Energy news in general

MattMattMattUK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpzynky88o

The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great.

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

Scot_39 said:

Another day - another Telegraph article - suggesting the wheels might be coming off on 95% by 2030 - due to the expected CfD caps - and at least the initial budget allocated to offshore wind for ar7.

Posting the MSN link as Telegrpah behind paywall

Miliband’s offshore wind dream in tatters as industry pushes for more cash

He expect shareholders to share his dream?

Whats the issue with government building them? Can anyone explain that to me?

The government will not build them because that would require additional borrowing. The UK is already well over what can be deemed sustainable debt, we pay more on interest then we spend on education and policing. 

wrf12345

"The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great."
If they put the standing charge up again I will be joining those who don't pay, as I have done for water.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

"The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great."
If they put the standing charge up again I will be joining those who don't pay, as I have done for water.

Then you will be taken to court and will face the consequences of your actions.

Or are you just going to continue to refuse to educate yourself and whinge about standing charges ad infinitum? 

Chrysalis

JKenH said:

Chrysalis said:

Scot_39 said:

Another day - another Telegraph article - suggesting the wheels might be coming off on 95% by 2030 - due to the expected CfD caps - and at least the initial budget allocated to offshore wind for ar7.

Posting the MSN link as Telegrpah behind paywall

Miliband’s offshore wind dream in tatters as industry pushes for more cash

He expect shareholders to share his dream?

Whats the issue with government building them? Can anyone explain that to me?

Yes, Google can

AI Overview

In many countries, governments either manage or heavily regulate power generation and distribution, but it is rarely a complete government monopoly

. The extent of government involvement varies based on political and economic ideologies, but a fully state-run system can face significant challenges that lead to privatization or a mixed-market approach. 

Key reasons why governments do not fully generate and distribute power:

Economic and financial challenges

• Massive capital investment: Building and maintaining a national power infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, and distribution networks, requires enormous and continuous capital investment. Funding this through taxes can face significant political opposition.
• Operational costs: The day-to-day costs of running the power grid, such as staffing, fuel, and repairs, are immense. Private companies can be more agile and innovative in reducing these costs than a large, bureaucratic government entity.
• Avoiding financial losses: In some developing countries, state-owned power utilities can incur large losses due to non-payment of bills, electricity theft, and heavily subsidized prices. This forces governments to limit supply and ration electricity. 

Market and efficiency concerns

• Promotion of competition: Many governments believe that privatizing energy markets promotes competition, drives innovation, and can lead to lower prices for consumers. Private firms are incentivized by the profit motive to operate more efficiently and improve service.
• Mitigating market failures: The complex task of managing supply and demand is often handled by market forces. A state-controlled monopoly might not have the same incentives to optimize the grid and respond to changing market needs, potentially leading to inefficient coordination and investment.
• Avoiding political influence: Privatization can, in theory, shield the energy sector from political motivations that can lead to inefficient decision-making. Governments may avoid raising prices to remain popular, potentially running the utility into the ground. However, some argue that private companies also influence governments for their own profit. 

Logistical and technical complexity

• Maintaining the infrastructure: Running the power grid is a highly technical and complex task. An energy-system operator must constantly balance generation with demand and manage the transmission and distribution networks. This can be a challenge for large state-run bureaucracies.
• Adapting to new technologies: The energy landscape is evolving rapidly with the rise of renewable energy and smart grid technologies. Governments might find it difficult to keep pace with innovation compared to a dynamic, private sector.
• Specific geographic challenges: Technical and logistical challenges, like accessing energy resources in remote or harsh environments, can make it uneconomical for governments to provide power to all citizens. 

The mixed model approach

It is also important to note that a completely unregulated energy market can lead to its own problems, such as high profits for private companies and underinvestment in renewable infrastructure. Many governments therefore adopt a mixed approach: 

• Regulation and oversight: Even with privatization, government regulators are crucial for overseeing private energy companies to ensure fair pricing, reliability, and investment in infrastructure.
• Targeted public ownership: A government may maintain public ownership of certain parts of the energy network, such as the national grid or transmission infrastructure, to ensure long-term stability and coordinated investment.
• Private generation:Private companies are often relied upon to build and operate power plants, as they are often more efficient and responsive to market demands. 

