Standing Charges

Phlik

nottsphil said:

Phlik said:

. Removing the standing charge and adding the cost to the unit price would mean everyone else subsidises the low users.

That's exactly how it should be. Or don't you believe there's a climate emergency? 

Thanks, that gave me a laugh.

How on earth did you leap to that conclusion from what I'd posted?

savers_united

As the price cap keeps rising I am surprised we are still having these SC debates. 

Gas SC at 27p, when you have a unit rate now at 20p for some fixes and likely the rate on the SVT come January, the SC is becoming less significant in the grand scheme. Even from October the first KWh of gas your boiler uses will cost 50% of the daily SC. Don't really see the benefit of removing or lowering a SC and adding it to the rate at this level.

Elec is even worse, with a SC that will be almost on par with the Unit rate from October and dwarfed come January.

Will people moaning about the SC be so keen to remove it and add to the unit rate when Elec hits 70p a kWh. Be careful what you wish for, usage can fluctuate at least you know where you are with a fixed SC. 

MWT

savers_united said:

Elec is even worse, with a SC that will be almost on par with the Unit rate from October and dwarfed come January.

I never have understood the claims that the standing charge was somehow making it less of an incentive to reduce usage...

Right now the typical user on 2900kWh has 84% of their bill made up of kWh charges, that seems like a pretty good incentive to me...

MattMattMattUK

MWT said:

savers_united said:

Elec is even worse, with a SC that will be almost on par with the Unit rate from October and dwarfed come January.

I never have understood the claims that the standing charge was somehow making it less of an incentive to reduce usage...

Right now the typical user on 2900kWh has 84% of their bill made up of kWh charges, that seems like a pretty good incentive to me...

There seem to be a few posters on here who follow it with a religious dogma, they will not cut their energy usage at 29.8p per kWh, but if the the standing charge was capped and the unit rate put up to 28.9p per kWh they would suddenly slash their usage. 

wrf12345

"the SoLR payments are to cover the cost of supplying energy to the customers of these failed suppliers plus the cost of consumer credit protection."
Repeating the same thing does not make it true, there was no reason why that cost could not have been added to the unit charge, at the moment you are having low users subsiding high users who have been moved over to new suppliers, an absolutely outrageous situation and an illustration of how incompetent Ofgem are for agreeing to it.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

"the SoLR payments are to cover the cost of supplying energy to the customers of these failed suppliers plus the cost of consumer credit protection."
Repeating the same thing does not make it true, there was no reason why that cost could not have been added to the unit charge, at the moment you are having low users subsiding high users who have been moved over to new suppliers, an absolutely outrageous situation and an illustration of how incompetent Ofgem are for agreeing to it.

Stating what something was for, does not mean it could not have been paid for in some other way. It could have been paid for from general taxation, it could have been paid for by putting £3 on a packet of cigarettes, it was paid for by putting the cost on the standing charge, that is a fact, it is true, just because you do not want it to be on the standing charge does not mean that it is not true. 
Low user are not subsidising high users, low users are still being subsidised by average and high users, you want that subsidy to low users to be increased further. I get it, you want the system to benefit you, you want to be subsidised by other people, but at least be honest about that, rather than making things up to try to pretend your position is about "fairness".

[Deleted User]

wrf12345 said:

"the SoLR payments are to cover the cost of supplying energy to the customers of these failed suppliers plus the cost of consumer credit protection."
Repeating the same thing does not make it true, there was no reason why that cost could not have been added to the unit charge, at the moment you are having low users subsiding high users who have been moved over to new suppliers, an absolutely outrageous situation and an illustration of how incompetent Ofgem are for agreeing to it.

There are sound business reasons for not doing what you are suggesting. Rather than your continuous ‘wash; rinse and repeat’ posts on the same and related subjects, I suggest that your time might be better spent by arguing your case with your MP and consumeraffairs@ofgem.gov.uk

FWiW, I would lose no sleep whatsoever if standing charges were abolished. However, let me leave you with a thought which is that any change would have to involve a sliding scale of unit charges (high to low based on units used) to recover the income lost. 

Mstty

I do understand the mathematical arguement that lower users pay more for their energy overall. But also understand why the SC is set where it is. It's a dilemma.

Based on unit rate of 29.24p kWh and £165 a year standing charge

Customer A is very frugal and uses 1000kwh Electricity a year.

Total per kWh electricity = 44.7p.kWh

Customer B is an average user and uses 2900kwh Electricity a year.

Total per kWh electricity = 35.2p kWh

Customer C is an above average user and users 5000kwh Electricity a year.

Total per kWh electricity = 32.5p kWh

MattMattMattUK

That can also be framed as:

Customer A pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Customer B pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Customer C pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Mstty

MattMattMattUK said:

That can also be framed as:

Customer A pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Customer B pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Customer C pays £165 pa for their grid connection, associated costs and pays 29.24p per kWh for the energy they use.

Completely agree, but it's an interesting spin on the numbers to show it as I did and that might explain why some harp on about it so much.