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

ariarnia

AcerBen said:

Apols if this has already been answered.

Why is the price cap currently predicted to go up substantially in April, when as shown by Martin on TV last night, the wholesale price has come down considerably, and we haven't even entered the calculation period yet?

if i understand right the price for energy delivered now (or soon) has gone down but the price for gas delivered next winter is still very high. demand has gone down now because most people who were urgently looking to fill the stores have managed to do so but will need to refill before next winter. 

brewerdave

BooJewels said:

I live in a house that's bigger [and draftier] than necessary for one person, but I also work here too.  And yes, it costs more to heat than somewhere smaller, better insulated and more energy efficient.  But I choose not to move, because it's a nonsense to spend many thousand pounds to do so to save a bit on energy costs - not to mention that it would be difficult and unpleasant and necessitate a downsize, which wouldn't actually be practical.  This is my home, my late husband and I worked hard to buy it and it's all paid for and I own it.  I pay my own bills, I don't have my hand out to anyone for help and have donated some of the help I've had to an energy poverty charity and a local foodbank.  But why shouldn't I accept help when the Government give blanket assistance - we've paid our taxes over a lot of years and claimed very little back. 

Agree with much of the above. Having just watched Steve Baker MP on Politics live (and reading between the lines) he appears to believe that credit has been much too cheap for too long - the conclusion of that is that there will be a contraction in the house market and a drop in the price of larger houses - if that happens, it would be even more unaffordable to downsize to save on energy bills as smaller houses are much more likely to hold their value.

Astria

What_time_is_it said:

The government has 3 options as far as I can see:

1. Do nothing. No handouts. No energy support package.
2. Offer a universal support package. Basically, the EPG.
3. Offer a targeted support package.

Liz Truss has backed each of these options in turn in the last couple of months.
It's about time she made her mind up which option she actually believes in.

The problem is that unless you go for an already established platform such people already receiving benefits, warm home discount, etc, which will alienate a lot of people who need the energy support but don't have such benefits, then the amount of cost of setting up such administration of a targeted support package may cost more than a universal support package.

[Deleted User]

AcerBen said:

Apols if this has already been answered.

Why is the price cap currently predicted to go up substantially in April, when as shown by Martin on TV last night, the wholesale price has come down considerably, and we haven't even entered the calculation period yet?

Because the prices for energy at that time are expected to be higher. Also remember, it’s supposed to be a lot higher at the moment as well.

 There’s not just one “wholesale price”, that’s a massive simplification which isn’t useful in this case.

EssexHebridean

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

I sympathise - not least as I can see my Mum being in a similar situation in times to come. She can currently afford her bills, but if prices go up as much as they could do, that situation might change. She currently lives in what an EA would market as a 3 bed terrace - in actual fact it's a 2 bed, realistically - the third room would literally just fit a single bed and nothing else, and contains the boiler so in the summer it gets quite unbearably hot. In our area, bungalows go for easily £100k more than her house would fetch, if sold. Then there are all the associated financial costs - legal fees plus disbursements would be an additional £1500. Add Stamp duty. Then agents fees. Removal costs. Then there are the personal costs on top - the house Mum lives in and loves is where she lived with  my Dad until he died a few months ago. It was bought by them with the thinking that there was the potential there that some modifications could be made if needed as they got older - indeed there was a stairlift that Dad needed for a few months - so we know that if needed again, that would work. Downstairs is all on the level. There is a small garden - easily maintainable and manageable. The bottom line though is that even if she was to want to move - it would realistically be at a cost of at least £110,000 that she simply doesn't have. Renting isn't an question - even if in her late 70s, she actually wanted to go back to what she would see as that level of uncertainty and feeling like the roof over her head isn't "hers" any more, the only bungalows local to us to rent realistically are still council stock. This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts. It's fabulous that some people live in areas of the country where this sort of dilemma isn't an issue, or indeed have relatives in a fortunate enough financial position that finding an odd £100k isn't going to prove a stumbling block - but those who are in that sort of position do need to bear in mind that a) their area might not be typical of what applies elsewhere and b) it's not everyone who just has the money in the bank to fund a house move in their old age. Also c) moving home is recognised as one of the single most stressful things a person can do - I certainly wouldn't want to see my Mum go through that level of stress at her age - but you know what, I wouldn't want to see anyone else's elderly relatives being made to feel they should put themselves in that position, either.  

Ultrasonic said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Ultrasonic said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

Ultrasonic said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

We need a campaign around now to tell people their heating bills are going to double in a year.  

No we absolutely do not, since nobody knows that is what will happen.

Solid advice on how to reduce energy use coupled with encouragement for those who can afford to use more to still do so is what we 'need' right now IMHO.

That gentle encouragement option's been done to death, undoubtedly absolutely everyone in the country knows what LED light bulbs and insulation are.  It's obvious that many people just don't care, plus lots are living lifestyles that are, frankly, unsustainable.

If I was driving a Ferrari to the shops and complaining that my petrol bills are too high and I want some subsidy then people might understandably lack sympathy.  But some people living in huge old draughty houses seem to believe they have some right for everyone else to pay their bills.

