Energy saving obstructed?

dunstonh

Well, they are funding the cap and I'm sure none of us want to see that debt carried forward indefinitely.

The EPG may end up costing a lot less as spot prices is lower the December futures.  Natwest markets are saying that if it remains at that level, the subsidy won't kick in.  They are not saying it will stay like that but they have dropped the estimate for the first 6 months by half.

Demand in Asia has fallen away and freed up supply for Europe at lower costs.  The Government calculated the cost of the energy cap at around 600 pence per therm for December gas. The actual cost for December contracts is now 435 p/therm. The November contract is down to 294 p/therm - already at or below the guarantee.

Section62

double_dutchy said:

Surely it's self-funding?

The proposed campaign would have cost £15m and they hoped that some households would save up to £300 as a result.....but each household would only have to save enough, on average, to cut their cap subsidy by approximately 50p to save the government £15m on subsidy

Only if you only include the £15m in the 'cost' side of the equation and ignore the cost of unintended consequences - such as the additional deaths and hospital admissions from people adopting unwise energy-saving measures.

We get an insight to it on this forum - people asking about using generators or inverters to power their home without much idea of the risks involved. Expect cases of CO poisoning and electrocution to go up. Let alone the people who will sit in the cold and do serious damage to their health in the process.

I think the government should have encouraged people to use less energy rather than subsidise the cost.  But that was politically unacceptable, and that particular ship has sailed.  Any government campaign to encourage less energy usage (particularly linked to 'savings' on the cost of the subsidy, as you suggest) will immediately be turned into a political football.  UK politics currently isn't mature enough to handle this sensibly.

TheBanker

dunstonh said:

I think a campaign would be useful.

But should the taxpayer fund the campaign?
There are plenty of consumer groups that can do it. This forum has been instrumental in helping people understand how it works and how to reduce their own use.

Often, it is simple as turn unused devices off at the plug.
use the eco setting on the dishwasher setc.

Those that want to save money have plenty of resources available to do so if they wish.  Those that cannot be bothered will pay for that in their electric bills.

Some stuff is simple, but there are a lot of people who want to save energy but don't know how to go about it. As I said before, just look at how many people on this forum ask about what washing machine setting to use, and have their minds blown when someone explains that a longer cycle can use less electricity than a quick wash. And not everyone has internet access, or the ability to seek out information, or assess what is true and what is not. 

Again, look at the people here who talk about boiling the kettle and filling a flask to save boiling it again later. Only worth doing if you're on economy 7 or have solar and can take advantage of cheap/free electricity. 

I would not object to the taxpayer spending £15m on this campaign - executed correctly it would pay for its self several times over. 

Swipe

The best campaign for energy saving will be that first winter bill

TheBanker

Section62 said:

double_dutchy said:

Surely it's self-funding?

The proposed campaign would have cost £15m and they hoped that some households would save up to £300 as a result.....but each household would only have to save enough, on average, to cut their cap subsidy by approximately 50p to save the government £15m on subsidy

Only if you only include the £15m in the 'cost' side of the equation and ignore the cost of unintended consequences - such as the additional deaths and hospital admissions from people adopting unwise energy-saving measures.

We get an insight to it on this forum - people asking about using generators or inverters to power their home without much idea of the risks involved. Expect cases of CO poisoning and electrocution to go up. Let alone the people who will sit in the cold and do serious damage to their health in the process.

But surely the campaign, if well designed, would address those risks. If it gives advice on sensible ways to reduce bills, then maybe people are less likely to risk hypothermia by turning the heat off completely, or risk CO1 poisoning by doing an indoor BBQ, or whatever. 

Sea_Shell

Swipe said:

The best campaign for energy saving will be that first winter bill

Assuming people actually look at it, understand it and don't assume their DD is taking care of it!!

Those on pre-pay will be the first to notice, followed by "whole of bill" payers.

Those on fixed DD will be the last to realise... probably.

born_again

TheBanker said:

I would not object to the taxpayer spending £15m on this campaign - executed correctly it would pay for its self several times over. 

Most people will already be doing this advice to save money. 
If they are going to do something like this. It needs to be targeted at the people that will get the most from it. How you work that out will be fun.
Otherwise it is a waste of money. But in the grand scheme of Gove spending is like us buying penny chews 🤣

Odds on the people that would benefit from this will be the one's moaning the loudest about the costs, but doing nothing to help themselves. Even when they are offered advice. As they are too offended that they do not know what to do 🤷‍♀️ Especially when it comes from the Government.

Section62

TheBanker said:

Section62 said:

double_dutchy said:

Surely it's self-funding?

The proposed campaign would have cost £15m and they hoped that some households would save up to £300 as a result.....but each household would only have to save enough, on average, to cut their cap subsidy by approximately 50p to save the government £15m on subsidy

Only if you only include the £15m in the 'cost' side of the equation and ignore the cost of unintended consequences - such as the additional deaths and hospital admissions from people adopting unwise energy-saving measures.

We get an insight to it on this forum - people asking about using generators or inverters to power their home without much idea of the risks involved. Expect cases of CO poisoning and electrocution to go up. Let alone the people who will sit in the cold and do serious damage to their health in the process.

But surely the campaign, if well designed, would address those risks. If it gives advice on sensible ways to reduce bills, then maybe people are less likely to risk hypothermia by turning the heat off completely, or risk CO1 poisoning by doing an indoor BBQ, or whatever. 

The population of the UK is incredibly diverse. Instead of a 30 second ad slot the 'single campaign' approach would need to block out whole days of programming to cover (most of) the bases.

Sometimes the more you explain, the less people understand.

This is one of those cases.

Chrysalis

The_Green_Hornet said:

If the government are going to use public money on an information campaign I would sooner they spent it on explaining what to do during a planned power cut, if indeed we do have them, as it will be a new experience for most people, and a different experience for those who lived during the early seventies.

My area gets power cuts most winters, usually within a week of Christmas, we seem to have long standing local supply issues. (city).

double_dutchy

The Guardian says:

No 10 rejects ‘bespoke’ energy-saving push but will boost existing messages | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

....but apparently we've all been worrying unnecessarily all this time as energy bills will soon be below £2,000 even without the cap (says the always reliable Daily Express)

Liz Truss reprieve as energy bills 'to fall below £2,000' - 'price cap won't cost a penny' (msn.com)