What rates are you being offered by your provider at the moment?

Doc_N

Effician said:

Doc_N said:

Effician said:

Doc_N said:

And another proposal in today’s Sunday Times:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

There are risks in fixing now at high prices!

Would the current suppliers then insist on no new suppliers entering the market & undercutting them when wholesale prices fall. 

charliesf said:

Doc_N said:

And another proposal in today’s Sunday Times:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

There are risks in fixing now at high prices!

Keir's and Keith's proposals both sound good. I got a feeling Keith's one will win in the end.

Starmer is just pandering to his voter base with nothing to lose, i guess his opinion would be different if in the unlikely case he got his slimy mitts on the purse strings.

Anderson is no doubt thinking about tightening the monopoly the existing suppliers have with the bonus of reduced chances of losing money due to defaults or reduced usage, whilst always having the cop out of dumping the debts onto the taxpayer.

Starmer? Slimy mitts?

Are you unaware of Johnson's antics - quite apart from all the contracts improperly handed out to the mates of ministers during the initial Covid phase.  Including the landlord of the local pub of one of them!

There is no integrity whatever now in the Conservative Party - just a bunch of crooks and chancers.

I would consider all politicians as slimy, the more power they have the slimier they get.

Probably.  This one doesn't come from politicians, though, but it's probably attractive to them because of the way it's funded:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

Looks like a runner, and since the proposal comes from the energy companies it would explain their keenness to sign people up to much more expensive fixed rates with penalty clauses.

If you are going to fix, best go for one with no penalties for leaving, or at least a very low one.

The_Green_Hornet

The Tories won't take any notice of what Starmer says and Labour knows that. This is just petty party politics nothing more. Will they provide some more help? Probably, but they won't freeze prices. Expect a top up to the original £200 loan that then became a £400 grant. £800 maybe?

Effician

Doc_N said:

Effician said:

Doc_N said:

Effician said:

Doc_N said:

And another proposal in today’s Sunday Times:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

There are risks in fixing now at high prices!

Would the current suppliers then insist on no new suppliers entering the market & undercutting them when wholesale prices fall. 

charliesf said:

Doc_N said:

And another proposal in today’s Sunday Times:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

There are risks in fixing now at high prices!

Keir's and Keith's proposals both sound good. I got a feeling Keith's one will win in the end.

Starmer is just pandering to his voter base with nothing to lose, i guess his opinion would be different if in the unlikely case he got his slimy mitts on the purse strings.

Anderson is no doubt thinking about tightening the monopoly the existing suppliers have with the bonus of reduced chances of losing money due to defaults or reduced usage, whilst always having the cop out of dumping the debts onto the taxpayer.

Starmer? Slimy mitts?

Are you unaware of Johnson's antics - quite apart from all the contracts improperly handed out to the mates of ministers during the initial Covid phase.  Including the landlord of the local pub of one of them!

There is no integrity whatever now in the Conservative Party - just a bunch of crooks and chancers.

I would consider all politicians as slimy, the more power they have the slimier they get.

Probably.  This one doesn't come from politicians, though, but it's probably attractive to them because of the way it's funded:

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, proposed that bills should be frozen at their present level of £1,971 for two years. Suppliers would cover the gap between this and the wholesale price by borrowing from a “deficit fund” supported by commercial banks, with the sums repaid over ten to 15 years. The cost would be passed on to consumers in bills over this period or moved into general taxation.

Looks like a runner, and since the proposal comes from the energy companies it would explain their keenness to sign people up to much more expensive fixed rates with penalty clauses.

If you are going to fix, best go for one with no penalties for leaving, or at least a very low one.

I'll post my previous replies again then shall i as i presume you didn't see them.

Anderson is no doubt thinking about tightening the monopoly the existing suppliers have with the bonus of reduced chances of losing money due to defaults or reduced usage, whilst always having the cop out of dumping the debts onto the taxpayer.

Would the current suppliers then insist on no new suppliers entering the market & undercutting them when wholesale prices fall. 

I think Anderson will be lobbying the Gov't  with company & shareholders at the forefront of his agenda.

Cloth_of_Gold

Mstty said:

There will however be an instant reduction of the green levy(Truss)

Would that benefit people on a fixed tariff?

Mstty

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Mstty said:

There will however be an instant reduction of the green levy(Truss)

Would that benefit people on a fixed tariff?

Fixed or otherwise yes we all pay the green levy.

Cloth_of_Gold

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Hi, I would appreciate some advice please.

Our fixed deal with Scottish Power ended yesterday and we have been offered a new 1 or 2 year fixed deal. We haven't done anything about it yet and so from today are on the standard tariff. Our usage for the 12 months ending May 2022, according to Scottish Power, was 7989KWH. It is likely to be less in the coming year as we are now being more careful about our energy usage, but I can't see it being hugely less.

