Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

victor2

Sea_Shell said:

blueste said:

At various points in the interview below (35seconds and 4minutes 25seconds are examples) Truss claimed that the average household will still pay £2500 for Energy, but that is no longer true. Since that estimate was based on the price cap being in place for a year and it will no longer will be from April 23 we actually have little idea what a typical family will pay!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0d7mmk8/bbc-news-special-prime-minister-apologises-for-mistakes#xtor=CS8-1000-[EditorialPromo_Box]-[NewsEditorial_Promo]-[NewsEditorial_Promo]-[PS_IPLAYER~N~p0d7mmk8~P_TrussInterview]

But as the cap was always reviewed every 6 months, no one ever paid the annual equivalent of any said published cap, as it would change again in 6 months time.

Until they changed it to 3 monthly reviews. Then U-turn Lizzie came along and made it impossible to make any long term plans. Customer energy contracts were thrown away as the EPG applied. Few complaints, as they saved customers money, but now it's appearing some could have worked out cheaper (and certainly more predictable) in the long term. Imagine the riots if fixed term contracts were all chucked away for more expensive options...

Max68

Re keeping cool in summer, the curtain that I put up last winter across my porch door into the lounge to keep in heat was in fact a fabulous investment to also keep out heat.  The sun shines through the front door, then the glass in the porch door so during the day now if the sun is shining it stays open but in summer by having it closed it really cooled the lounge down.  It cut back massively usage of a fan in the lounge.  Must say though my old pedestal fan used very little electricity as long as you prevent the head from moving about.  Even having it on overnight didn't use much.  A fraction of what an air con unit uses.

RE Social Tariff on Energy.  Been saying for ages that's exactly what the water companies do, although they don't advertise it.  My water company can put you on a social tariff if you are in receipt of certain benefits or your household income is under £16,000 a year.  Something like this for energy though would have to be tailored because if the cap is going to rise massively £16,000 will be too low as a cut off.

As someone also said earlier "greener" alternatives are too expensive for someone struggling to pay an energy bill.  I drive a 2006 car because it's cheaper to service it than to buy a new one., My boiler is 20 years old because I cannot afford a new one or similar.  I got a quote for a heat pump.  My property was unsuitable for a ground pump and an air pump would cost me upwards of £18,000 with the work needed in the house to make it suitable. I can't afford £1800 let alone £18000.  Plus, loans and credit cards are being withdrawn for many in this crunch, or at the very least interest rates on such are through the roof.   

For certain appliances what about a swap scheme of sorts?  A few years ago, for instance it was found my tumble drier was on the list of appliances that had caught fire.  I was offered a straight swap with another machine, or I could pay £99 for a better machine.  £99 I could afford so went with the better machine.  No, it's not economical and it's used as a luxury now obviously but it's just an example.

It's a difficult situation when the alternatives are just too expensive for many.

deano2099

ariarnia said:

depends what you mean by 'works' if you mean supporting people in the situation they are in based on need then it works. if you're talking about using the help as a way of pushing your social agenda then it doesn't. same as cutting working age benefits because they should get a job. i dont' really care if elderly people are in houses that are 'too big for them' that they raised their family in. moving house is hard and expensive and theres no guarantee theres any suitable house anywhere near their family and support system. i care if they're cold in winter and skipping meals to have the heating or vise versa. 

I'm totally with you on the general case (and I suspect politically) but I think this is actually somewhat different. I'd argue larger houses using more electricity/gas is a function of them tending to have more occupants, rather than a function of the house itself.

A single person in a 4 bed house will only be using the shower, kettle, oven, washing machine, dryer, microwave, TV, games console etc. as much as a single person in a 1 bed flat.

The only differential here should be heating and lighting. Not leaving all the lights on is behaviour most people have now internalised (even though with LEDs the costs would be marginal anyway). So heating is the main difference. Obviously if the single person in the four-bed is heating the entire house all day, they'll be paying loads more. But given they can only live in one room at once that shouldn't be necessary. And TRVs are a common and cheap solution 

Obviously it's not *quite* that simple. If it's literally freezing outside you'll need to heat the whole house a little to avoid damp, but that's marginal and certainly not on par with the energy usage over winter of a four-person family living in the same house. I'd go so far as to say while we shouldn't be forcing single occupants out of large houses, we should be encouraging them not to heat an entire house when they're only using two rooms.

Indeed, I think as a general rule the idea that "larger houses use more energy" is something we have to get away from in favour of "more people use more energy". Energy usage should nearly always be a factor of the person, not the property. Because if the energy isn't being used for the benefit or comfort of a person, its probably being wasted. (Yes, there are exceptions like alarms, cameras, CO2 detectors).

Freebird53

Could a clever person please direct me to a website which shows the current gas prices?

Thankyou!

