Standing Charges

MattMattMattUK

Mstty said:

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.

It generally appears that those who harp on about it are ones who want average and above average users to subsidise them, they are being inherently selfish, unfortunately it seems to be the way a lot of people are currently. 

MWT

Mstty said:

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.

It is hard to get past the point that there are static costs unrelated to consumption that should reasonably be mutualised, but agreed there are perhaps some elements of that cost that could be moved to the kWh side of things.  

The_Green_Hornet

MWT said:

Mstty said:

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.

It is hard to get past the point that there are static costs unrelated to consumption that should reasonably be mutualised, but agreed there are perhaps some elements of that cost that could be moved to the kWh side of things.  

Maybe some of these costs, e.g. social & environmental obligation, should be moved out household energy bills altogether.

[Deleted User]

The_Green_Hornet said:

MWT said:

Mstty said:

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.

It is hard to get past the point that there are static costs unrelated to consumption that should reasonably be mutualised, but agreed there are perhaps some elements of that cost that could be moved to the kWh side of things.  

Maybe some of these costs, e.g. social & environmental obligation, should be moved out household energy bills altogether.

Not if you are putting yourself forward as a low tax Government. In fact, if memory serves it was a Labour Government that put in place the present ‘consumer pays’ system.

The_Green_Hornet

[Deleted User] said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

MWT said:

Mstty said:

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.

It is hard to get past the point that there are static costs unrelated to consumption that should reasonably be mutualised, but agreed there are perhaps some elements of that cost that could be moved to the kWh side of things.  

Maybe some of these costs, e.g. social & environmental obligation, should be moved out household energy bills altogether.

Not if you are putting yourself forward as a low tax Government. In fact, if memory serves it was a Labour Government that put in place the present ‘consumer pays’ system.

I'm not putting myself forward as any type of Government

savers_united

If the SC was abolished I guess we would return to a similar system as before where the first x kwh are at a higher rate, not as perhaps some low users would like it where the rate increases with use, there are fixed costs that need to be shared so you either lump them into the first x kwh per annum or have a SC and flat rate.

Typical example a holiday home used 6mths the year using 1000kwh Elec annually. If we had a system where an extra 6p was added to the unit price instead of a SC then a holiday home like this would pay £60 annually towards the network and all the other obligations, even when this holiday home could be out in the countryside away from the power stations and needing miles and miles of cabling to reach.
One repair could cost hundreds if not thousands, it's not that the owners are good with their energy use or have an efficient property its just only getting used 6 months of the year, so why should they some how be rewarded with lower contributions to these fixed costs we all share. 

And a message to low users who are obviously the ones who moan most about the SC, it may not always be the case, you may one day have children or fall ill and need your home heated more or a higher temp than you did previously. So I do find it a bit selfish that just because it may suit you now you expect other users to subsidise your connection to the grid and our shared obligations as energy users. 

Xbigman

As I and others have pointed out before. The £400 payment is worth far more to a low user than to anyone else. Low users are the winners this year so please stop moaning.


Darren

Ultrasonic

Xbigman said:

The £400 payment is worth far more to a low user than to anyone else. 

How so? I'd suggest it's worth £400 to everyone...

pochase

I think what @Xbigman mean sis that there were several post from people saying they have now completely free electricity far into 2023.

The 400£ does not just help with the increase for them, it pays their whole bill and more for the six month. 

Xbigman

If your energy bill is £1000 a year the £400 is worth 40%
If your energy bill is £2000 a year its worth 20%
If £4000 a year its 10%.

Even adjusting for the extra standing charge this year then a low user should not be much worse off than they would have been anyway. A very low user should actually have gained a bit.


Darren