Gov't support

MattMattMattUK

GingerTim said:

YoungBlueEyes said:

I wonder about this sometimes. I’m a very careful low user, for a few months of the year the s/c is the majority of my bill. So reducing my consumption doesn’t really affect my bills. Any reductions I can make now (there’s no fat left to trim tbh) would only have a teeny effect on my cost. 

I understand why the system is like it is, other than a big rethink and overhaul it’s probably the fairest/simplest it can be. 

Completely agree that the current standing charge arrangement is the fairest/least worst way of doing this. I'm a low user, too, and have yet to see anyone provide a reason, other than self-interest, as to why it would be fair for high energy users to subsidise low users. 

Self interest, and even worse short term self interest seem to be the driving force behind a lot of people's opinions. 

Sea_Shell

pochase said:

An Ipad Pro 12.9 has a 40.88Wh battery. If you empty it daily complete and charge it again that would be 14.921KWh.

So even at October rates the annual cost is under 8£.

Ooh, just looked up my phone, which I believe has a 11.4wh battery (Moto S6), so on one full charge/discharge per day, would only use 4.1 kWh per year!!?

Peanuts, in the grand scheme of things.

Astria

Sea_Shell said:

pochase said:

An Ipad Pro 12.9 has a 40.88Wh battery. If you empty it daily complete and charge it again that would be 14.921KWh.

So even at October rates the annual cost is under 8£.

Ooh, just looked up my phone, which I believe has a 11.4wh battery (Moto S6), so on one full charge/discharge per day, would only use 4.1 kWh per year!!?

Peanuts, in the grand scheme of things.

You are forgetting a few things, your power isn't going to be 100% efficient, you phone isn't going to be able to use all the available power for charging the battery (some will be dispersed in heat) and if you use a wireless charger it'll be even worse. Still peanuts though, but something to think about when you scale up the battery.

Section62

pochase said:

I still fail to see any reason why a low user should not not pay for the services they get and instead want to be subsidised by high users?

I don't drive much, but I pay the same road tax my neighbour does who drives 50000 miles per year. So he uses the roads much more than I do. We should abandon road taxes and instead add it to the petrol price. It is his own fault that he drives that much, he can pay my share also.

We don't pay a road tax - we pay a pollution tax based on vehicle emissions.  The revenue generated goes into the government's coffers.  From 2015 the amount of money raised by VED has been ringfenced for the National Road network (motorways and trunk roads) but remains a small part of the overall cost of maintaining and improving the road network.

Local roads maintained by the local authority (the biggest group in terms of km's) are maintained through LA funding raised by council tax and from grants.

Abolition of VED and fuel duty has been discussed a lot over the last 20 years.  The existing system is broken, and a switch to EV's means the collection of fuel duty will no longer be as simple as making the distributors and retailers collect the tax and pass it on to the government.

Realistically, it is only a matter of time before VED and fuel duty are replaced with a per-mile charge for road use - so people pay for road use and the detrimental effects this has, according to the distance they drive.  The only reason this hasn't happened aleady is that the people who drive the most form a vocal group, many of whom are more likely to vote for one party rather than the other.  The per-mile charge will only be politically acceptable if there is a scheme of charges reflecting remoteness of residence/occupation, access to public transport, and needs such as regular hospital appointments etc.

VED isn't a flat rate paid by all.  If your neighbour drives his 50,000 miles per year in an EV then he won't be paying a penny in 'road tax'.  Or he could own one of those highly-polluting diesels the government encouraged by giving them a £15/year tax band.

Like 'road tax' the 'standing charge' is an artificial construction.  The funding of infrastructure isn't directly correlated to the money raised by the standing charge on each person's bill.

If the standing charge was incorporated into a first band of unit charge (as it was until Ofgem decided people didn't understand their bills) then people would still be making a financial contribution to the supply infrastructure, they wouldn't be getting it for free.

On environmental and sustainability grounds I think there is a good argument for going back to no standing charge (as there is for abolishing VED) because a charging regime where you pay a fixed fee regardless of consumption has the effect of disincentivising reductions in consumption.

Furthermore, the impact each of us has on the distribution networks is not equal.  Just as we don't all have an equal impact on the road network.  People who use more energy make the system work harder to deliver that energy to them.  The need for capacity enhancements would be reduced if people used less energy, just as people who drive less contribute less to the need to improve the road network.

We need to encourage people to use less energy, and one of the main levers to do that is charging people for what they use.  Making a significant proportion of someone's energy bill a standing charge that they cannot avoid paying is wholly counter productive in achieving the aim of less consumption.

pochase

Section62 said:

pochase said:

I still fail to see any reason why a low user should not not pay for the services they get and instead want to be subsidised by high users?

I don't drive much, but I pay the same road tax my neighbour does who drives 50000 miles per year. So he uses the roads much more than I do. We should abandon road taxes and instead add it to the petrol price. It is his own fault that he drives that much, he can pay my share also.

We don't pay a road tax - we pay a pollution tax based on vehicle emissions.  The revenue generated goes into the government's coffers.  From 2015 the amount of money raised by VED has been ringfenced for the National Road network (motorways and trunk roads) but remains a small part of the overall cost of maintaining and improving the road network.

So the person who drives 10 times as much as I do is not responsible for for more pollution? 

