Why are Energy Prices not falling?

macman

agentcain said:

GingerTim said:

How do you propose forcing a bankrupt company to fulfil a contract, or forcing another company to take on another's contract?

The same way everyone else seems to be forced, by legislation.
You just make it so others who want to trade are forced to honour contracts set by failed suppliers, if they become SOLR.
As for the bankrupt company, go after their shareholders and make them pay back the credits. Have you seen what the owners of Bulb are doing? They have a brand new company, jumping on the bandwagon of net-zero, no doubt trying to get a piece of the current action.

spot1034 said:

agentcain said:

Just proves the point though, energy generators will be making a huge profit again.
But don't feel sorry for the energy suppliers as all left have some form of generator backing them up. 

Seems they like having the cake and eating it too. Everyone is quick to justify their high prices by assuming they have "long contracts" and "buying a year in advance". And yet somehow those contracts cannot be invalidated for the benefit of the people.
Where were those contracts of all those suppliers that went bust? What about the contracts of those who fixed with those suppliers only to have their contract invalidated when they were forced to go to a SOLR? 

Many of the companies that went bust didn't have such contracts - they were buying on the spot market and got caught out when prices rose. That is why they went bust.

Which is why their shareholders should be penalized, alongside the existing suppliers who do, according to what you're saying, have contracts yet somehow oppose the idea of ring-fencing customer's credit (which should be expected since they very well plan for the estimated annual consumption of the customer). 

There would be little to be gained from that, since many of the failed suppliers were just one man and a dog type operations: no great string of fat-cat shareholders creaming off dividends I'm afraid. If you want to point the finger, blame Ofgem for allowing so many hopelessly under-capitalised and under-resourced start-ups to enter the market. But then, their hands were tied by their political masters' obsession with 'market freedoms'. 

agentcain

EssexHebridean said:

And then when no other supplier is willing to become a SOLR because they know it will risk bankrupting their business too, and the lights start going out for customers of those who failed, what is your plan then? 

Its not about willing, its about that being the price to pay if you want to enter the market. If you're capable to comply and still have a business model, then by all means do. If not, don't. If no one does, well I guess we nationalize it. That's the plan.

ariarnia

agentcain said:

EssexHebridean said:

And then when no other supplier is willing to become a SOLR because they know it will risk bankrupting their business too, and the lights start going out for customers of those who failed, what is your plan then? 

Its not about willing, its about that being the price to pay if you want to enter the market. If you're capable to comply and still have a business model, then by all means do. If not, don't. If no one does, well I guess we nationalize it. That's the plan.

are you seriously suggesting i could set up a business tomorrow offering electric for 1p a unit for life. sign up three million people. go bust next week. and ovo or british gas (who were responsible and set there price at a level they could guarentee delivery) should be forced to take on my customers and honour the contract at that price...?

and you dont see a problem with that?

would you also say the same if i get a quote for an extension on my house for £5 and my guy goes bust a differnt builder should have to finish the job at that price?

agentcain

macman said:

agentcain said:

GingerTim said:

How do you propose forcing a bankrupt company to fulfil a contract, or forcing another company to take on another's contract?

The same way everyone else seems to be forced, by legislation.
You just make it so others who want to trade are forced to honour contracts set by failed suppliers, if they become SOLR.
As for the bankrupt company, go after their shareholders and make them pay back the credits. Have you seen what the owners of Bulb are doing? They have a brand new company, jumping on the bandwagon of net-zero, no doubt trying to get a piece of the current action.

spot1034 said:

agentcain said:

Just proves the point though, energy generators will be making a huge profit again.
But don't feel sorry for the energy suppliers as all left have some form of generator backing them up. 

Seems they like having the cake and eating it too. Everyone is quick to justify their high prices by assuming they have "long contracts" and "buying a year in advance". And yet somehow those contracts cannot be invalidated for the benefit of the people.
Where were those contracts of all those suppliers that went bust? What about the contracts of those who fixed with those suppliers only to have their contract invalidated when they were forced to go to a SOLR? 

Many of the companies that went bust didn't have such contracts - they were buying on the spot market and got caught out when prices rose. That is why they went bust.

Which is why their shareholders should be penalized, alongside the existing suppliers who do, according to what you're saying, have contracts yet somehow oppose the idea of ring-fencing customer's credit (which should be expected since they very well plan for the estimated annual consumption of the customer). 

There would be little to be gained from that, since many of the failed suppliers were just one man and a dog type operations: no great string of fat-cat shareholders creaming off dividends I'm afraid. If you want to point the finger, blame Ofgem for allowing so many hopelessly under-capitalised and under-resourced start-ups to enter the market. But then, their hands were tied by their political masters' obsession with 'market freedoms'. 

Which is where legislation and regulatory bodies come into play, i.e. ofgem which has been useless all these years and should also be penalized. Instead, we only saw what, one of the directors quit? Maybe to get away from it all or maybe of genuine concerns about ofgem is run. Regardless, the rest are there and they're all responsible.

agentcain

ariarnia said:

agentcain said:

EssexHebridean said:

And then when no other supplier is willing to become a SOLR because they know it will risk bankrupting their business too, and the lights start going out for customers of those who failed, what is your plan then? 

