High standing charges for gas and electric.

QrizB

pensioner2 said:

How can  the huge daily charge for having a metre in your home be justified, especially as it has recently doubled?

OP you started a thread on the same subject in March, and nothing has changed since then:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6342894/doubling-standing-charge-for-electricity

The comparison with a supermarket providing extra services is not valid. The supermarket pays for its goods to be delivered etc. and the cost of replacing the tills.

If you want to have groceries delivered to your house, you have to pay for that service.

If you would prefer to collect your gas and electricity yourself, you could choose to be disconnected from the grid and would not need to pay a standing charge.

Mstty

I suspect the OP feels battered and bruised with all those replies along the same lines.

They are all correct though but I can understand low users feeling the Standing Charge more than medium to high users so the explanation was required (once)

I do wonder sometimes why when something has been said it gets repeated 5 times like a ganging up, almost a bullying and pack mentality, imaging in real life 5-10 people coming up to correct your view saying almost the same thing over and over. Something I have noticed on this board since joining a few months back.

Maybe an answered and close the thread is the answer here with better moderation?

MattMattMattUK

Mstty said:

I suspect the OP feels battered and bruised with all those replies along the same lines.

They are all correct though but I can understand low users feeling the Standing Charge more than medium to high users so the explanation was required (once)

I do wonder sometimes why when something has been said it gets repeated 5 times like a ganging up, almost a bullying and pack mentality, imaging in real life 5-10 people coming up to correct your view saying almost the same thing over and over. Something I have noticed on this board since joining a few months back.

Maybe an answered and close the thread is the answer here with better moderation?

You get that on most forums, it is just the nature of them. 

I will also point out though that there is the nature of the original question, one which has already been answered multiple times on the forum, there is even a sticky at the top of the forum to explain it. Asking something which has an obvious answer (the sticky) and has been answered tens, probably hundreds of times before on the forum that even a cursory glance at past threads would provide an answer for is going to end up getting a blunt answer. The OP did not help themselves any further with their reply which was basically "I do not like reality so I am going to say everyone is wrong", even when the replies were factually correct. 

Ultrasonic

The short answer was neatly given in the first reply, but given the OP refused to accept this there were further posts on the subject. 

victor2

Mstty said:

I suspect the OP feels battered and bruised with all those replies along the same lines.

They are all correct though but I can understand low users feeling the Standing Charge more than medium to high users so the explanation was required (once)

I do wonder sometimes why when something has been said it gets repeated 5 times like a ganging up, almost a bullying and pack mentality, imaging in real life 5-10 people coming up to correct your view saying almost the same thing over and over. Something I have noticed on this board since joining a few months back.

Maybe an answered and close the thread is the answer here with better moderation?

It is indeed the nature of a forum. The OP didn't help themselves by creating two threads on the same topic and responding when he/she didn't like the answers.

Moderators will delete posts that are insulting etc., and will close threads that have clearly got out of hand. But you wouldn't want them to close every thread where all other posters disagree with the OP and attempt to point out a realistic answer.

Threads just die a natural death when people lose interest in them anyway, but remain searchable should others want to look for answers.

bristolleedsfan

Ultrasonic said:

The short answer was neatly given in the first reply, but given the OP refused to accept this there were further posts on the subject. 

Short answer you refer to containing the word "we" together with meaning of "we" 

https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E210GB691G0&p=we+meaning

1.used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together:

silverwhistle

I know the arguments have been rehearsed before, but on a skim of this thread I haven't seen any mention of how regressive high standing charges are, although there has been some mention of the impact on low users.

I have absolutely no problems paying my bills and I'm now even happier with having solar panels (!), but glib talk that "you can always disconnect" is slightly offensive when "self-disconnection" is increasing as a phenomenon. Paying over £3 a week in standing charges to then only be able to afford a few units makes every kWh even more phenomenally expensive. No one is talking about zero standing charges but with the increase it effectively means low users are contributing more than heavy users, with the latter making far higher demands on generation and the grid. Remember that if everybody had the same low usage then the costs would be far lower too, but the system has to deal with peaks, which the low users hardly impact.

It's the same with the recent increases in NI. As a pensioner I am not subject to it, but probably have an income similar to some at the bottom end who have been impacted. The burden of inflation has been impacting the less well off more, so let's not abandon attempts to make fiscal and economic policy a bit progressive and not regressive.

The lack of sympathy and understanding on here I find slightly disturbing.

MattMattMattUK

silverwhistle said:

I know the arguments have been rehearsed before, but on a skim of this thread I haven't seen any mention of how regressive high standing charges are, although there has been some mention of the impact on low users.