Perhaps the answer could be some kind of "help to move" scheme.  Alternatively, most of these old houses are actually pretty valuable, perhaps we could have some kind of non-profit equity release scheme, where those in old houses could borrow the cost of their heating bills from their eventual estate.  Such things already exist commercially but they're usually not good value and have issues - especially the fact that you can't move if your needs change.  A government lender would be very socialist really, but less expensive than just giving money away and never getting it back, which is the current method used.

'Gentle' ecnouragement is your term not mine, and I wasn't talking about changing lightbulbs. I was talking about people modifying their behaviour to reduce energy consumption, having had the need to do so both to avoid power outages and to help reduce price pressures explained. There is a difference between advising people how to reduce consumption if they wish to and actually asking people to reduce consumption in the national interest.

Post-partygate, I doubt that anyone is going to follow government behavioural advice again, given that we know full well that those at the top won't be doing any of it.

Leaders potentially not doing something doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and whether Boris was being a Muppet or not had no bearing on me complying with sensible advice re. COVID. Similarly, the Downing Street energy bill wouldn't affect my likely response to clearly explained advice from appropriate experts about how to help us get through the current energy crisis. Some may well take the attitude you're suggesting but doing so would not be an intelligent response to the current situation, and I do think the response to the COVID pandemic shows what people really are prepared to do when they feel it's in everyone's interest.

Hear hear - I for one got heartily sick of hearing folk using what other people were doing as an excuse not to comply when what they really meant was "I don't want to" - they just weren't brave enough to say so. Lat tie I looked - some people go out on the streets mugging old ladies, or pop into Tesco for a spot of shoplifting - that doesn't mean the rest of us plan to start doing that though! 

What_time_is_it

Astria said:

What_time_is_it said:

The government has 3 options as far as I can see:

1. Do nothing. No handouts. No energy support package.
2. Offer a universal support package. Basically, the EPG.
3. Offer a targeted support package.

Liz Truss has backed each of these options in turn in the last couple of months.
It's about time she made her mind up which option she actually believes in.

The problem is that unless you go for an already established platform such people already receiving benefits, warm home discount, etc, which will alienate a lot of people who need the energy support but don't have such benefits, then the amount of cost of setting up such administration of a targeted support package may cost more than a universal support package.

There are arguments for and against all 3 options. Or a combination or 2 and 3.
What is crazy is that the Prime Minister has backed all 3 of these options for political expediency. 

mmmmikey

Astria said:

The problem is that unless you go for an already established platform such people already receiving benefits, warm home discount, etc, which will alienate a lot of people who need the energy support but don't have such benefits, then the amount of cost of setting up such administration of a targeted support package may cost more than a universal support package.

Yes, my thoughts too. One thing the Government could do again is what they did with the £400. Although this is not what I would call targetted, it does have the effect of giving the less well off a higher % discount off their energy bill and avoids the situation where the tax payer is paying a proportion of the cost of heating swimming pools. There are lots of reasons why this isn't ideal (e.g. second homes) but it does strike me as being a reasonable way of providing some help to the large numbers of people that need it whilst still in some ways helping the less well off proportionally more. And not dissimiliar in effect to capping the first, most essential slice of energy usage.

ariarnia

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

 This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts.  

exactly. we'll make it work. we always have and we always will. but thats just one example and theres never going to be one simple solution that works for everyone. the blind judgement that someone should just 'get a job' or 'move house' or whatever is often more hurt than help. its more difficult to spend time listening to people's individual situations and actually taking the time to think about what might work for them. much easier to give a blanket quick fix and dismiss anyone who falls on the edges as lazy or lacking than to actually try to help them. 

ariarnia

mmmmikey said:

Astria said:

The problem is that unless you go for an already established platform such people already receiving benefits, warm home discount, etc, which will alienate a lot of people who need the energy support but don't have such benefits, then the amount of cost of setting up such administration of a targeted support package may cost more than a universal support package.

Yes, my thoughts too. One thing the Government could do again is what they did with the £400. Although this is not what I would call targetted, it does have the effect of giving the less well off a higher % discount off their energy bill and avoids the situation where the tax payer is paying a proportion of the cost of heating swimming pools. There are lots of reasons why this isn't ideal (e.g. second homes) but it does strike me as being a reasonable way of providing some help to the large numbers of people that need it whilst still in some ways helping the less well off proportionally more. And not dissimiliar in effect to capping the first, most essential slice of energy usage.

and avoids that the help is a blank cheque. 400 x number of households can be budgeted for and once its gone its gone. capping the price has so many unknowns. how can you say how you will pay for something when you can't even say what it would cost?

mmmmikey

ariarnia said:

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

 This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts.  

exactly. we'll make it work. we always have and we always will. but thats just one example and theres never going to be one simple solution that works for everyone. the blind judgement that someone should just 'get a job' or 'move house' or whatever is often more hurt than help. its more difficult to spend time listening to people's individual situations and actually taking the time to think about what might work for them. much easier to give a blanket quick fix and dismiss anyone who falls on the edges as lazy or lacking than to actually try to help them. 

Yep - agreed - quite disappointing to read some of the stereotyping in this thread. I would prefer to believe that some of the views expressed reflect a lack of understanding of the difficulties some people face rather than a callous disregard for the welfare of others.