I appreciate the effort.  Although its a private monopoly.  There is no grid level competition, competition in the renewables sector?  Terms of running lean? it doesnt mean much when it only benefits shareholders and when that lean running is by breaking laws or at the expense of consumers at a later date due to lack of infrastructure planning.  A fair amount of that AI response is ideological hope, although I accept the part about those who are allergic to paying tax would resist capital expenditure.  But that has led to us to where we are today, years of refusing to spend what we need, and now facing a energy crisis.  

The maintenance part is moot of course as revenue would still be collected to cover those costs, we have seen also with both water and energy things have been run to the ground, and companies are having to be effectively bribed to keep the lights on round the clock as well as to build renewables.

Chrysalis

wrf12345 said:

"The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great."
If they put the standing charge up again I will be joining those who don't pay, as I have done for water.

I think this has already been planned for a while, and I dont agree with it, the suppliers should be chasing debts via the court, that then should motivate them to avoid letting consumers build debt as otherwise it loses them money.

Its made even worse with a stubborn refusal to not start removing fixed DD.

Now they have little motivation as debt will be paid for then written off, and those who jig on to this will routinely let debt build and have it reset at intervals.  I will be very surprised if the costs dont explode for this reason.  There already is processes in place, this policy looks like its just going to make it much more widespread to get the average debt numbers down so it looks better politically, and also to avoid upsetting voters who are routinely not keeping up with their energy costs.
Broadband/Phones has similar issues albeit on a smaller scale.  Plenty of customers wriggling their way out of paying bills, which is likely covered by paying customers.

Auti

wrf12345 said:

"The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great."
If they put the standing charge up again I will be joining those who don't pay, as I have done for water.

And that is the attitude that has got us into the mess - why are people not taking responsibility for themselves and have this ‘entitled’ attitude. I would be mortified if I did not pay my (and my dependents) way and do so on a low income - I budget, we have never been on holiday but have homemade fun - things are basic but there is no worry in that we are not ruled by consumerism.

I resent the fact I will now be paying extra for people who feel they can just take and not contribute - we should all take personal responsibility.

michaels

Chrysalis said:

JKenH said:

Chrysalis said:

Scot_39 said:

Another day - another Telegraph article - suggesting the wheels might be coming off on 95% by 2030 - due to the expected CfD caps - and at least the initial budget allocated to offshore wind for ar7.

Posting the MSN link as Telegrpah behind paywall

Miliband’s offshore wind dream in tatters as industry pushes for more cash

He expect shareholders to share his dream?

Whats the issue with government building them? Can anyone explain that to me?

Yes, Google can

AI Overview

In many countries, governments either manage or heavily regulate power generation and distribution, but it is rarely a complete government monopoly

. The extent of government involvement varies based on political and economic ideologies, but a fully state-run system can face significant challenges that lead to privatization or a mixed-market approach. 

Key reasons why governments do not fully generate and distribute power:

Economic and financial challenges

• Massive capital investment: Building and maintaining a national power infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, and distribution networks, requires enormous and continuous capital investment. Funding this through taxes can face significant political opposition.
• Operational costs: The day-to-day costs of running the power grid, such as staffing, fuel, and repairs, are immense. Private companies can be more agile and innovative in reducing these costs than a large, bureaucratic government entity.
• Avoiding financial losses: In some developing countries, state-owned power utilities can incur large losses due to non-payment of bills, electricity theft, and heavily subsidized prices. This forces governments to limit supply and ration electricity. 

Market and efficiency concerns

• Promotion of competition: Many governments believe that privatizing energy markets promotes competition, drives innovation, and can lead to lower prices for consumers. Private firms are incentivized by the profit motive to operate more efficiently and improve service.
• Mitigating market failures: The complex task of managing supply and demand is often handled by market forces. A state-controlled monopoly might not have the same incentives to optimize the grid and respond to changing market needs, potentially leading to inefficient coordination and investment.
• Avoiding political influence: Privatization can, in theory, shield the energy sector from political motivations that can lead to inefficient decision-making. Governments may avoid raising prices to remain popular, potentially running the utility into the ground. However, some argue that private companies also influence governments for their own profit. 

Logistical and technical complexity

• Maintaining the infrastructure: Running the power grid is a highly technical and complex task. An energy-system operator must constantly balance generation with demand and manage the transmission and distribution networks. This can be a challenge for large state-run bureaucracies.
• Adapting to new technologies: The energy landscape is evolving rapidly with the rise of renewable energy and smart grid technologies. Governments might find it difficult to keep pace with innovation compared to a dynamic, private sector.
• Specific geographic challenges: Technical and logistical challenges, like accessing energy resources in remote or harsh environments, can make it uneconomical for governments to provide power to all citizens. 

