Energy news in general

JKenH

Auti 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.

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.

I knew a woman many years ago who spent every penny that came through the door. She boasted the government will look after me when I am a pensioner and, my, was she right. Governments of all political colours are morally blackmailed by the media into looking after the impecunious. I do have friends who have a few savings (not a lot) but their income is just above that required to receive pension credit.

If their income was a little less they would receive qualify for pension credit and be much, much better off.

It seems writing off electricity arrears will now be added to the long list of benefits for those who will not take personal responsibility. 

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

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.

The NHS is inefficient, but nowhere near as inefficient as it is made out to be, at least on an operational level. Many of the inefficiencies in the NHS are structural, the way things are implemented by government, the way it procures supplies and equipment, the way it builds hospitals, the way it provisions GPs.

Chrysalis said:

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

No one does not, dividends are profit or extraction, not efficiency. 

Chrysalis said:

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?

The latter is more efficient, it is also more expensive, the two are not mutually exclusive. 

Chrysalis said:

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

Energy privatisation has not actually been particularly bad, certainly not a disaster and the price rises we have experienced in recent years would still exist in a state owned supplier system because a huge component of that cost rise was caused by the rise in international energy costs, where we would still have to buy supplies on the open market. Water privatisation has been a disaster, but it could have been much better had it been properly regulated. Succussive governments since privatisation and for at least thirty years before when it was state owned refused to invest in the supply network, the price rises we face now are about 15-20% because of privatisation and 80-85% due to fifty plus years of hugely underinvestment. 

Chrysalis said:

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.

Politicians are not really answerable in the people way people like to think, hence we have had 80 years of incompetence and governments doing many things that the vast majority of the population are totally against. 

Chrysalis said:

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.

The failed strategy is not private energy ownership, it is the complete lack of an energy strategy for 50+ years, there has continually been shortermism from government, refusing to want to increase costs to invest because the general public would have a tantrum. That was the same reason for privatisation in the first place, governments of the day wanted to keep taxes artificially low so they used the money from selling off assets to do that. We then had PFI/PPP to build hospitals off the books, keep government debt artificially low but costing 20-150 times more over the following fifty years than just paying for and building the hospital or school in the first place, however the debt was moved to an operational cost as hospital or school leasing cost. 

Ed is not being held to ransom by shareholders or suppliers, he is clashing with the government wanting to push living costs down and the cost of actually investing in energy supply, together with flat earthers and climate deniers who do not want to decarbonise and do not want energy security. 

JKenH

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?

My heart would love to see important infrastructure such as power and railways in state hands but my head tells me that services would deteriorate and cost more. It will be interesting to see how services at Great British Rail perform. Financially the privatisation of the rail industry led to a lot of the value leaving the industry and ending up in the pockets of former senior rail executives. 

I doubt, though, that with a nationalised electricity industry we would have seen the innovation of companies like Octopus.

Alnat1

Further on in the BBC report about writing off energy debt -

Among the other schemes to tackle debt being considered by Ofgem is a requirement on new tenants and homeowners to ensure they are paying for their gas and electricity supply.

It said that when someone moves into a new home, energy accounts were switched to the "occupier". Bills built up under these anonymous accounts until the individual contacted a supplier to register.

Suppliers estimate this accounted for £1.1bn to £1.7bn of the historic debt in the system, which was in danger of never being paid.

Ofgem wants a system similar to that used in other countries, where customers must sign up.

In practical terms, to avoid customers being cut off entirely, smart meters in these properties would be switched to prepayment mode and have some available credit. This would leave residents eventually having to top-up or sign up to the supplier.

The regulator's plans would only cover properties where a smart meter had been fitted.

My ideas -

1.Make smart meters mandatory. Maybe make prepayment smart meters mandatory in rented accommodation.

2. When inputting final readings as you leave a property, add a section to name who is taking over the supply. Tenants can add landlords name, sellers should be aware of who is buying their property.

Scot_39

Auti 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.

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.

Remeber this is only another creep - a smaller one than the last time they increased the additional allowance from iirc c£11 to c£28 - a £17 step.

That supposedly temporary allowance has now been "hidden" in the cap breakdown letter tables in the same total as supplier operating costs - and when done iirc they said the total was £50 - I suspect ex VAT - which is why the press article talks about £52.

