. There's no correlation between being on any benefits and this mythical stereotype of feckless, alcohol consuming, drug addicts.  You want to see the latter? Go to the City of London... they wear suits. 

The gap between what Universal Credit will pay in rent and the reality of the actual rent and council tax costs gets ever bigger.  THAT is why most people fall into rent arrears. Wages are so low that companies get subsidies to employ people (that's what Working Tax Credit now Universal Credit is - a subsidy to businesses); benefits for the unemployed are virtually impossible to live on.  Add Zero hours insecurity, disappearing safety nets or long waits for medical treatment and it's no wonder...

This was all due to the invention of the local Housing Allowance which came shortly after the deregulation of tenancies and the simultaneous abolition of a) the Fair Rent Act; b) the end of social housing and the introduction of Right To Buy. All these things which were brought in over several years were intended to fundamentally alter the post WWII housing policies that had been so phenomenally successful.  This is one of several reasons why Britain's productivity plummeted - insecurity is not good for the nation. Or its health. 

Britain has the meanest, most punitive benefit system in Europe. It's shocking. It's not designed to get people back into work at all. You can't train or study while claiming benefits unlike in other countries (or indeed even here a few years back). The entire system is designed to undermine, diminish and make compliant the cannon fodder for the bottom-of-the-rung labour system.  

So to then dehumanise people by not giving them the dignity of cash to decide for themselves what they spend it on, to issue 'tokens' or whatever to be 'controlled' ( and being the UK outsourced to some offshore company to profit from) is an awful idea and smacks of Victorian ideas of the undeserving poor.  Please don't think like this. 

Most European countries have various versions of social tariffs for energy. That is the fairest way to ensure a basic source of heat & light. You cannot add it to Universal Credit because not all low income people claim UC and our system is so punitive and makes so many mistakes that can take years to rectify - the Carer's Allowance horror show for example - that claimants could be wrongly disconnected with no resolution for huge amounts of time. 

In Spain when you sign up for an energy tariff you give the usual details plus your NIE number - tax/social insurance number - that makes it easy to claim a social tariff if you need one. The only other addition may be a medical certificate to cover a high energy user for health reasons. 

The attitude to low income people in this country never ceases to shock me. But I guess it shouldn't - those further up the food chain than us have spent years and years working hard to push these ideas in news and TV.  Please, please don't buy into it. 

Is the Spanish scheme funded by bill levies or taxation?