The mixed model approach

It is also important to note that a completely unregulated energy market can lead to its own problems, such as high profits for private companies and underinvestment in renewable infrastructure. Many governments therefore adopt a mixed approach: 

• Regulation and oversight: Even with privatization, government regulators are crucial for overseeing private energy companies to ensure fair pricing, reliability, and investment in infrastructure.
• Targeted public ownership: A government may maintain public ownership of certain parts of the energy network, such as the national grid or transmission infrastructure, to ensure long-term stability and coordinated investment.
• Private generation:Private companies are often relied upon to build and operate power plants, as they are often more efficient and responsive to market demands. 

I appreciate the effort.  Although its a private monopoly.  There is no grid level competition, competition in the renewables sector?  Terms of running lean? it doesnt mean much when it only benefits shareholders and when that lean running is by breaking laws or at the expense of consumers at a later date due to lack of infrastructure planning.  A fair amount of that AI response is ideological hope, although I accept the part about those who are allergic to paying tax would resist capital expenditure.  But that has led to us to where we are today, years of refusing to spend what we need, and now facing a energy crisis.  

The maintenance part is moot of course as revenue would still be collected to cover those costs, we have seen also with both water and energy things have been run to the ground, and companies are having to be effectively bribed to keep the lights on round the clock as well as to build renewables.

1 The public sector is less efficient in 2025 than it was in 1997
2 With limited public investment funds available, will a politician prioritise power stations (or sewerage works) over hospitals?

Chrysalis

michaels said:

Chrysalis said:

JKenH said:

Chrysalis said:

Scot_39 said:

Another day - another Telegraph article - suggesting the wheels might be coming off on 95% by 2030 - due to the expected CfD caps - and at least the initial budget allocated to offshore wind for ar7.

Posting the MSN link as Telegrpah behind paywall

Miliband’s offshore wind dream in tatters as industry pushes for more cash

He expect shareholders to share his dream?

Whats the issue with government building them? Can anyone explain that to me?

Yes, Google can

AI Overview

In many countries, governments either manage or heavily regulate power generation and distribution, but it is rarely a complete government monopoly

. The extent of government involvement varies based on political and economic ideologies, but a fully state-run system can face significant challenges that lead to privatization or a mixed-market approach. 

Key reasons why governments do not fully generate and distribute power:

Economic and financial challenges

• Massive capital investment: Building and maintaining a national power infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, and distribution networks, requires enormous and continuous capital investment. Funding this through taxes can face significant political opposition.
• Operational costs: The day-to-day costs of running the power grid, such as staffing, fuel, and repairs, are immense. Private companies can be more agile and innovative in reducing these costs than a large, bureaucratic government entity.
• Avoiding financial losses: In some developing countries, state-owned power utilities can incur large losses due to non-payment of bills, electricity theft, and heavily subsidized prices. This forces governments to limit supply and ration electricity. 

Market and efficiency concerns

• Promotion of competition: Many governments believe that privatizing energy markets promotes competition, drives innovation, and can lead to lower prices for consumers. Private firms are incentivized by the profit motive to operate more efficiently and improve service.
• Mitigating market failures: The complex task of managing supply and demand is often handled by market forces. A state-controlled monopoly might not have the same incentives to optimize the grid and respond to changing market needs, potentially leading to inefficient coordination and investment.
• Avoiding political influence: Privatization can, in theory, shield the energy sector from political motivations that can lead to inefficient decision-making. Governments may avoid raising prices to remain popular, potentially running the utility into the ground. However, some argue that private companies also influence governments for their own profit. 

Logistical and technical complexity

• Maintaining the infrastructure: Running the power grid is a highly technical and complex task. An energy-system operator must constantly balance generation with demand and manage the transmission and distribution networks. This can be a challenge for large state-run bureaucracies.
• Adapting to new technologies: The energy landscape is evolving rapidly with the rise of renewable energy and smart grid technologies. Governments might find it difficult to keep pace with innovation compared to a dynamic, private sector.
• Specific geographic challenges: Technical and logistical challenges, like accessing energy resources in remote or harsh environments, can make it uneconomical for governments to provide power to all citizens. 

