Energy prices held but standing charge up

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

matt_drummer said:

The costs to supply every user are the same, my wires and cables are the same as my neighbours.

Another untrue piece of inflation. Rishi Sunak has paid himself to upgrade the cable/sub station because his swimming pool uses more electricity.

Sunak has paid for a higher capacity connection, we do not know specifically why. Many are speculating it is to use the power to heat his swimming pool, however there is also the capacity to export on that same connection and Sunak's estate has several prime areas for wind turbines and solar farms, people do not accumulate wealth to the levels Sunak has by ignoring opportunities for profit. 

wild666

sevenhills said:

MattMattMattUK said:

charliewhatsit said:

Just had an email from EDF where I'm on the variable rate for now.    Daily standing charges are up which makes a mockery of the energy price guarantees, although the total estimate for energy is roughly the same for now.  Looks like they are preparing for lower wholesale prices but boosting  their standing charges to compensate to future proof their revenue when the time comes.  Any comments anyone?  I shall .definitely be looking at the competition when the time comes with an eye on standing charges.

The energy suppliers make no profit on the standing charge, they have to hand it over to Ofgem, network operators and the government.

A few years ago you could get a tariff without a standing charge. Did the network operators receive no money?
How suppliers set standing charges alongside the unit rate are commercial decisions.

The energy prices without a SC the customer would pay more for the first few kWh's or for the whole daily usage kWh's so in effect the person paid the SC's by using energy be it the first few or all the kWh's used each day. If it was on the first two or so kWh's then it would be like paying the SC but if spread out over say 9 kWh per day anyone who used less would be gaining by not paying as much in SC's. 

wrf12345

In third world countries there is often a choice of low and high ampage meters, so if you are a low user you get a limited supply of electricity with lower unit rates and s/c... seems idea for the UK where the infrastructure is in decline (due to wastage and inefficiency) and would encourage much lower usage to take the stress off the system (and could be done via limits on Smart meters).

Astria

wrf12345 said:

In third world countries there is often a choice of low and high ampage meters, so if you are a low user you get a limited supply of electricity with lower unit rates and s/c... seems idea for the UK where the infrastructure is in decline (due to wastage and inefficiency) and would encourage much lower usage to take the stress off the system (and could be done via limits on Smart meters).

I don't see how we are going to encourage lower usage and then at the same time encourage people to swap their fossil fuel burning car for an electric version...

70sbudgie

Astria said:

wrf12345 said:

In third world countries there is often a choice of low and high ampage meters, so if you are a low user you get a limited supply of electricity with lower unit rates and s/c... seems idea for the UK where the infrastructure is in decline (due to wastage and inefficiency) and would encourage much lower usage to take the stress off the system (and could be done via limits on Smart meters).

I don't see how we are going to encourage lower usage and then at the same time encourage people to swap their fossil fuel burning car for an electric version...

I agree, but perhaps it could be part of the solution for properties / people that can't install a home charger. If the SC is related to the incoming fuse size, no charger means a smaller fuse required, therefore a lower SC.

(If someone can't install a charger at their house, a lower SC may make it more affordable to only rely on public chargers?)

It might also help balance out the situations identified above where low users are infact more wealthy. Large HP systems, PV systems, would also require larger fuse sizes.

It still won't be right for every situation, but perhaps it could be wrong in fewer.

matt_drummer

sevenhills said:

matt_drummer said:

The costs to supply every user are the same, my wires and cables are the same as my neighbours.

Another untrue piece of inflation. Rishi Sunak has paid himself to upgrade the cable/sub station because his swimming pool uses more electricity.

If he has paid for it himself, then we haven't paid.

For the average consumer the wires and cables are the same, it costs the same.

Do you think Rishi Sunak should now pay no standing charge as he has paid for his own supply?

It's ridiculous, there has to be some standing charge, the difference between what anyone might consider reasonable and what is considered a rip off is peanuts.

sevenhills

matt_drummer said:

It's ridiculous, there has to be some standing charge, the difference between what anyone might consider reasonable and what is considered a rip off is peanuts.

I understand the standing charge is different in each area, a fairer standing charge would be to base it on the households rateable value, or have no standing charge at all.

matt_drummer

sevenhills said:

matt_drummer said:

It's ridiculous, there has to be some standing charge, the difference between what anyone might consider reasonable and what is considered a rip off is peanuts.

I understand the standing charge is different in each area, a fairer standing charge would be to base it on the households rateable value, or have no standing charge at all.

Why rateable value?  They get better cables in more expensive homes?

Please explain to us all how no standing charge would work, who would pay the fixed costs that you understand exist?

matt_drummer

sevenhills said:

matt_drummer said:

It's ridiculous, there has to be some standing charge, the difference between what anyone might consider reasonable and what is considered a rip off is peanuts.

I understand the standing charge is different in each area, a fairer standing charge would be to base it on the households rateable value, or have no standing charge at all.

If we keep charging those with more money more for stuff to subsidise those with less money, then those that started out with more money with have less than those who started out with less.

It has to stop somewhere.

You can't keep taking money from the better off people until they have nothing left just to support those less well off.

matt_drummer

sevenhills said:

matt_drummer said:

It's ridiculous, there has to be some standing charge, the difference between what anyone might consider reasonable and what is considered a rip off is peanuts.

I understand the standing charge is different in each area, a fairer standing charge would be to base it on the households rateable value, or have no standing charge at all.

What is your council tax band if you are prepared to say?