The one year deal they have offered (Green Flexi August 2023 M1) has a standing charge of 32.14p per day and a unit cost of 45.692p/KWH. The standard rate currently has the same standing charge but the unit rate is only 29.632p/KWH.   About a month ago they reminded us that our then fixed rate was due to end and we looked at what was on offer but obviously didn't switch then. The standard rate was the same then as it is today though. I would have to check but, from memory, on our previous deal we were paying something like 18 or 19p per unit, so this would represent an increase of about 150%, which seems excessive, from the figures I hear on the news. In the last 12 months we paid something like £1500 for our electricity and they are forecasting with the fixed deal around £3800! We don't have any gas appliances at the moment.

My question is, Should we move to the 1 year fixed (or the slightly more expensive two year fixed) tariff or stay with the standard tariff, as it is so much cheaper. I realise that it could, and probably will, go up, but is it likely to go above what is being offered on these fixed price deals? I just wonder if we're being encouraged to go onto something that will not be to our advantage or whether, in fact, the standard tariff will rocket soon, by which time these deals will have been replaced by something even more expensive and we will rue not taking what's on offer now.

I just checked what SP is offering us now as a fixed rate. They are only offering us two, and the cheapest of those is the Green Flexi August 2023 M2. The rates are 53.7 p/KWH and 32.14 SC. The SC is the same as what they offered 4 weeks ago but the unit rate has gone up by 8p, or 17.5%. We stayed on the variable rate of 29.6p/KWH and SC of 32.14p/day.  4 weeks ago, according to SP, our annual usage is 7989 KWH, today, and after submitting a reading on 1/7, it has gone down to 6899.

Surprisingly, over two weeks later, Scottish Power is still offering us the same rates on its Green Flexi August 2023 M2 tariff (53.7 p/KWH and 32.14 SC). Given that the latest prediction is for the cap to rise by 82% in October and a further nearly 15% in January this would, in October, take our SVT in up to what they are now offering us for the fixed deal, and in January we would be paying about 8p per KWH more on the SVT than this fix, and from April, still more. Even if the cap comes down a bit in July, it is still likely to be more than 53.7p on current predictions.

I think perhaps we should take this in case it disappears on Monday; we will have the two week cooling off period if we change our minds.The only thing is that it is a flexi deal and so the whole rate isn't fixed, about 85% is but the rest, which are variable costs, 'linked to external industry costs such as network, social and environmental obligation costs that may increase or decrease throughout the tariff term'. Currently these amount to 8p per KWH for our area. It says on the SP website that they are linked to the price cap and are reviewed quarterly at the same time as the cap so if they went up 82% too, that would add about 6p to the unit rate, making it about 60p in total, going up to about 62p in January, meaning the fix isn't so great after all.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Cloth_of_Gold

Mstty said:

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Mstty said:

There will however be an instant reduction of the green levy(Truss)

Would that benefit people on a fixed tariff?

Fixed or otherwise yes we all pay the green levy.

Yes, I realise that but if you are on the SVT and the green levy is reduced then presumably the cap goes up by a smaller percentage so you benefit. Similarly if you're on a flexi tariff, such as the one SP is offering us, then you will also benefit as the flexi part can go down as well as up. If you're on a totally fixed tariff though, how would you benefit? Surely fixed is fixed. If the green levy goes up your fixed rate doesn't go up surely? In that case, why should it go down if the levy is reduced?

pochase

I agree with you, fixed is fixed. and most likely the supplier could legally get away with collecting them from you, same as people who are currently are on fix don't have to pay for increased standing charges. The supplier has to pay for them, they are not added to the customers rates.

From what I have read it will be more public pressure if they don't have to pay them any longer over, but would still collect them from customers on a fixed tariff. Also  the government might make arrangement that forces them to pay them back to the customer.

But in general I agree with you, you have a contract, and if there are changes one side will benefit.

The 5% VAT reduction would be easier, as your rates are unit rates plus VAT, and only to make it easier the rates are quoted including VAT.

spot1034

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Mstty said:

Cloth_of_Gold said:

Mstty said:

There will however be an instant reduction of the green levy(Truss)

Would that benefit people on a fixed tariff?

Fixed or otherwise yes we all pay the green levy.

Yes, I realise that but if you are on the SVT and the green levy is reduced then presumably the cap goes up by a smaller percentage so you benefit. Similarly if you're on a flexi tariff, such as the one SP is offering us, then you will also benefit as the flexi part can go down as well as up. If you're on a totally fixed tariff though, how would you benefit? Surely fixed is fixed. If the green levy goes up your fixed rate doesn't go up surely? In that case, why should it go down if the levy is reduced?

I suspect an exception would be made in what would be wholly exceptional circumstances, or there would be a lot of trouble. 

Doc_N

Increasing press speculation about a freezing of the price cap in October - on the basis that if you remove the increase at source rather than making subsidy payments you remove the inflation that would otherwise arise, which could end up costing the taxpayer even more.

Makes a lot of sense, particularly if you use the method proposed by Scottish Power to fund it.

I’d consider a fix, but not one with penalties, for obvious reasons.