Its not about willing, its about that being the price to pay if you want to enter the market. If you're capable to comply and still have a business model, then by all means do. If not, don't. If no one does, well I guess we nationalize it. That's the plan.

are you seriously suggesting i could set up a business tomorrow offering electric for 1p a unit for life. sign up three million people. go bust next week. and ovo or british gas (who were responsible and set there price at a level they could guarentee delivery) should be forced to take on my customers and honour the contract at that price...?

and you dont see a problem with that?

No, I see a problem with this. Why should you be allowed to start this business? Has your business plan been examined and approved by ofgem? If so and proven, then sure. Although I seriously doubt you would be able to provide proof of lifetime guarantees. 

ariarnia

agentcain said:

macman said:

agentcain said:

GingerTim said:

How do you propose forcing a bankrupt company to fulfil a contract, or forcing another company to take on another's contract?

The same way everyone else seems to be forced, by legislation.
You just make it so others who want to trade are forced to honour contracts set by failed suppliers, if they become SOLR.
As for the bankrupt company, go after their shareholders and make them pay back the credits. Have you seen what the owners of Bulb are doing? They have a brand new company, jumping on the bandwagon of net-zero, no doubt trying to get a piece of the current action.

spot1034 said:

agentcain said:

Just proves the point though, energy generators will be making a huge profit again.
But don't feel sorry for the energy suppliers as all left have some form of generator backing them up. 

Seems they like having the cake and eating it too. Everyone is quick to justify their high prices by assuming they have "long contracts" and "buying a year in advance". And yet somehow those contracts cannot be invalidated for the benefit of the people.
Where were those contracts of all those suppliers that went bust? What about the contracts of those who fixed with those suppliers only to have their contract invalidated when they were forced to go to a SOLR? 

Many of the companies that went bust didn't have such contracts - they were buying on the spot market and got caught out when prices rose. That is why they went bust.

Which is why their shareholders should be penalized, alongside the existing suppliers who do, according to what you're saying, have contracts yet somehow oppose the idea of ring-fencing customer's credit (which should be expected since they very well plan for the estimated annual consumption of the customer). 

There would be little to be gained from that, since many of the failed suppliers were just one man and a dog type operations: no great string of fat-cat shareholders creaming off dividends I'm afraid. If you want to point the finger, blame Ofgem for allowing so many hopelessly under-capitalised and under-resourced start-ups to enter the market. But then, their hands were tied by their political masters' obsession with 'market freedoms'. 

Which is where legislation and regulatory bodies come into play, i.e. ofgem which has been useless all these years and should also be penalized. Instead, we only saw what, one of the directors quit? Maybe to get away from it all or maybe of genuine concerns about ofgem is run. Regardless, the rest are there and they're all responsible.

ofgem set the policy that the government (by legislation and regulation) told them to set. thats why macman talks about 'their political masters' obsession with 'market freedoms''.

but how would you peanalse them anyway? all of there money comes from the goverment and they need money to do the job so fine them and the goverment would ave to pay the fine. 

ad if you say 'so blame the goverment then' well thats' why we have elections and one of the reasons the torys arent likely to win next time. 

ariarnia

agentcain said:

ariarnia said:

agentcain said:

EssexHebridean said:

And then when no other supplier is willing to become a SOLR because they know it will risk bankrupting their business too, and the lights start going out for customers of those who failed, what is your plan then? 

Its not about willing, its about that being the price to pay if you want to enter the market. If you're capable to comply and still have a business model, then by all means do. If not, don't. If no one does, well I guess we nationalize it. That's the plan.

are you seriously suggesting i could set up a business tomorrow offering electric for 1p a unit for life. sign up three million people. go bust next week. and ovo or british gas (who were responsible and set there price at a level they could guarentee delivery) should be forced to take on my customers and honour the contract at that price...?

and you dont see a problem with that?

No, I see a problem with this. Why should you be allowed to start this business? Has your business plan been examined and approved by ofgem? If so and proven, then sure. Although I seriously doubt you would be able to provide proof of lifetime guarantees. 

which is great. thats what lots of people want. for companies to have to hedge and ring fence cash so they dont collapse. 

which you completely undermine by saying companies who DO that and ARE responsible have to be liable for contracts from those companies who dont. 

Spoonie_Turtle

ariarnia said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Chrysalis said:

tlcgrantham said:

MattMattMattUK said:

SnakePlissken said:

Prices for day ahead gas now down to pre ukraine war level

UK gas prices have also dropped back from their highs earlier this year. The day-ahead gas price closed at 155p per therm yesterday, compared with 200p/therm at the start of 2022, and over 500p/therm in August.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/063732ceadf8eb30acff2e1c9159b6ddcf7a1397/0_0_697_380/master/697.jpg?width=700&quality=45&dpr=2&s=none


https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2022/dec/29/european-natural-gas-prices-drop-rouble-uk-mortgage-oil-china-covid-business-live

Day ahead prices are irrelevant when it comes to costs paid by consumers, amounts bought on day ahead are less than 1% of supply. The gap between Christmas and New Year, when much of industry is shut down and many large users are offline means day ahead prices always fall as it is highly unlikely that the networks will need to purchase gas as very short notice, even more with the temperature having risen considerably. Sterling is also 18% lower than before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so even a flat USD price means a sizeable increase for the UK.