Why do I have to pay more for a bigger car I drive 2000 miles, than somebody with a smaller car who drives 50000 miles?

I don't have a problem with the above personally, but why should somebody not pay for the SOLR process just because they use less energy? The power lines and gas pipes to the property cost exactly the same no matter if you use 1KWh per day or 100KWh. More energy use does not really damage them much faster.

Astria

Section62 said:

We need to encourage people to use less energy, and one of the main levers to do that is charging people for what they use.  Making a significant proportion of someone's energy bill a standing charge that they cannot avoid paying is wholly counter productive in achieving the aim of less consumption.

The way I can see it working is having a minimum charge, so you could pay a minimum of £15/month (50p a day) for your electric, which includes all the infrastructure costs, etc, but that also includes 30 kWh of electric. Additional kWh could be charged at 50p.

Section62

pochase said:

So the person who drives 10 times as much as I do is not responsible for for more pollution?

They are.  Which is why they will pay more pollution tax in the form of fuel duty, unless they drive an EV.

pochase said:

Why do I have to pay more for a bigger car I drive 2000 miles, than somebody with a smaller car who drives 50000 miles?

I'm not here to defend the VED system, I've said it is broken and needs replacing.  The current version means if the list price of your car is £40,000 or more then you'll pay a surcharge of £355/year in years 2 to 5 (from new), solely because you are assumed to be able to afford it, whereas your neighbour with a car having a list price of £39,999 doesn't have to pay that.

As I pointed out, 'road tax' has no correlation to the money spent on repairing/improving roads as a result of using that particular vehicle.

pochase said:

I don't have a problem with the above personally, but why should somebody not pay for the SOLR process just because they use less energy?

You could ask why does everyone have to pay the same for SOLR costs regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of whether they have ever had the benefit of using one of the (cheaper) suppliers who went bankrupt.

The SOLR process also appears broken and not fit for purpose.

It is the equivalent of funding the FSCS by taking a %age from the accounts of every customer whose FI is a member of the scheme.

When there are no failures it works fine. When there are lots of failures the inherent weaknesses of the scheme become glaringly apparent.

Personally I think it would be better if the SOLR cost recovery was included on people's bills as a separate line, rather than fudged into the standing charge.

pochase said:

The power lines and gas pipes to the property cost exactly the same no matter if you use 1KWh per day or 100KWh. More energy use does not really damage them much faster.

I don't think that is strictly true.  Distribution costs are not limited to wear and tear on the network through use.  Some of the costs are from physically getting the energy from A to B (pumping/pressurisation for gas, heat loss of electricity) which are proportional to the amount of energy transferred.

I've already mentioned the need for capacity enhancements is related to demand.

And ultimately (although not 'much faster') carrying an increased current through an electrical cable will generate more heat which will have an adverse impact on the life of the cable insulation.

We also know that some properties need a lot more infrastructure to supply them with energy than other properties do.

Therefore whilst the impact of some of these factors may be marginal, it is also true that regarding the cost of supply to each property to be exactly the same is oversimplifying the case.

Moreover, it is completely acceptable to modify fees/charges to effect behavioural change - we see that in the way VED rates have been applied.  Likewise with low-user rebates for water and telecommunications.

Even if it were true that the cost of connecting a property to an energy supply were exactly the same as for every other property, it does not follow that the amount charged per property (in standing charges) should be exactly the same regardless of use.  To meet wider objectives (e.g. environmental ones) the charging mechanism should always incentivise reduction in consumption - and the larger the proportion of fixed costs, the weaker you make that policy lever.

sienew

VohnnyJegas said:

Sea_Shell said:

"They're not going to go back to reading books."

Well, that's a shame.   

Maybe people will reconnect with old fashioned pass times.

Borrow a draughts (or chess if they prefer a challenge!) set.  Play cards.  Jigsaw puzzles etc etc.

Not everything has to be electronic.

Draughts, and chess, are both incredibly hard games to play in total darkness when you're freezing to death.

Electric blankets and LED lights are both incredibly cheap to run. Nobody should be in the dark or freezing.

Section62

Astria said:

The way I can see it working is having a minimum charge, so you could pay a minimum of £15/month (50p a day) for your electric, which includes all the infrastructure costs, etc, but that also includes 30 kWh of electric. Additional kWh could be charged at 50p.

Which means some low users could be incentivised to increase their consumption to make full use of their 'free' kWh allowance.

Give people something for 'free', or make them think they are paying for it whether or not they use it, and they will use more than they really need to.

Human nature.

Astria

sienew said:

VohnnyJegas said:

Sea_Shell said:

"They're not going to go back to reading books."

Well, that's a shame.   

Maybe people will reconnect with old fashioned pass times.

Borrow a draughts (or chess if they prefer a challenge!) set.  Play cards.  Jigsaw puzzles etc etc.

Not everything has to be electronic.

Draughts, and chess, are both incredibly hard games to play in total darkness when you're freezing to death.

Electric blankets and LED lights are both incredibly cheap to run. Nobody should be in the dark or freezing.

How much do electric blankets use actually? and are they as cheap as a hot water bottle if you have a combi boiler, or a tank full of hot water? I do remember placing 2 hot water bottles in my bed many years ago try and warm it up!