Campaign to ban Standing Charges

busybee100

dunstonh said:

Why doesn't MSE campaign to abolish energy Standing Charges?

Because it would increase the unit price and would be unfair.

I understand the excuses the gas and electric companies use, but they are just swizzing their customers out of even more money.

You would only come to that opinion if you didnt know how the pricing works and what it is for

Fair!

Fair?

Fair to whom?

busybee100

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

wild666

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

ariarnia

wild666 said:

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

the government will pay for it either way but the government doesn't have any money. the only money the governetm has is from the tax payer. the government can put up different taxes. one of the taxes are the levys in the standing charge (the ones that currently pay for green policies or the ones that pay for the network infrastructure. or vat). because the standing charge is a tax. so the government could put up income tax. or corporation tax (which would probably increase customer bills) or tell ofgem to include it in the standing charge. or increase vat or sin taxes and include the debt in the cost of all the other government debt paid for out of the tax pot. we don't know yet. the government has to find a lot of money over the next few years and if people are used to paying a higher rate of standing charge (and most don't know when it's 'supposed' to go back down) keeping it high to cover the additional costs would be tempting i think. 

[Deleted User]

ariarnia said:

wild666 said:

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

the government will pay for it either way but the government doesn't have any money. the only money the governetm has is from the tax payer. the government can put up different taxes. one of the taxes are the levys in the standing charge (the ones that currently pay for green policies or the ones that pay for the network infrastructure. or vat). because the standing charge is a tax. so the government could put up income tax. or corporation tax (which would probably increase customer bills) or tell ofgem to include it in the standing charge. or increase vat or sin taxes and include the debt in the cost of all the other government debt paid for out of the tax pot. we don't know yet. the government has to find a lot of money over the next few years and if people are used to paying a higher rate of standing charge (and most don't know when it's 'supposed' to go back down) keeping it high to cover the additional costs would be tempting i think. 

Replacing the SoLR component of the SC in April with a conveniently similarly-sized "market uplift" component?

ariarnia

Deleted_User said:

ariarnia said:

wild666 said:

ariarnia said:

QrizB said:

pochase said:

That is the reason that they should be removed in April.
If you check the Auxilione forecasts they remove them also in April.

I'm sure Ofgem said we'd be paying for last year's failures for two years, not one. So don't go expecting a big reduction in standing charges in April 2023, no matter what Auxilione might forecast.

now they also might have to cover the cost of the cap as well? it/the governemnt hasn't decided yet i dont think how thats going to be paid for. 

The government set the £2500 average usage limit in October so the government should pay the suppliers costs that the £2500 limit imposed on them. If they increase taxes to get the money back then so be it.

the government will pay for it either way but the government doesn't have any money. the only money the governetm has is from the tax payer. the government can put up different taxes. one of the taxes are the levys in the standing charge (the ones that currently pay for green policies or the ones that pay for the network infrastructure. or vat). because the standing charge is a tax. so the government could put up income tax. or corporation tax (which would probably increase customer bills) or tell ofgem to include it in the standing charge. or increase vat or sin taxes and include the debt in the cost of all the other government debt paid for out of the tax pot. we don't know yet. the government has to find a lot of money over the next few years and if people are used to paying a higher rate of standing charge (and most don't know when it's 'supposed' to go back down) keeping it high to cover the additional costs would be tempting i think. 

Replacing the SoLR component of the SC in April with a conveniently similarly-sized "market uplift" component?

at the moment given everything i would not bet against it happening. 

busybee100

[Deleted User] said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

[Deleted User]

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

busybee100

[Deleted User] said:

busybee100 said:

Deleted_User said:

busybee100 said:

Lots of disingenuous arguments here.

It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.

Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.

Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.

If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user. 

Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.

Why?

If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others.  All that does is to but yet another break-point.  How small would not "really impact the low user"?  I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.

The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.

Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like?? 

There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.

The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.

Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.

And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.

If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄

The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone.  Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.

Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff?  What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?

Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use.  You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.

And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position. 

There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition. 

The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.

We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers? 

I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.