BBC article on regional standing charge differences

MWT

t0rt0ise said:

Now work it out for something like 1,000 units a year and see if they are the same!

If you want to take the other extreme, assume 0 use and the difference just for the standing charge is again around £1.50 a week from top to bottom, but with different winners and losers.

Southwestern is the biggest loser, and if you take them out of the mix the range is down to around £1.25

Chrysalis

AcerBen said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60878314

The BBC are making a fuss over big differences in the jump in standing charges depending on where you live.  But have they oversimplified things by not also pointing out that the unit rates also differ?  Surely the price cap of £1,971 still applies?

I did some calculations based on Octopus' new rates as an example:

London: 10kWh @ 29.63p/kWh = £2.96 + 31.88p sc = £3.28

Midlands: 10kWh @ 27.86p/kWh = £2.79 + 47.86p sc = £3.27

so whilst the Midlands will pay a much bigger standing charge, an average user (10kWh) a day will pay about the same because the unit rate is lower.

So are they wrong to be making a big deal out of it, or am I missing something?

What you missing is not everyone uses 10KwH a day.

You oversimplified not the BBC.

If you use less then the higher standing charge is a big deal, if you a heavy user not so much

2 KwH @ 29.63p = 59.26p + 31.88p = 91.14p a day.
2 KwH @ 27.86p = 55.72p + 47.86p = 103.58p a day.

We not all average users.  

--edited-- sorry bad maths on original post.

If I remember right this is the SVT, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

AcerBen

Chrysalis said:

AcerBen said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60878314

The BBC are making a fuss over big differences in the jump in standing charges depending on where you live.  But have they oversimplified things by not also pointing out that the unit rates also differ?  Surely the price cap of £1,971 still applies?

I did some calculations based on Octopus' new rates as an example:

London: 10kWh @ 29.63p/kWh = £2.96 + 31.88p sc = £3.28

Midlands: 10kWh @ 27.86p/kWh = £2.79 + 47.86p sc = £3.27

so whilst the Midlands will pay a much bigger standing charge, an average user (10kWh) a day will pay about the same because the unit rate is lower.

So are they wrong to be making a big deal out of it, or am I missing something?

What you missing is not everyone uses 10KwH a day.

You oversimplified not the BBC.

If you use less then the higher standing charge is a big deal, if you a heavy user not so much

2 KwH @ 29.63p = 59.26p + 31.88p = 91.14p a day.
2 KwH @ 27.86p = 55.72p + 47.86p = 103.58p a day.

We not all average users.  

--edited-- sorry bad maths on original post.

If I remember right this is the SVT, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

I know this - I made it quite clear I was talking about someone on average usage.

But the article failed to point out that whilst standing charges are going up by different amounts in different regions, the unit rates aren't necessarily going up by the same amount.  They've made out that it's going to cost people in certain areas a huge amount more without taking unit rate into account.  My example just shows that it isn't as simple as higher standing charge = higher bill.

bristolleedsfan

Chrysalis said:

, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

SC increased on  Octopus fixed rates last week, unit rate slightly down.

With no meaningful competition suspicion based on wholesale rates is that fixed unit rates are higher than need to be.

bristolleedsfan

AcerBen said:

Chrysalis said:

AcerBen said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60878314

The BBC are making a fuss over big differences in the jump in standing charges depending on where you live.  But have they oversimplified things by not also pointing out that the unit rates also differ?  Surely the price cap of £1,971 still applies?

I did some calculations based on Octopus' new rates as an example:

London: 10kWh @ 29.63p/kWh = £2.96 + 31.88p sc = £3.28

Midlands: 10kWh @ 27.86p/kWh = £2.79 + 47.86p sc = £3.27

so whilst the Midlands will pay a much bigger standing charge, an average user (10kWh) a day will pay about the same because the unit rate is lower.

So are they wrong to be making a big deal out of it, or am I missing something?

What you missing is not everyone uses 10KwH a day.

You oversimplified not the BBC.

If you use less then the higher standing charge is a big deal, if you a heavy user not so much

2 KwH @ 29.63p = 59.26p + 31.88p = 91.14p a day.
2 KwH @ 27.86p = 55.72p + 47.86p = 103.58p a day.

We not all average users.  

--edited-- sorry bad maths on original post.

If I remember right this is the SVT, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

.  My example just shows that it isn't as simple as higher standing charge = higher bill.

Example in post that you quoted, higher standing charge = higher bill.

QrizB

bristolleedsfan said:

Chrysalis said:

, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

SC increased on  Octopus fixed rates last week, unit rate slightly down.

The article, and the thread, is about standing charges on capped variable tariffs.

Octopus, BG, EDF, SP etc. can set whatever standing charge they wish on their fixed rates.

AcerBen said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60878314
The BBC are making a fuss over big differences in the jump in standing charges depending on where you live.  But have they oversimplified things by not also pointing out that the unit rates also differ?  Surely the price cap of £1,971 still applies?

The £1971 price cap is for an average GB dual-fuel consumer paying by DD. In some regions, that same average consumer pays more; in others, less.

In the Northern region, for example, the price cap is £1931, while in North Wales & Mersey it's £2015.

bristolleedsfan said:

Example in post that you quoted, higher standing charge = higher bill.

The highest electricity standing charge is in the South West, but the cap there is £2009, £6 less than N Wales & Mersey. The lowest electricity standing charge is in London, but the cap there is £1978, £47 more than Northern and £7 more than the national average.

bristolleedsfan

QrizB said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Chrysalis said:

, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

SC increased on  Octopus fixed rates last week, unit rate slightly down.

The article, and the thread, is about standing charges on capped variable tariffs.

Octopus, BG, EDF, SP etc. can set whatever standing charge they wish on their fixed rates.

I replied to this part of post as per quoted comment,

Chrysalis said:

, whilst the fixed deal I checked offered to me 3-4 weeks back was much lower standing charges, but also much higher unit price.

Ultrasonic

AcerBen said:

But the article failed to point out that whilst standing charges are going up by different amounts in different regions, the unit rates aren't necessarily going up by the same amount. 

This was my first thought when I heard the same 'news' on the radio this morning.

Tank40

Eee, I remember when you could get a tariff without a standing charge 

MattMattMattUK

I read the article and I thought it was highly irresponsible and designed as click-bait or to start an angry mob on social media, it serves no reasonable purpose and deliberately omits information that is required to make a proper judgement.