Gov't support

Astria

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

maisie_cat

elsien said:

I’d like more focus on the steps people can take to try to mitigate things rather than the “we’re all doomed” headlines. 

I know there are people who just aren’t going to find this affordable. And those with disabilities who do have higher costs . 

But there’s also people like my 83 year old mother talking about not putting the heating on. But she has a pension on top of the state pension - not a huge one but she’s not on the breadline. However the headlines and the figures have got her panicked much more than she needs to be. I’m sure there will be others who will cope if they’re careful, but are going to the far extreme and putting themselves at risk unnecessarily. 

I think lots of older people get freaked by the alarming headlines, FIL was convinced that he couldn't afford to put a fan on in the heatwave, but he has £60k in the bank.
I suspect many people fall into that category of claiming they cannot afford something when they actually can.

brewerdave

Alnat1 said:

If The One Show was replaced for a few days in September with Energy Specials that showed how best to set up heating systems and gave simple tips on cutting energy use etc. it would really help those who are worrying how they are going to cope.

Laudable idea but unfortunately, I think a huge number of watchers would just change the channel to watch Dave or E4 rather than feel that they are being lectured at.

deano2099

Spoonie_Turtle said:

deano2099 said:

Yes, there's certainly room for educating people to be a bit smarter on their energy usage where it's being used unnecessarily, but the idea that poorer people will cut out TV watching or gaming is for the birds. They're not going to go back to reading books. What will happen is that instead of going out one night a week, they'll go out once a month. And that's how they will fund the increased cost of energy. 

Or they'll continue not going out at night at all, like many families already.  The ones already struggling certainly won't be having nights out.

[A takeaway is cheaper than going out to eat, which we used to have once a month, then as the prices rise, once every two months … now it's more like every 3 or 4 months, if that.  We're fortunate that for us it was that we just can't countenance spending that much money on one meal (we can afford it if we really want, but old mindsets die hard), but for many it's not a choice.  And when you've already cut back, there's less room to make further savings.]

Edit: lest that ^ come across churlish at all (it's not intended to be) I do agree that cutting down on nights out is a good method that no doubt people who were modestly comfortable but now feeling the squeeze will be using.

Oh yeah I don't disagree there's going to be some people for whom they've already cut a lot and will struggle to cut more. But for most people watching TV and playing video games will be the very last thing to go. Because people have to have *something* to do, and those things, even with the increased energy prices, still come out cheaper than pretty much any other form of entertainment. 

brewerdave

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Yesterday someone suggested that working smart meters  account for less than 50% of domestic meters

The_Green_Hornet

brewerdave said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Yesterday someone suggested that working smart meters  account for less than 50% of domestic meters

According to the latest bulletin over 51% of all meters are now smart or advanced meters, with 25.2 million operating in smart mode.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1077592/Q1_2022_Smart_Meters_Report.pdf

TheBanker

maisie_cat said:

elsien said:

I’d like more focus on the steps people can take to try to mitigate things rather than the “we’re all doomed” headlines. 

I know there are people who just aren’t going to find this affordable. And those with disabilities who do have higher costs . 

But there’s also people like my 83 year old mother talking about not putting the heating on. But she has a pension on top of the state pension - not a huge one but she’s not on the breadline. However the headlines and the figures have got her panicked much more than she needs to be. I’m sure there will be others who will cope if they’re careful, but are going to the far extreme and putting themselves at risk unnecessarily. 

I think lots of older people get freaked by the alarming headlines, FIL was convinced that he couldn't afford to put a fan on in the heatwave, but he has £60k in the bank.
I suspect many people fall into that category of claiming they cannot afford something when they actually can.

You're right - not helped by the price cap always being expressed in terms of what the average household will pay.

My mum was really worried but as a single person living in a well insulated home with a modern heating system, she won't pay anywhere near the figures quoted. Yes, her bills will rise and yes it makes sense to try to reduce usage where possible, but she isn't going to need to sit in a freezing house in the dark this winter. 

The real problem that I see is the same energy saving tips - turn the boiler down, reduce the length of showers, trying not to use the tumble dryer, etc are repeated again and again. Anyone concerned about energy costs will have already done these things so won't have any more fat to cut. And, to be honest, the savings from things like reducing the washing machine temperature are going to be negligible for most people, unless they're doing a daily boil wash. The real savings come from investment in better insulation, more efficient heating etc but these all require a large capital investment which many people are unable to afford.

chris_n

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Doesn't really matter if it is monthly, make people give monthly readings ( with the usual exceptions for disabled / elderly etc) if they want to benefit from the lower rates.

brewerdave

The_Green_Hornet said:

brewerdave said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Astria said:

chris_n said:

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

Or a monthly or daily basis? That seems to depend on smart meters installed in every properly, and then they'll probably prefer to go down the TOU style of tariff. 

Yesterday someone suggested that working smart meters  account for less than 50% of domestic meters

According to the latest bulletin over 51% of all meters are now smart or advanced meters, with 25.2 million operating in smart mode.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1077592/Q1_2022_Smart_Meters_Report.pdf

I see an update of those stats. is due this week. It'll be interesting to see how the installs are progressing. I believe the 45% figure refers to the smart meters actually operating in smart mode shown on p5 of that report.

Trynsave2

elsien said:

I’d like more focus on the steps people can take to try to mitigate things rather than the “we’re all doomed” headlines. 

I know there are people who just aren’t going to find this affordable. And those with disabilities who do have higher costs . 

But there’s also people like my 83 year old mother talking about not putting the heating on. But she has a pension on top of the state pension - not a huge one but she’s not on the breadline. However the headlines and the figures have got her panicked much more than she needs to be. I’m sure there will be others who will cope if they’re careful, but are going to the far extreme and putting themselves at risk unnecessarily. 

In November 2012 I moved into a 1930s property where the previous owner had died at the age of 96. There was one electric fire in the living room, but no central heating at all. Whilst I accept the frail who sit get cold, I also think we underestimate the resourceful nature of our old folk, many of whom know how to eek their funds out. Whilst I don't begrudge them extra pennies, rather they got the help than those who feel entitled to state support for their very existence, they have been there, done that, worn out more T-shirts than we ever will and know how to tighten their belts. We could all do with understanding that it's too bad if our power hungry gadget habit needs to decrease, too bad if kids have to crawl out of their rooms and watch TV in the living room, tough if the oven is put on less or if the heating can't be on as much as last year. It isn't beyond us to wear a jumper, put coats on the bed, or go for a brisk walk. There are a lot of people in the world who would love to have our problems and bankrolling subsidies to maintain an unsustainable power mad western world can't be the answer.