What's my power going to cost me ?

matelodave

But it dosen't cost any less to provide the cabling and infrastructure to your door or to maintain the network and repair it if summat goes wrong.

Laying cables and a maintaining them for someone who doesn't use much doesn't sound like a good business proposition, perhaps those who use most should pay less of a standing charge as they are contributing significantly more than a low user does and making sure that the network remains viable.

As said in another thread, if you dont like it, go off grid, get LPG or Oil or even wood. Install solar panels and a wind generator and some batteries for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The cost of all that and the unreliability of supply has got to be worth the standing charge that you pay for someone else to provide it and maintain it all

MouldyOldDough

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

A fair proportion of the standing charge does pay towards this

And why then - do SC's depend on where you live in UK ?

They increased last April - to double in South Scotland, North Wales and the South west of England, while in London and the East of England they increased by just under 60 per cent. Why the difference - using your argument - everyone SHOULD pay the same ?

MouldyOldDough

matelodave said:

But it dosen't cost any less to provide the cabling and infrastructure to your door or to maintain the network and repair it if summat goes wrong.

Laying cables and a maintaining them for someone who doesn't use much doesn't sound like a good business proposition, perhaps those who use most should pay less of a standing charge as they are contributing significantly more than a low user does and making sure that the network remains viable.

As said in another thread, if you dont like it, go off grid, get LPG or Oil or even wood. Install solar panels and a wind generator and some batteries for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The cost of all that and the unreliability of supply has got to be worth the standing charge that you pay for someone else to provide it and maintain it all

I am considering covering my garage in solar panels - it looks more and more viable at the moment

but OIL or WOOD -  Really - have you seen the price of OIL ?

As well as needing replacement boiler etc

It would double my heating bill and more

GingerTim

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

A fair proportion of the standing charge does pay towards this

And why then - do SC's depend on where you live in UK ?

They increased last April - to double in South Scotland, North Wales and the South west of England, while in London and the East of England they increased by just under 60 per cent. Why the difference - using your argument - everyone SHOULD pay the same ?

But using less power doesn't put any less strain on the infrastructure leading to your home, so no, I don't think that argument holds.

Yes, I would probably be in favour of the standing charge being equal across the country, though I can see why they are different across the regions. It's more expensive to provide and maintain a connection from distribution centres to and across the Highlands than in London, for instance. But then differential unit charges apply take this into account.

Astria

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

Cables don't go faulty because they are "used" more, if you use a little or a lot they are likely to last the same amount of time.

A low user in October might pay £120, a moderate user using double £228, almost double...

Last time I visited London, the prices in bars and restaurants cost much more than where I live because typically the working salaries are higher in London, so one would expect the SC to be higher in London too.

QrizB

MouldyOldDough said:

but OIL or WOOD -  Really - have you seen the price of OIL ?

Heating oil is almost the same price as gas, per kWh, right now. (One MSEer was recently quoted 78p/l, and there are 10kWh in a litre of oil.)

And the gas price is expected to double in October, while the oil price isn't.

MouldyOldDough

Astria said:

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

Cables don't go faulty because they are "used" more, if you use a little or a lot they are likely to last the same amount of time.

A low user in October might pay £120, a moderate user using double £228, almost double...

Last time I visited London, the prices in bars and restaurants cost much more than where I live because typically the working salaries are higher in London, so one would expect the SC to be higher in London too.

Sorry - but there's no difference at all in what a low user pays compared to a moderate user - everyone pays the same (£262 per year for electricty and gas) - when you consider my total bill is around £1000 pa - this is unfair

Well the SC's are currently 60% lower in London than SW UK !

Mstty

LPG is going to come out on top next, forget oil and wood.

Aylesbury_Duck

MouldyOldDough said:

Astria said:

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

Cables don't go faulty because they are "used" more, if you use a little or a lot they are likely to last the same amount of time.

A low user in October might pay £120, a moderate user using double £228, almost double...

Last time I visited London, the prices in bars and restaurants cost much more than where I live because typically the working salaries are higher in London, so one would expect the SC to be higher in London too.

Sorry - but there's no difference at all in what a low user pays compared to a moderate user - everyone pays the same (£262 per year for electricty and gas) - when you consider my total bill is around £1000 pa - this is unfair

I don't agree.  Why is it unfair?  I'm also a low user, but accept that the fixed cost element of providing the physical and administrative infrastructure is similar irrespective of the size of the property or the energy consumption.  The one variable that could make a difference is the distance from the substation to the home, which for some will be larger than for others.  In practice, it would be ridiculous to start varying the standing charge for such details, so an average is the fairest means.

Why should a high consumption household of six people pay more for their standing charge than I do in a low consumption house of two occupants, or you do in your low-consumption household?

MouldyOldDough

Aylesbury_Duck said:

MouldyOldDough said:

Astria said:

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

Though you use less energy that doesn't mean you use any less infrastructure to get the energy to your home than a high user, so there's no good reason why you should pay less for the standing charge.

(I say this as a low user myself).

What about the fact that since I use less power - I should pay less for fault repairs (ie Cable and High voltage pylon repairs) as well as for repairing gas leaks) ?

Cables don't go faulty because they are "used" more, if you use a little or a lot they are likely to last the same amount of time.

A low user in October might pay £120, a moderate user using double £228, almost double...

Last time I visited London, the prices in bars and restaurants cost much more than where I live because typically the working salaries are higher in London, so one would expect the SC to be higher in London too.

Sorry - but there's no difference at all in what a low user pays compared to a moderate user - everyone pays the same (£262 per year for electricty and gas) - when you consider my total bill is around £1000 pa - this is unfair

I don't agree.  Why is it unfair?  I'm also a low user, but accept that the fixed cost element of providing the physical and administrative infrastructure is similar irrespective of the size of the property or the energy consumption.  The one variable that could make a difference is the distance from the substation to the home, which for some will be larger than for others.  In practice, it would be ridiculous to start varying the standing charge for such details, so an average is the fairest means.

Why should a high consumption household of six people pay more for their standing charge than I do in a low consumption house of two occupants, or you do in your low-consumption household?

Because it should not be down to number of residents but simply amount of power consumed