The mixed model approach

It is also important to note that a completely unregulated energy market can lead to its own problems, such as high profits for private companies and underinvestment in renewable infrastructure. Many governments therefore adopt a mixed approach: 

• Regulation and oversight: Even with privatization, government regulators are crucial for overseeing private energy companies to ensure fair pricing, reliability, and investment in infrastructure.
• Targeted public ownership: A government may maintain public ownership of certain parts of the energy network, such as the national grid or transmission infrastructure, to ensure long-term stability and coordinated investment.
• Private generation:Private companies are often relied upon to build and operate power plants, as they are often more efficient and responsive to market demands. 

I appreciate the effort.  Although its a private monopoly.  There is no grid level competition, competition in the renewables sector?  Terms of running lean? it doesnt mean much when it only benefits shareholders and when that lean running is by breaking laws or at the expense of consumers at a later date due to lack of infrastructure planning.  A fair amount of that AI response is ideological hope, although I accept the part about those who are allergic to paying tax would resist capital expenditure.  But that has led to us to where we are today, years of refusing to spend what we need, and now facing a energy crisis.  

The maintenance part is moot of course as revenue would still be collected to cover those costs, we have seen also with both water and energy things have been run to the ground, and companies are having to be effectively bribed to keep the lights on round the clock as well as to build renewables.

1 The public sector is less efficient in 2025 than it was in 1997
2 With limited public investment funds available, will a politician prioritise power stations (or sewerage works) over hospitals?

I do accept your funded that state owned is no assurance it will be ran properly, the NHS is a prime example of failure, but it isnt as bad when some shareholder isnt profiting from it.

You have to include dividends, and other things in efficiency.

Lets say e.g. state spends 20 million to run something.  Compared to private company spending 10 million but then taking 20 million as profit as well (30 million), which is more efficient?

How many times have we seen not paying for important things as efficient.

I cant understand how you come to a conclusion other than it being a disaster on energy and water privatisation.  It clearly is that.  

A politician not paying for stuff, is no different to a private company not paying for stuff except in the following way, politician's are answerable to the public, if we have to spend on government infrastructure, it is at least an investment on something the public own, not subsidising a private entity.

Are the profit margins posted a few posts back efficiency and value for money?

Its been a failed strategy for decades, but for some reason we keep making the same mistakes again as if we coded to go in a loop.

This is why Ed is been held to ransom.  Shareholders know they can squeeze him hard.

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

wrf12345 said:

"The government are now planning on adding more to our bills to pay for those who refuse to pay, great."
If they put the standing charge up again I will be joining those who don't pay, as I have done for water.

I think this has already been planned for a while, and I dont agree with it, the suppliers should be chasing debts via the court, that then should motivate them to avoid letting consumers build debt as otherwise it loses them money.

You have said this before, but that ignores the fact that it is very difficult for the suppliers to chase debts effectively because of the restrictions placed on them by Ofgem. They have to follow a slow process set out by Ofgem which means that it is at least a year before they can even commence court action, during that time they are legally required to keep supplying energy to the customer, they cannot cut them off, so the customer can build up large debts by refusing to pay and there is little to nothing the supplier can do about it. 

Chrysalis said:

Its made even worse with a stubborn refusal to not start removing fixed DD.

What do you mean by this? Do you want supplier to abolish fixed/budget DD? Whilst it might slightly reduce the bad debt rate it would be an issue for many who struggle to budget effectively. 

Chrysalis said:

Now they have little motivation as debt will be paid for then written off, and those who jig on to this will routinely let debt build and have it reset at intervals.  I will be very surprised if the costs dont explode for this reason.  There already is processes in place, this policy looks like its just going to make it much more widespread to get the average debt numbers down so it looks better politically, and also to avoid upsetting voters who are routinely not keeping up with their energy costs.

Again, it is not lack of motivation, it is that they are explicitly blocked from taking effective recovery action. The reason the debt write off is added to the bills of those of us who pay is because Ofgem, at the direction of government, have so restricted supplier's ability to recover debt effectively that they had to implement a system to cover the cost of those restrictions. 

Chrysalis said:

Broadband/Phones has similar issues albeit on a smaller scale.  Plenty of customers wriggling their way out of paying bills, which is likely covered by paying customers.

In every other sector other than residential energy and water businesses are able to take effective action to recover debts and often do, however many of those people do abscond, have no assets or are not traceable. The same with everything else where that happens, the cost of that gets passed onto those of us who are decent members of society, this happens with non-payers for service, tax evaders, shoplifters etc. As an example around 4% of the cost of groceries is made up of the cost of shoplifting, made worse in recent years because the police refuse to arrest shoplifters and the courts refuse to jail them.