The new price cap standing charges

MWT

wild666 said:

I would sooner pay 1p or 2p per day more on the SC so that OFGEM has the money to pay out the companies who took over the supplies than be hit with an 18.6p per day increase on the SC that possibly will never be removed from the SC. I also think that the  p per day will never be removed after the government has claimed back the £200 by April 2028.

You keep saying this and we keep pointing out to you that the calculation of the capped standing charge is highly detailed and public information, it could not be left in the calculations after it is recovered without it being completely obvious that it had not been removed...

There isn't anywhere to hide it with the level of detail in the published Ofgem spreadsheet...

t0rt0ise

Martin is now campaigning for things to change with regard to the standing charge. Interesting to see what happens.

MattMattMattUK

Slumbershade said:

Is there any clear way to show that it needed to increase this much?

All the information is on the Ofgem website, as well as on several stickies on this forum. 

The main factor is the costs of the SoLR process, this now represents more than half of the standing charge, the remainder is made up of network operating costs, distribution infrastructure investment, reserve capacity payments, social payments (mostly WHD), the green levy and a few other bits. 

MattMattMattUK

t0rt0ise said:

Martin is now campaigning for things to change with regard to the standing charge. Interesting to see what happens.

Realistically the standing charge needs to go up not down, it does not cover the costs of what it is supposed to do, which means low users are being subsidised by average and high users. Note that low users does not mean poor, the lowest users are those with solar and people who work full time, the highest users are usually pensioners and the disabled. 

poppy10_2

GingerTim said:

How do you think electricity and gas get to our homes?

The infrastructure hasn't magically changed over the last year to justify a trebling in standing charges

What_time_is_it

I'd like to see standing charges abolished and the cost aborbed into a higher unit rate.
The main argument for standing charges seems to be that without it, higher users would be subsidising lower users. To that I say, good. 

Coffeekup

What_time_is_it said:

I'd like to see standing charges abolished and the cost aborbed into a higher unit rate.
The main argument for standing charges seems to be that without it, higher users would be subsidising lower users. To that I say, good. 

I would not, that will benefit the people who have 2 or more homes (who are the richer) onto saving more money.

I would like to see some incentives in tariffs if people use less they get a cheaper rate.

MWT

What_time_is_it said:

The main argument for standing charges seems to be that without it, higher users would be subsidising lower users. To that I say, good. 

No, the main argument is that these are costs that are unrelated to consumption volume so more properly shared equally between all those using the distribution network...

Wanting someone else to pay your share for you is entirely understandable, it is just unreasonable...

High users do not all do so through choice, nor are they automatically well-off, similarly being a low user doesn't make you automatically poor...

I'd love your scheme as I use very little from the grid for half the year due to solar PV, but it would be very wrong for my share of the grid costs to be paid by others less able to install solar PV for example...

[Deleted User]

What_time_is_it said:

I'd like to see standing charges abolished and the cost aborbed into a higher unit rate.
The main argument for standing charges seems to be that without it, higher users would be subsidising lower users. To that I say, good. 

You might - but what about the struggling family with a child at home on dialysis? What about the home with solar that imports no energy during the summer months? Under your proposal, they would pay nothing towards Grid operating costs; green levies; social levies such as WHD etc. This is why companies like Ebico stopped offering zero standing charge tariffs: they couldn't make money out of customers who paid them nothing but who still wanted billing; meter support etc.

There are ways of charging people less who use less by making use of smart meters. For example, many countries have a power limit in kW: that is, if the consumer agrees to a 5kW limit, the consumer will pay less for a given amount of electricity in kWh than a consumer with a 7kW limit. Similarly, time-of-use tariffs; if the consumer can shift energy use to times when demand exceeds supply then they will ending up paying less than a consumer that cannot.

littleteapot

poppy10_2 said:

GingerTim said:

How do you think electricity and gas get to our homes?

The infrastructure hasn't magically changed over the last year to justify a trebling in standing charges

It still has to be maintained for safety and reliability. The most obvious example I see is the last two years where cadent have been digging up all the ancient, corroded gas pipes and replacing them in this area. I assume this activity will have to cover the whole country. It certainly seems to me to justify the standing charge, on gas at least.

Similar happens with electricity distribution. Cables, substations etc don't last forever...