It is not progressive or regressive.

silverwhistle said:

I have absolutely no problems paying my bills and I'm now even happier with having solar panels (!), but glib talk that "you can always disconnect" is slightly offensive when "self-disconnection" is increasing as a phenomenon. Paying over £3 a week in standing charges to then only be able to afford a few units makes every kWh even more phenomenally expensive. No one is talking about zero standing charges but with the increase it effectively means low users are contributing more than heavy users, with the latter making far higher demands on generation and the grid. Remember that if everybody had the same low usage then the costs would be far lower too, but the system has to deal with peaks, which the low users hardly impact.

The standing charge covers (some) of the network costs, that is what it is designed for. Therefore everyone who is connected to the network pays for it. Those who want lower standing charges, charges which will be below the cost of maintaining their connection are asking to be directly subsidised by other energy users. That does not mean low users are contributing more than heavy users. The cost of generation is usually contained within the energy cost, although has not been when providers are forced to sell below cost by the cap. The grid is designed to deal with a certain capacity, there will have been decisions made in relation to peak use estimates and yes that will involve some up specked components to deal with peak max theoretical load, but in reality that cost is actually a very small percentage of the total, which comes from maintaining the destruction network consisting of millions of miles of overhead and underground cables, main and sub-stations and other network infrastructure.

silverwhistle said:

It's the same with the recent increases in NI. As a pensioner I am not subject to it, but probably have an income similar to some at the bottom end who have been impacted. The burden of inflation has been impacting the less well off more, so let's not abandon attempts to make fiscal and economic policy a bit progressive and not regressive.

We have the most progressive income taxation system of any EU country (I know we left). The NI rise should have been an income tax rise so everyone paid it on their income, but then NI should also be abolished and rolled into income tax anyway, it is just a sneaky way of the government saying that income tax is only 20%.

bristolleedsfan

MattMattMattUK said:

silverwhistle said:

I know the arguments have been rehearsed before, but on a skim of this thread I haven't seen any mention of how regressive high standing charges are, although there has been some mention of the impact on low users.

It is not progressive or regressive.

The standing charge covers (some) of the network costs, that is what it is designed for. Therefore everyone who is connected to the network pays for it. Those who want lower standing charges, charges which will be below the cost of maintaining their connection are asking to be directly subsidised by other energy users. That does not mean low users are contributing more than heavy users. 

Moving "up to" £30 per year from unit rate to SC  from April 1st was regressive
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E210GB691G0&p=regressive+meaning
"taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes"

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2018/09/ideal_economics_response_0.pdf
"Consumers who are most vulnerable, low income households least able to avoid paying high prices for energy most likely suffer hardship, they consume smallest amounts so the standing charge forms large part of total bill, means they pay highest overall rate for energy use"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/secret-200-bill-pay-failed-energy-firms/
David Osman, a former senior economist at Ofgem
Mr Osman added: "Ofgem's policy of raising the standing charge instead of the price per unit of energy is perverse. Capping it [at £60] would not only protect vulnerable consumers, reduce emissions and improve"

Jonathan Brearley, Chief Executive of energy regulator Ofgem appears to agree with sentiments of title of this thread part of which was mentioned in O/P

https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/status/1534790272118317056

MattMattMattUK

bristolleedsfan said:

MattMattMattUK said:

silverwhistle said:

I know the arguments have been rehearsed before, but on a skim of this thread I haven't seen any mention of how regressive high standing charges are, although there has been some mention of the impact on low users.

It is not progressive or regressive.

The standing charge covers (some) of the network costs, that is what it is designed for. Therefore everyone who is connected to the network pays for it. Those who want lower standing charges, charges which will be below the cost of maintaining their connection are asking to be directly subsidised by other energy users. That does not mean low users are contributing more than heavy users. 

Moving "up to" £30 per year from unit rate to SC  from April 1st was regressive
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E210GB691G0&p=regressive+meaning
"taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes"

I understand what regressive means. High users to not pay a lower standing charge, low users to not pay a higher standing charge, therefore the standing charge is neither regressive or progressive, but flat. It was not moved from one to the other. Both the standing charge and unit charge were increased proportionally to their allocated costs. 

bristolleedsfan said:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2018/09/ideal_economics_response_0.pdf
"Consumers who are most vulnerable, low income households least able to avoid paying high prices for energy most likely suffer hardship, they consume smallest amounts so the standing charge forms large part of total bill, means they pay highest overall rate for energy use"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/secret-200-bill-pay-failed-energy-firms/
David Osman, a former senior economist at Ofgem
Mr Osman added: "Ofgem's policy of raising the standing charge instead of the price per unit of energy is perverse. Capping it [at £60] would not only protect vulnerable consumers, reduce emissions and improve"

Jonathan Brearley, Chief Executive of energy regulator Ofgem appears to agree with sentiments of title of this thread part of which was mentioned in O/P

https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/status/1534790272118317056

None of those comments mean that the Standing Charge in it's current form is wrong. What they are effectively stating or arguing for is for average and high users to further subsidise low users. Reducing the standing charge would not reduce emissions, in the same way having a smart meter does not reduce energy consumption, users can modify their behaviour but that is their choice.