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

jak22

Last month there wasnt much sympathy for those with fixes who had been paying over April cap for months finding they were no better off - but now those fixes look valuable again.

But what about people with fixes who a) had them reduced to the Price Guarantee or b) have just been allowed off their higher fix to the capped variable?

Xbigman

Those countries that linked their energy support to reducing usage got it right. We got it wrong. It was only common sense. 
I am relieved at this change by the government whilst at the same time likely to get no help myself next year. Strange days.


Darren

wittynamegoeshere

Phew, very glad I didn't dump my fix.  But this only covers me until next September anyway, next winter is still anyone's guess.

Those whose suppliers have automatically moved them off their fixed tariffs should be having serious words with them and ensuring this gets reversed.  Suppliers should be able to apply the EPG on a fixed tariff, I'm currently getting the best of both worlds by paying the standard unit rate, below the fixed tariff, and a slightly lower daily rate as the fix happened to be lower on this element.  In April I will revert to the fixed tariff minus whatever other subsidy is cooked up.

Hopefully this energy allowance will just be a simple fixed quantity of subsidised energy per household rather than the complicated system of historic use they use in Germany.

There's no logical reason why those in massive or badly insulated homes who've always used more should get a greater subsidy than everyone else.  They could improve their homes or move if they don't like it, or just pay the premium.  But there again, a lot of these heavy users also influence government policy so it may happen whether fair or not.

Freebird53

I had 2 audio amplifiers which were plugged in 24/7. I spent £20 (total) on 2 new units, which on current prices should save Approx £65 in leccy.

Not much against £4800 though....

maisie_cat

sevenhills said:

I totally agree. It's an policy similar to having a personal carbon allowance, if only it could be extended to vehicle and aviation fuels.

They talked a personal carbon allowance years ago, it's about time it was implemented

Sterlingtimes

It looks as though "the poorest" or "the poor" or "the most deprived" or "the deprived" will be held harmless from the high energy prices. It must follow that the people who do not fall into the foregoing categories must pay for their own energy increases and make a contribution, either through bill loading or taxation, to the poorest etc.

ariarnia

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

we can't really say what will happen from next april and going into next winter. could be that we even start to see deals for fixes a little under the cap by then (though i think 12 months might be a little optemistic for a recession to be over. does mean we wont' 'benifit' from this cap really at all as our current fix is due to end in march so only maybe two weeks on the cap before it changes. will certainly be active looking for a sense of the market before our fix ends just like every other time a fix has come to an end. 

If you see Auxilione's prediction for April you might change your mind on fixes below the cap. The prediction is scary. Very scary.

yes. but its a prediction. we have seen in the last few months that things can and do change very quickly. could be the situation is so bad that next winter they reintroduce the cap with even lower levels. Or could be that wholesale prices are down over the summer if the war ends/putin is deposed and the energy companies have managed to hedge huge amounts. i said i don't think a full reversal is likely but 12 months is a long time and everything since 2016 has told me that forecasts that far in advance arent worth the paper theyre writen on. 

ariarnia

sienew said:

mmmmikey said:

GingerTim said:

sienew said:

Like I said before the EPG was announced I am a big fan of proposals that gives every person an allowance of cheap/subsidised energy to provide for their basic need. If you go above that basic need the prices shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer.

This is what's being strongly hinted at by Faisal Islam on the BBC.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1581962442892275715?s=20&t=Ctg-nQ3tu4cEB1z4PP5AyQ

Or maybe the Rishi Sunak approach of giving every household the first £400 worth of energy for free and splitting that into 6 payments over the most expensive months of the year, and providing additional help on top of that for those that need it most. Sure, it could benefit from being finessed to better support the "squeezed middle" but not a bad idea IMHO.

Change it to per person instead of per household and I think that works better. By household is incredibly bad targeting, a student in a tiny 1 bedroom flat (who lets be honest is almost never home) doesn't need the same support as a family home with 4-5 people living in it. A grant per person works far better as it should allow for a basic usage for everyone in the household.

i would say property size or epc rating not household. with supplement for age and disability. two people in a flat dont use much more electric and probably no more heating at all than one person but someone in a three bed uses more than someone in a flat. 

EssexHebridean

Astria said:

dunstonh said:

To be honest, that is a sensible move.   The current package was far too generous.   Many people initially looked at how they could save energy but gave up with the EPG came.  

I do wonder about those people who quit their fixes because of the EPG, and now the EPG is ending they won't be able to return to their fixes, a nice move to get people off fixes and onto the SVT, where you can more closely control the price.

