New prices in April

EssexHebridean

The child benefit argument has a surprising number of parallels to the current situation although perhaps it’s best compared with the WHD fiasco - essentially though as we’ve seen over on DFW repeatedly over the last few years, the way it’s been administered (the means testing) has resulted in some households qualifying with a higher income level than other households who miss out in spite of less money coming in. It has really hung some single parents out to dry as they suddenly lost income that “made the difference” and that they relied on. 

Looking at Deano’s idea about a sort of “reverse EPG” I honestly can’t see any government being willing to do that as it would cause absolutely uproar wouldn’t it. Just look at the outrage when people are asked to pay increased standing charges - which are easily explainable! 

wrf12345

The reason people pay the s/c is because competition has been removed from the market (pre-inflation, govn/Ofgem incompetence and deliberate "misunderstanding" of the market ruined Ebico's business model of one unit cost price regardless of payment method and no s/c) and rates are hemmed in by the cap, so no-one can offer any alternatives to the current rip-off. If there was no real competition amongst supermarkets or petrol stations there would be a minimum fee to use their services, if you only want a couple of gallons of petrol then you are being subsidised by the gas guzzlers. etc... but because there is some competition that does not happen.

There is absolutely no reason why the network can't take a cut out of the unit charge when the s/c disappears - it would mean a ten percent higher unit charge (roughly) but a much fairer system where greener customers are not subsidising users who can't be bothered to cut consumption and are ruining the planet. Ultimately, it should be possible for the Grid to sell directly to consumers rather than having layers of companies taking a cut, which should make everyone happy with no s/c and much lower unit rates.

Scot_39

The SC goes to pay for the grid.

It is not held by your supplier.

And as to mark-up, billing systems and call centre operators are not free.

Move that retail operation into national grid etc - and you would have the same staff and same systems to provide.

Edit "And suspect would actally cost far more."

And some here say the resellers profits are capped at just c2%.

[Deleted User]

I'm guessing that the retention of current EPG rates, if it does happen as seems increasingly likely, will be announced on Budget Day but am also expecting this 'good news' for some/many to offset increases in the overall taxation burden (no unfreezing of tax free allowances, raising of fuel duties etc)  

pochase

A supplier cannot charge higher unit rates on SVT while dropping the standing charge.

A supplier has still to pay over the standing charge he would need to collect, so they would lose almost £300 on a low user who might be only using £300 to £400.

It would only remotely make financial sense to drop the standing charge for high users as the loss can be made up by the profit from the energy usage. And even that would not work out with the 2% margin. To make up the £300 you would need to use £15000 energy per year.

So it can only work with a fixed tariff. Same problem as above, the supplier needs to pay over the £300 they have to collect, so they need to make the fixed tariff more expensive. When people here complaining that they pay half of the total cost in standing charges, a fixed tariff would need to be at leats double the unit rates of one with standing charges. No medium or high user will chose a fixed tariff that is more expensive for them, so only low users would consider such a no standing charges tariffs. In the end they need to pay their share of the network cost, why should others pay for them?

Scot_39

[Deleted User] said:

I'm guessing that the retention of current EPG rates, if it does happen as seems increasingly likely, will be announced on Budget Day but am also expecting this 'good news' for some/many to offset increases in the overall taxation burden (no unfreezing of tax free allowances, raising of fuel duties etc)  

People sadly haven't appeared to have clicked to the massive savings in part - in NET income - from things like the above inflation increases in PA and now NI thresholds.

But with c32m PAYE taxpayers and 26m NI payers amongst them (c6m PAYE taxpayers are above state pension age so pay no NI) - worth c£47bn pa in tax income

Some clawed back elsewhere - NI up ?, VAT rate upto 20%, IPT up etc - but still significant cf the pre Covid and Ukraine deficit levels (as low as £22bn IIRC) and even non trivial against current deficit forecasts.

So the chances of them opening the taps on e.g. IT PA for a while - would seem slim.

t0rt0ise

pochase said:

A supplier cannot charge higher unit rates on SVT while dropping the standing charge.

A supplier has still to pay over the standing charge he would need to collect, so they would lose almost £300 on a low user who might be only using £300 to £400.

It would only remotely make financial sense to drop the standing charge for high users as the loss can be made up by the profit from the energy usage. And even that would not work out with the 2% margin. To make up the £300 you would need to use £15000 energy per year.

So it can only work with a fixed tariff. Same problem as above, the supplier needs to pay over the £300 they have to collect, so they need to make the fixed tariff more expensive. When people here complaining that they pay half of the total cost in standing charges, a fixed tariff would need to be at leats double the unit rates of one with standing charges. No medium or high user will chose a fixed tariff that is more expensive for them, so only low users would consider such a no standing charges tariffs. In the end they need to pay their share of the network cost, why should others pay for them?

"In the end they need to pay their share of the network cost, why should others pay for them?" 

Because that's the way some think that society should work. We pay for a lot of things that we don't use ourselves. And you can judge a society on how it treats its less able members. 

MattMattMattUK

t0rt0ise said:

pochase said:

A supplier cannot charge higher unit rates on SVT while dropping the standing charge.

A supplier has still to pay over the standing charge he would need to collect, so they would lose almost £300 on a low user who might be only using £300 to £400.

It would only remotely make financial sense to drop the standing charge for high users as the loss can be made up by the profit from the energy usage. And even that would not work out with the 2% margin. To make up the £300 you would need to use £15000 energy per year.

So it can only work with a fixed tariff. Same problem as above, the supplier needs to pay over the £300 they have to collect, so they need to make the fixed tariff more expensive. When people here complaining that they pay half of the total cost in standing charges, a fixed tariff would need to be at leats double the unit rates of one with standing charges. No medium or high user will chose a fixed tariff that is more expensive for them, so only low users would consider such a no standing charges tariffs. In the end they need to pay their share of the network cost, why should others pay for them?

"In the end they need to pay their share of the network cost, why should others pay for them?" 

Because that's the way some think that society should work. We pay for a lot of things that we don't use ourselves. And you can judge a society on how it treats its less able members. 

Which is why benefits for the disabled should be adequate, rather than distorting the market.

EssexHebridean

Low users are not always less able, nor are they always the least well off. 

MattMattMattUK

EssexHebridean said:

Low users are not always less able, nor are they always the least well off. 

The lowest users I know all have solar and heat pumps and some have batteries, they are amongst the wealthiest people I know.