Octopus Tracker customers do benefit from “Day Ahead” prices. My Gas Tracker price today is 7.2p/kwh and Electricity Tracker is around 12.00p/kwh. 🤗

Apparently we are irrelevant.

We are irrelevant to the standard variable tariff and the price cap set by Ofgem.

We are only really relevant to Octopus showing how it can be done.  And these types of tariff wouldn't suit everyone anyway.  Tbh if we were paying full Tracker price (capped 55p for elec) without the EPG discount we would have had to seriously consider coming off.

or how it can't really be done? i mean without the subsidy from the goverment the model of tracking the market with a margin and having a cap at all is risky for both octopus and the customer. 

I guess it's more, showing how it could be done when energy was cheap and prices not particularly volatile.   The first version of Tracker originally didn't need a cap protect the customers!  I believe Octopus overall do make a loss anyway on supplying energy, yet they're surviving well, somehow (their tech arm maybe?).

[Deleted User]

agentcain said:

macman said:

agentcain said:

GingerTim said:

How do you propose forcing a bankrupt company to fulfil a contract, or forcing another company to take on another's contract?

The same way everyone else seems to be forced, by legislation.
You just make it so others who want to trade are forced to honour contracts set by failed suppliers, if they become SOLR.
As for the bankrupt company, go after their shareholders and make them pay back the credits. Have you seen what the owners of Bulb are doing? They have a brand new company, jumping on the bandwagon of net-zero, no doubt trying to get a piece of the current action.

spot1034 said:

agentcain said:

Just proves the point though, energy generators will be making a huge profit again.
But don't feel sorry for the energy suppliers as all left have some form of generator backing them up. 

Seems they like having the cake and eating it too. Everyone is quick to justify their high prices by assuming they have "long contracts" and "buying a year in advance". And yet somehow those contracts cannot be invalidated for the benefit of the people.
Where were those contracts of all those suppliers that went bust? What about the contracts of those who fixed with those suppliers only to have their contract invalidated when they were forced to go to a SOLR? 

Many of the companies that went bust didn't have such contracts - they were buying on the spot market and got caught out when prices rose. That is why they went bust.

Which is why their shareholders should be penalized, alongside the existing suppliers who do, according to what you're saying, have contracts yet somehow oppose the idea of ring-fencing customer's credit (which should be expected since they very well plan for the estimated annual consumption of the customer). 

There would be little to be gained from that, since many of the failed suppliers were just one man and a dog type operations: no great string of fat-cat shareholders creaming off dividends I'm afraid. If you want to point the finger, blame Ofgem for allowing so many hopelessly under-capitalised and under-resourced start-ups to enter the market. But then, their hands were tied by their political masters' obsession with 'market freedoms'. 

Which is where legislation and regulatory bodies come into play, i.e. ofgem which has been useless all these years and should also be penalized. Instead, we only saw what, one of the directors quit? Maybe to get away from it all or maybe of genuine concerns about ofgem is run. Regardless, the rest are there and they're all responsible.

That would be a first: a Government penalising one of its own Government Departments. They could impose a significant fine that taxpayers could pay! The Ofgem director who resigned was a non-executive director. 

Edit: Ofgem is a non-Ministerial Government Department within the Department for Business ENERGY and Industrial Strategy. 

agentcain

ariarnia said:

agentcain said:

ariarnia said:

agentcain said:

EssexHebridean said:

And then when no other supplier is willing to become a SOLR because they know it will risk bankrupting their business too, and the lights start going out for customers of those who failed, what is your plan then? 

Its not about willing, its about that being the price to pay if you want to enter the market. If you're capable to comply and still have a business model, then by all means do. If not, don't. If no one does, well I guess we nationalize it. That's the plan.

are you seriously suggesting i could set up a business tomorrow offering electric for 1p a unit for life. sign up three million people. go bust next week. and ovo or british gas (who were responsible and set there price at a level they could guarentee delivery) should be forced to take on my customers and honour the contract at that price...?

and you dont see a problem with that?

No, I see a problem with this. Why should you be allowed to start this business? Has your business plan been examined and approved by ofgem? If so and proven, then sure. Although I seriously doubt you would be able to provide proof of lifetime guarantees. 

which is great. thats what lots of people want. for companies to have to hedge and ring fence cash so they dont collapse. 

which you completely undermine by saying companies who DO that and ARE responsible have to be liable for contracts from those companies who dont. 

If companies can be made to hedge and ring fence cash, then they can be made to honour contracts of others, as the SOLR is a process of last resort to the benefit of the customer (allegedly).
If everyone plays by the same rules, there won't be anyone being irresponsible, will they?