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

OhWow

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.

Yep, cut our cloth accordingly. Move to a cheaper to run property. Increase work hours as needed.

We should all be cutting our gas and oil heating usage anyway. Governments supporting energy costs won't help in making people cut their useage.

chubsta

This is going to be a nightmare.

What I would like to see is that the first X amount of energy you use is at a subsidised rate, per account. It doesn't matter how many live in the household as potentially more people results in a higher total household income. If you use above 'average' then you have to pay more for it, this would encourage energy saving etc.

Of course, what I can see happening is the Government give all the help to people who are UC and expect the rest of us to just suck it up and sit in the dark. They never seem to realise that many people have very low incomes that for one reason or another do not qualify for any help with benefits of any type.

wittynamegoeshere

55Ant said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

It just needs a fixed number of subsidised units per household, there will be winners and losers and some would no doubt plead over their special circumstances, but this is always how things are.  This would be preferable to some complicated system that ends up subsidising lords of the manor.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but a bit of an issue with this is the government has told everyone to buy an electric car for the last 5 years, which is going to be a substantial portion of energy (and maybe, the bigger the better as its a replacement for petrol? I dont know, its such a mess before even opening the EV cars are sustainable idea!?)

I think they can get round this by using the off peak tools perhaps. 

All i hope is they tell us sooner rather than later. 

I doubt that many electric car owners are likely to be close to the poverty line.  Plus, as you say, they're probably already on some kind of special energy tariff anyway.

However complex anyone could ever design such a scheme, there will still be undeserving winners and deserving losers.  So just keep it simple and remind everyone that they'll definitely be better off with it than they'd be without it.

For most people with excessive power usage there are things they can do to reduce it.  There's no money for providing "carrots" in the form of improvement grants or whatever, so the "stick" of higher bills at higher rates should be a good incentive for those who so far haven't shown much interest in doing what's needed, and what many others have already done.  That may take the form of insulation, better appliances or, in some cases, just moving house.

ariarnia

sienew said:

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&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.

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. 

casjen

OhWow 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.

Yep, cut our cloth accordingly. Move to a cheaper to run property. Increase work hours as needed.

We should all be cutting our gas and oil heating usage anyway. Governments supporting energy costs won't help in making people cut their useage.

Who is this "we"  ?  I see no reason whatsoever to cut anything from my way of life as long as I can afford it. ... Dont project your life on to others...

chubsta

wittynamegoeshere said:

 That may take the form of insulation, better appliances or, in some cases, just moving house.

Insulation costs money, better appliances cost money, moving house costs money. Money that people just don't have. It is easy to say that people should be responsible and make changes but the increases are so great, especially when added onto all the other bills such as food and fuel that are going up, that many just cannot afford to do them. I have worked shifts for 38 years to be able to afford my house, and I am supposed to just sell it because of profiteering by energy companies? And it is profiteering - the costs of getting it out of the ground or generating has barely changed, they are just charging more because they can, but the suppliers plead that they don't make much profit because they have to buy it at huge prices from the (parent) company that actually produces it.
The blasé attitude from many that you should just reduce usage etc is based on an attitude that everyone is leaving the heating on all day, old bulbs everywhere etc, when many people who will really struggle have actually done all they can. It is very similar to the famous quote from Prince Harry that if you don't feel fulfilled in your job you should just leave and get a better one, not realising that for the majority options in everything in life are very limited.

Marvel1

Basically, what should have gone up from 1st October will now be a double whammy, October rises will happen in April with the rises in April too.4

They can shove their £66 voucher I have received and the 5 to folllow.

wittynamegoeshere

I don't get the idea that everyone is entitled to live in whatever home they happened to buy however long ago, probably when their needs were totally different, and that everyone else should pay for it if they can't afford it.  Everyone else includes the young, many of whom currently have approximately zero prospect of ever owning a home - should their taxes susbidise the lifestyles of those who don't fancy moving to somewhere more suitable and sustainable?  Plus if those in oversized homes were to move it would free up some much needed housing for those who do need it.  This should be how market forces work.

We're not rich, but we own a home.  I consider myself to be one of the winners of the lottery of life, mainly because I happen to have been born when I was.  I'm grateful for this, but definitely don't want to be even better off at the expense of those who are worse off.

I agree that there's profiteering going on, but that's another subject, and rightly or (probably) wrongly it doesn't look like this government has any intention of tackling this, so nothing will change this side of an election at least.

savers_united

I too think the scheme was too generous given that everyone was still getting the £400 as well. It went from being worried about bills to having a lower bill then before the crisis as people's DD were getting the £66pm deducted.

I bet there were alot on the back of the news went and booked a holiday etc thinking that bills are protected for the next 2 years. It's crazy, a royal fook up but an action that was needed by the new chancellor to balance the books. 

Ultrasonic

I think property size has some correlation to heating costs, but so does insulation and time spent at home. Number of people in a property probably correlates more with non-heating electricity use I think, and hot water costs for washing.