STANDING CHARGES STEALTH TAX

doodling

Hi,

epsom said:

Ultrasonic said:

What_time_is_it said:

"I know exactly what I pay because it is still very basic, there is a daily charge (Standing Charge) and a charge based on usage, that should be understandable by any mentally competent adult."

I don't think this is case. I am sure that vast majority of people do not really understand their energy bills. They are deliberately made to be confusing, hard to compare, and overly complicated. Terms such as SVR, standing charges, kwhs, price cap, energy regulator, etc are not properly understood by most people.

Regardless of whether you think standing charges are fair or not, there is clearly a strong case for enforcing a simplified pricing structure that priorities clarity.

There is nothing inherently hard for anyone to understand about the standing charge. It's a concept just like phone companies charging a fixed monthly 'line rental' fee with calls charges on top depending on usage, and I've never heard anyone try to argue that is somehow too difficult a concept for most people to understand.

Overwhelmingly I think the issue with most people properly understanding their energy bills comes more from a general lack of awareness of how much energy they actually use.

As to the core question of this thread: I'm a low energy user but think the standing charge concept is a totally logical and fair one that does not need changing.

It's not about understanding the SC, it's about FAIRNESS.
if you are prepared to pay INCREASING SC on top of already greatly increased energy costs themselves, then there is not much else to say about you.

I actually think it is about greed, you are advocating that you should have more (i.e. pay less) whilst others should have less (i.e. pay more).

Those who continually compare other utilities such as phone rental and water are missing the point.
You think that SC should go up in line with the energy costs?...If so, give your explanation why?.

I think that the combination of charges for energy should reflect the costs of providing it.  Standing charges are high because domestic suppliers need all the money they can lay their hands on to avoid going bust and the government has chosen to limit both standing charge and per unit charges.

I also think that the SC for gas should be as high as can reasonably charged (with correspondingly lower per unit costs) so as to push smaller gas consumers to safer and more environmentally acceptable forms of energy, i.e electricity.  I'm not sure many would share my view but I've never been scared of looking at things differently.

We appear to have different views.

Ultrasonic

epsom said:

Alnat1 said:

If your gas use is so low why not have the gas disconnected. You can use bottled Calor type gas, no standing charge, should make you happy. 

I said I am a low user.... not that I do not use it.
I have gas central heating, but living alone, I use as little as possible---even in winter.

What is your annual gas usage in kWh? If you're using it for heating I'd be pretty surprised if zero standing charge options really were a good idea for you. This is more for properties empty much of the time of someone say just using a gas cooker but not having central heating.

For context I used about 3000 kWh of gas last year (for heating and hot water) which most would consider pretty low but is not low enough for typical zero standing charge tariffs to be a remotely good idea for me.

epsom

doodling said:

Hi,
I actually think it is about greed, you are advocating that you should have more (i.e. pay less) whilst others should have less (i.e. pay more).

Those who continually compare other utilities such as phone rental and water are missing the point.
You think that SC should go up in line with the energy costs?...If so, give your explanation why?.

I think that the combination of charges for energy should reflect the costs of providing it.  Standing charges are high because domestic suppliers need all the money they can lay their hands on to avoid going bust and the government has chosen to limit both standing charge and per unit charges.

I also think that the SC for gas should be as high as can reasonably charged (with correspondingly lower per unit costs) so as to push smaller gas consumers to safer and more environmentally acceptable forms of energy, i.e electricity.  I'm not sure many would share my view but I've never been scared of looking at things differently.

We appear to have different views.

That we can agree on---a difference of opinion. .
Have the Gov limited unit charges and SC?........I think you will see them all go higher in October, and again in January.

I wonder..... IF and WHEN prices start falling----whether that will passed on to the customer. I don't think so.

EssexHebridean

@Ultrasonic - I'm guessing the OP isn't going to be as low as my 270kWh per year! Actually, come to think of it, he's won me over, you should ALL be subsidising MY standing charge!! (Kidding - I do understand that as an ultra low user I am worth nothing to an energy company as a customer - indeed it's hard enough getting a company to be willing to take you on to supply at all at that level - if they couldn't at least get that proportion of the costs covered nobody would want to I suspect!) 

mumf

Good luck with pie in the sky wishes for prices going back to what they used to be! A year from now,today will look like a gravy train!

Ultrasonic

EssexHebridean said:

@Ultrasonic - I'm guessing the OP isn't going to be as low as my 270kWh per year!  

Indeed .

I should have said my figure was for using gas for heating and hot water, and I've edited my post to add this. It's perfectly possible for someone to be be using less of course, but giving a bit of context re. a more typical 'low gas user' and the likes of yourself!

epsom

Ultrasonic said:

What is your annual gas usage in kWh? If you're using it for heating I'd be pretty surprised if zero standing charge options really were a good idea for you. This is more for properties empty much of the time of someone say just using a gas cooker but not having central heating.

For context I used about 3000 kWh of gas last year (for heating and hot water) which most would consider pretty low but is not low enough for typical zero standing charge tariffs to be a remotely good idea for me.

I am not sure off the top of my head, but I use enough for hot water and the central heating when it's REALLY needed.
I do know I pay a lot more for the standing charge than I do the gas.
With the electric, it's slightly different---I probably use less than average as a single person, but I still use considerably more electric than gas.
The electric SC is not quite as noticeable as the gas SC, as I am topped up with electric at all times.

Ultrasonic

epsom said:

Ultrasonic said:

What is your annual gas usage in kWh? If you're using it for heating I'd be pretty surprised if zero standing charge options really were a good idea for you. This is more for properties empty much of the time of someone say just using a gas cooker but not having central heating.

For context I used about 3000 kWh of gas last year (for heating and hot water) which most would consider pretty low but is not low enough for typical zero standing charge tariffs to be a remotely good idea for me.

I am not sure off the top of my head, but I use enough for hot water and the central heating when it's REALLY needed.
I do know I pay a lot more for the standing charge than I do the gas.
With the electric, it's slightly different---I probably use less than average as a single person, but I still use considerably more electric than gas.
The electric SC is not quite as noticeable as the gas SC, as I am topped up with electric at all times.

What tariffs are you on? It's the price capped electricity standing charge that has increased dramatically recently, not that for gas.

Section62

doodling said:

Standing charges are high because domestic suppliers need all the money they can lay their hands on to avoid going bust and the government has chosen to limit both standing charge and per unit charges.

More fundamentally, the energy suppliers were quite Ok with the reintroduction of (and increase in) standing charges, because without them their income would decline as people cut back on their energy use (to meet climate targets, if not for financial reasons).

doodling said:

I also think that the SC for gas should be as high as can reasonably charged (with correspondingly lower per unit costs) so as to push smaller gas consumers to safer and more environmentally acceptable forms of energy, i.e electricity.  I'm not sure many would share my view but I've never been scared of looking at things differently.

We face two issues - security of supply, and reducing carbon emissions.  Policy in recent years has been driven largely by the latter.

Both issues require people to consume less (both gas and electricity).  A policy of higher standing charges and cheaper unit rates would lead to increased consumption - i.e. contrary to both of the key policy objectives.

Pushing low gas users to electricity wouldn't help.  Firstly because capacity issues are more of a problem with electricity than gas (so far), secondly because we are currently burning gas to generate electricity, all we'd change is where the gas gets burnt.

We need to get everybody to consume less energy.  One of the most effective ways of achieving that is to make consumption more expensive, which means increased unit prices.