This extra £5 is just another small step.

Much smaller than the £17 anyway.

Its a typical trickle charge loading technique - as people often accept a £1 a month charge at a time for this a £1 a month extra for that - when happen periodically.

Remember we still have the c£1pm to come for Sizewell's new funding / guarantees (policy announced but Ofgem I suspect still crunching the numbers to get in in time for October cap) and £100+ more for net zero network, balancing and of course curtailment fees by 2029/30.

But we are now after years of such tricking / loading up - at the stage where £100s of our bills are made up of policy costs, green levys and CfDs/ net zero network costs.  

Policy costs (largely social) alone £215 - including the latest £17 / 9% rise in Oct to fund the WHD extension.  

Has no one explained to the govt depts and their quangos there is an official 2% inflation target - and that every time they (often hiding behind a willing regulator - Ofgem, Ofwat, Ofcom etc allow / put the price up by more) - it's only inevitably leading to a strong likelihood of that core economic policy failing.

Take the £17 as an example - a 9% rise - on the policy line - well £17 x c29m grid connected homes = £0.5bn less for the treasury to find to pay those on benefits enough to afford the already far higher than necessary bills - loaded largely by net zero and social policy.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-08/summary-of-changes-to-energy-price-cap-1-october-to-31-december-2025.pdf

The current cap on average is up £35 - wholesale costs ex VAT were down £15 - the £51 govt policy inspired difference - a large chunk £17 that social / tax shift policy and of course increasing network / net zero costs.

And cynically you can see why many now believe Ofgem and DESNZ it seems have only two remits - net zero in a rush cf other nations at far greater costs now - and moving costs for it (like support for the poor to afford bills via WHD) from govt taxation to others energy bills (including ironically the top line of those it helps with the WHD - so its not really £150 then) - nothing to do with keeping our current bills down.

EssexHebridean

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.

Tell me, do you see others behaving poorly and decide to follow their example in other situations, too? Perhaps you see someone driving like a tool on the motorway, and so crank things up to 95mph and start undertaking? Perhaps you don't bother paying for your groceries in the supermarket, because after all, other people shoplift, so why should YOU pay? 

I will never understand why some folk consider it appropriate to aim for the behaviour standards of the lowest - rather than the highest? 

born_again

MeteredOut said:

MattMattMattUK said:

debitcardmayhem said:

If the cap fits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5r190y3kko

Reading the comments on that article show just how uneducated the general public are, which we often see on here as well. One has to wonder if there is any way that the energy suppliers and/or the government could win with the general public, it seems that even if energy was given away for free the general public would then start complaining that they were not paid to use energy. 

I'm not sure if I enjoy or hate reading those comments.  One one exteme, I'm wanting to shout at the screen, but at the other, it provides a massive level of entertainment.

I liked particularly liked this regarding the standing charge

"They are the biggest rip off going, the pipes have been laid years ago, does not cost anything now to supply the customer."

Perhaps next time there is a storm & power supplies go down. These people are reminded by a large bill for fixing the problem.
Might just realise the cost of maintaining & fixing the network, is not cheap.

QrizB

Alnat1 said:

In practical terms, to avoid customers being cut off entirely, smart meters in these properties would be switched to prepayment mode and have some available credit. This would leave residents eventually having to top-up or sign up to the supplier.

With smart meters now meaning that switching to prepayment doesn't involve a physical meter exchange, and with prepayment tariffs being broadly aligned to DD, this seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

I would however suggest that we still need Ofgem to allow automatic switching from DD to PP if the DD goes unpaid for several months, or if arrears exceed a threshold.

MeteredOut

We need super-smart meters that recognise what's using the electricity and have granular control over that. Those customers that are not paying for their energy automatically have the power cut to any gaming consoles, devices running Netflix and any Vape chargers.

(emoji removed as i wasn't really joking )

EssexHebridean

Now there is no financial penalty for being on PP, there really is no excuse for those in persistent debt and being uncommunicative about it being switched over to PP.

I also love the idea of super-smart meters - not least as it would leave the usual conspiracy theorists even more apoplectic about SMs!