Protecting the needy

sevenhills

[Deleted User] said:

Why should the Government (or more precisely taxpayers/energy consumers) pay for generous grants to people to insulate their homes?

A semi retired friend has recently has free solar panels, he is not wealthy, but richer than myself.
That must have cost the government £5k+
I bought my council house. Which involved a large discount.
Although I agree with reducing government spending, their are many freebies!

Chrysalis

I think unit price based on usage has merit, currently low usage is actually penalised because of SC which seems so backwards, I would support a lower unit price based on usage, where the cost increase after a certain usage amount.

This could be potentially done as a lighter version of Lib Dems idea, so government keeps pre October SVR rates for lets say first 150 units used a month on electric (avg 5 a day usage), then after that changes to October SVR rates, meaning even heavier users will save money as they still get the discount for first 150 units.  This would also further encourage use of smart meters and people cutting back.

This is even more important considering the new WHD will only be awarded to roughly 1/3 of low income bill payers, with those in bigger properties been favoured (only 7% of low income people in flats vs 88% of low income people in fully detached).

BUFF

wittynamegoeshere said:

stewie_griffin said:

What about households with poor insulation and expensive electrical heating that can’t afford to pay for improvements. They’re likely to be fuel poor already and your suggestion would make it worse. Also more well off households could afford solar panels and battery storage to help reduce their usage. Small home doesn’t necessarily mean low usage.

The blunt truth is that such households need to move and/or downsize.  Let someone with the capability to improve it buy it at a discount and live there.

We need to stop the subsidies for this, that and the other and just live within our means.

Someone who owns a large neglected house can swap it for a smaller updated house.  Why should someone who has failed to maintain their house get everything paid for by everyone else, many of whom won't own a house at all?

What if you are not allowed to or have conditions imposed that massively increase the cost over "normal" e.g. Listed Building or Conservation Area?
The building may not be neglected or badly maintained just hard/expensive to upgrade.

Alnat1

@Chrysalis

That wouldn't work very well for those who heat with electricity, often with old storage heaters etc.

It would also benefit those who have solar panels so import less from the grid (and that's me!)

pochase

Chrysalis said:

I think unit price based on usage has merit, currently low usage is actually penalised because of SC which seems so backwards, I would support a lower unit price based on usage, where the cost increase after a certain usage amount.

This could be potentially done as a lighter version of Lib Dems idea, so government keeps pre October SVR rates for lets say first 150 units used a month on electric (avg 5 a day usage), then after that changes to October SVR rates, meaning even heavier users will save money as they still get the discount for first 150 units.  This would also further encourage use of smart meters and people cutting back.

This is even more important considering the new WHD will only be awarded to roughly 1/3 of low income bill payers, with those in bigger properties been favoured (only 7% of low income people in flats vs 88% of low income people in fully detached).

Interesting idea. Have you calculated what this will cost?

For October to December 28.1 million households x 150KWh by 24p (discount on current cap) = £1.011 billion pm
From January 28.1 million households x 150KWh by 38p (discount on current cap) = £1.6 billion pm

I have just assumed that you planned to keep the price at the pre October level for the first 150 units.

But who is going to pay for this? Most likely we are looking at more than than 20 billion for the next year. And what about gas and electricity for heating.

Cost is £57pm, so maybe £600 for next year in the hope that rates will come down a bit.

Chrysalis

pochase said:

Chrysalis said:

I think unit price based on usage has merit, currently low usage is actually penalised because of SC which seems so backwards, I would support a lower unit price based on usage, where the cost increase after a certain usage amount.

This could be potentially done as a lighter version of Lib Dems idea, so government keeps pre October SVR rates for lets say first 150 units used a month on electric (avg 5 a day usage), then after that changes to October SVR rates, meaning even heavier users will save money as they still get the discount for first 150 units.  This would also further encourage use of smart meters and people cutting back.

This is even more important considering the new WHD will only be awarded to roughly 1/3 of low income bill payers, with those in bigger properties been favoured (only 7% of low income people in flats vs 88% of low income people in fully detached).

Interesting idea. Have you calculated what this will cost?

For October to December 28.1 million households x 150KWh by 24p (discount on current cap) = £1.011 billion pm
From January 28.1 million households x 150KWh by 38p (discount on current cap) = £1.6 billion pm

I have just assumed that you planned to keep the price at the pre October level for the first 150 units.

But who is going to pay for this? Most likely we are looking at more than than 20 billion for the next year. And what about gas and electricity for heating.

It will cost a ton, Lib Dems projected 36/37 billion for keeping the current cap on "all" usage.  So only thing I can say is it would be cheaper then that, they didnt disclose how long a time period that the money would cover either.

pochase

I think real average usage is is 4000 KWh, I have seen something like that somewhere.

So their figures for all and mine for 1800Kwh are at least in the same range, especially if they did not use the newest predictions.

Still does not answer the question where does the money come from, and for how long do they want to do this.

artyboy

Dolor said:

artyboy said:

Ultimately this would just be another form of taxation with a different mask on. I'm not actually against it in principle, but only if it was accompanied with generous grants for people in those older draughtier homes to improve their insulation/efficiency.

Let me be a Devil’s Advocate. Why should the Government (or more precisely taxpayers/energy consumers) pay for generous grants to people to insulate their homes?  I am all for loans to consumers to insulate properties paid back from the reduction in energy costs PROVIDED the Government can come up with a scheme that actually works.

Oh I have no issue with an element of means testing of said grants. I can afford to sort out my own house but plenty can't - ultimately to a point made earlier in this thread, if lower income people are effectively stuck in draughty inefficient properties, it's for the greater good that they are made fit for purpose. 

But I'd agree that the devil is in the detail of getting a scheme in place that would actually be effective.

Ultrasonic

sevenhills said:

Ultrasonic said:

Broadly I actually think the idea of tariffs with costs tapered by usage have merit. In the short term as a way to give every household some minimum amount of energy at an affordable cost, and longer term as a way to incentivise a reduction in usage.

I agree with the principle, but for the issue of climate change.

This was actually the reason behind my 'longer term' comment. I also supported this concept prior to the current price crisis for the same reason.