We jumped off a fix - and realistically we'll still be better off having done so. The EPG rates we jumped to will (hopefully!) stay in place until April, and after that we have the 5 warmest months ahead of us at "whatever" the new rates are - our fix would have ended in September in any event so we'd have been at the mercy of "whatever" prices after that in any event. In fairness before jumping off fixes people should have taken into account the fact that things could well change - although I suspect a good number didn't, and just made a knee-jerk reaction, and it's those people who'll suffer now.   

I'm afraid I *do* agree with those saying that the decision to reduce the length of time the scheme runs for is the right one - theoretically we'd fall into the "squeezed middle" bracket however our own hard work and being willing to make lifestyle cuts previously means we have cleared our mortgage so that is out of the equation as an expense for us (had we not worked to overpay we'd have still been paying for a further 6 years yet) which makes a big difference of course. When we did take the mortgage on we were also conscious that we didn't over-borrow - and only took on a mortgage which we would still be able to pay if rates increased even to 1980's levels - I well remember my parents stressing about "another increase in the mortgage payment" back then so wasn't willing to risk that level of stress for us, too! Now, there are definitely cuts and savings we could make if needed - while not particularly convenient two cars could drop to one, we could take a shorter/cheaper holiday and less trips away at other times of the year - there's probably other stuff too but those are the easy wins. We're not going to see a huge amount more in the way of energy savings now as frankly we've already done much of what is possible there over the past few years, although that doesn't mean we're not still trying! So yes - we're seeing the next few months as a chance to stash savings against future unknown-level energy bills - anyone else in an even broadly similar situation to us would be well to do the same in my view. We ARE in a position where we can manage our bills thank goodness, and no, it doesn't really feel right that we're getting the same help as a couple in minimum wage jobs, with a couple of kids to clothe and feed, and far fewer luxury options to cut out or back. 

MattMattMattUK said:

Robgmun said:

dunstonh said:

To be honest, that is a sensible move.   The current package was far too generous.   Many people initially looked at how they could save energy but gave up with the EPG came.  

Now people can go back to finding ways to save energy, and if they don't, then they pay for it bar those that really need support.

Plus by April, we will be through the worst and heating use will be falling.

I've already looked at how to "save energy", I've cut my overall bill by a 3rd, even with the Oct price rise. I can't save any more energy without sitting in the dark reading by candle light, we have to live humanly you know. If the prices rises continue as planned we'll be spending more than we ever have. 

So you can stick your post up your behind. Middle income earners need help too

<snip> Middle income households might want help, but they don't need help, there is a fundamental difference.

Yes - this! 

For those with large mortgages which were already a stretch, nearing the end of fixes and about to see a large increase in payments, this whole situation is an absolute nightmare - with the biggest issue being that it's close to impossible to plan ahead of course. For many too their only hope of a "pay increase" any time soon in the form of the basic rate tax band change has also just been pulled out from under them. Household budget forecasting has just become a game of "stick a wet finger i the air and see which way the wind is blowing". 

sienew

ariarnia said:

sienew said:

mmmmikey said:

GingerTim said:

sienew said:

Like I said before the EPG was announced I am a big fan of proposals that gives every person an allowance of cheap/subsidised energy to provide for their basic need. If you go above that basic need the prices shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer.

This is what's being strongly hinted at by Faisal Islam on the BBC.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1581962442892275715?s=20&amp;t=Ctg-nQ3tu4cEB1z4PP5AyQ

Or maybe the Rishi Sunak approach of giving every household the first £400 worth of energy for free and splitting that into 6 payments over the most expensive months of the year, and providing additional help on top of that for those that need it most. Sure, it could benefit from being finessed to better support the "squeezed middle" but not a bad idea IMHO.

Change it to per person instead of per household and I think that works better. By household is incredibly bad targeting, a student in a tiny 1 bedroom flat (who lets be honest is almost never home) doesn't need the same support as a family home with 4-5 people living in it. A grant per person works far better as it should allow for a basic usage for everyone in the household.

i would say property size or epc rating not household. with supplement for age and disability. two people in a flat dont use much more electric and probably no more heating at all than one person but someone in a three bed uses more than someone in a flat. 

Property size doesn't work particularly well because of how they are occupied. As an example in my family there is someone older who lives alone in a larger 4.5 bed semi  (kids grew up and left) whereas there is someone else on my family significantly less well off who lives 4 people in a tiny 2 bed terrace. It's hard to justify subsiding someone who lives in a house that is far too big for their needs. The hard reality which people don't want to face is that many elderly people are living in homes that are far too big for them while the young are often in houses that are far too small for them. Theoretically we should be encouraging people to live in houses that fit their requirements.