BUFF

it will depend upon what supply region you are in, your supplier & tariff but the current EPG rate is ~10.3p/kWh

Freebird53

Sorry, i meant wholesale gas prices!

ariarnia

deano2099 said:

ariarnia said:

depends what you mean by 'works' if you mean supporting people in the situation they are in based on need then it works. if you're talking about using the help as a way of pushing your social agenda then it doesn't. same as cutting working age benefits because they should get a job. i dont' really care if elderly people are in houses that are 'too big for them' that they raised their family in. moving house is hard and expensive and theres no guarantee theres any suitable house anywhere near their family and support system. i care if they're cold in winter and skipping meals to have the heating or vise versa. 

I'm totally with you on the general case (and I suspect politically) but I think this is actually somewhat different. I'd argue larger houses using more electricity/gas is a function of them tending to have more occupants, rather than a function of the house itself.

A single person in a 4 bed house will only be using the shower, kettle, oven, washing machine, dryer, microwave, TV, games console etc. as much as a single person in a 1 bed flat.

The only differential here should be heating and lighting. Not leaving all the lights on is behaviour most people have now internalised (even though with LEDs the costs would be marginal anyway). So heating is the main difference. Obviously if the single person in the four-bed is heating the entire house all day, they'll be paying loads more. But given they can only live in one room at once that shouldn't be necessary. And TRVs are a common and cheap solution 

Obviously it's not *quite* that simple. If it's literally freezing outside you'll need to heat the whole house a little to avoid damp, but that's marginal and certainly not on par with the energy usage over winter of a four-person family living in the same house. I'd go so far as to say while we shouldn't be forcing single occupants out of large houses, we should be encouraging them not to heat an entire house when they're only using two rooms.

Indeed, I think as a general rule the idea that "larger houses use more energy" is something we have to get away from in favour of "more people use more energy". Energy usage should nearly always be a factor of the person, not the property. Because if the energy isn't being used for the benefit or comfort of a person, its probably being wasted. (Yes, there are exceptions like alarms, cameras, CO2 detectors).

you are assuming a single person can live in one room but so can a family. we are four people (two adults and two children) in a three bed semi with excellent insulation who mostly live in the lounge over winter (where the stove is) and only heat the rest of the house to 16 on the thermostat to keep away damp. our gas bill goes from maybe one unit every other month (for hot water) in the summer to 1 unit every three or so days when the heating is on. as for more people more cost. i would say that's where is marginal. showers cost pennies. especially if you don't run the water if you're not rinsing. cooking is communal. washing machine is about once a week when it's full. dishwasher is every couple of days (longer and it can start to smell). Oh and kids are out at work/school so I'm the only one boiling the kettle most of the day... yes slightly more cost but nothing compared to the energy use from heating. 

our heating regime works out to about 5000kw of gas a year (depending on how long winter is so when i turn on and off the thermostat). if i was one person living in this house my heating would be more or less exactly the same. the doors wouldn't be opened as much but i'd still need to ventilate and keep out damp. when i lived alone in a small flat or when i first moved into my OH's flat our annual gas bill was closer to 2000kw a year. 

bigger house costs more to run. 

wittynamegoeshere

Most people don't seem to understand the mess this country is in, and that the government is not able to decide what money it can or can't dish out.  Fair or unfair doesn't come into it.  There isn't any money, we've been perpetually borrowing for years and our lenders decided we weren't worth lending to any more.  Basically the country was heading towards bankruptcy, and may still be.  Further cuts are much more likely than this being some blip before we get back to free money all round.

There won't be any return to the "normal" we've all become accustomed to, big government can't exist any more.

The future will be like it was before the snowflake years - people will have to earn money to feed themselves, if they don't then they're going to have big problems, and hard luck stories won't help.

Even a change of colour of the ruling party won't make much difference - if the other gang decide to lob money around then they'll get the same pasting from the markets as Kwasi/Truss did.

This probably is the return to normal, it was the last 20 years that were unusual.  There was a time before tax credits and the rest of the money for nothing culture, times when the entire country wasn't dependent on getting into ever deeper debt.

Fair or unfair, it's very unlikely there will ever again be anything like the subsidy we're getting for energy bills this winter.  Time to tighten belts and keep some money back for the tough times that are definitely coming.

ariarnia

i don't think anyone is talking about fair are they? most seem to have accepted support should be based on need. there is some argument about who 'needs' (and morality of supporting those in need when you think its there fault there in need)

but i think the most important question is how to target that limited support. not 'who' but 'how'. and as we saw with the 150 via council tax and the 400 via energy account its not easy to find a way to give money to a group without either missing a lot of people or it being very slow or it being expensive. or all three!

EssexHebridean

The problem is WittyName..., the increase we're seeing even WITH the EPG in place until April leaves some in the position where the belts are on the final hole and there IS no money to keep back - there's not even enough to pay the priority bills in the first place. I don't disagree with a lot of what you've written, but the final sentence is an over simplification in my view.