Energy price predictions through to March 2024

matt_drummer

Krakkkers said:

Fact is that high users pay less overall per unit (inc SC) than low users and that does not send the right message.
Not convinced the SC money is used in the way described.

High users just pay more, it is exactly right.

They pay the same per Kwh as everybody else.

The standing charge has got nothing to do with how much you use.

The standing charge is your equal share of the fixed costs of supply.

As it has always been, if you use more, you pay more.

I use virtually nothing, but I am relatively well off and make full use of the network. Is it right that I pay no standing charge?

I don't think so.

The_Green_Hornet

Dolor said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Dolor said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years. It only requires a single British-built StormShadow to land on Russian soil and the UK could come under direct attack. For example, power inter-connectors and internet cables could be severed causing widespread disruption. Our National Grid could come under cyber attack. 

Any energy price predictions for January 2024 are based on assumptions not facts. A lot could materially change in 6 months.  This War is far from over.

I very much doubt that even Putin's Russia would want to take on the whole of NATO as an attack on one member will invoke Article 5.

Caged animals when provoked have a habit of striking out. If you think that our Armed Forces are adequately manned and equipped to take on Russia, you might well be disappointed. Our Army is being reduced in strength to 72.5k personnel. The same applies to a number of other NATO nations. None of this helped by a Government that think its Armed Forces exist to provide back up services.

Clearly, we are now well off topic. The key point is that any escalation of the War could result in a spike in wholesale energy prices.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/

BUFF

The_Green_Hornet said:

Dolor said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

Dolor said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years. It only requires a single British-built StormShadow to land on Russian soil and the UK could come under direct attack. For example, power inter-connectors and internet cables could be severed causing widespread disruption. Our National Grid could come under cyber attack. 

Any energy price predictions for January 2024 are based on assumptions not facts. A lot could materially change in 6 months.  This War is far from over.

I very much doubt that even Putin's Russia would want to take on the whole of NATO as an attack on one member will invoke Article 5.

Caged animals when provoked have a habit of striking out. If you think that our Armed Forces are adequately manned and equipped to take on Russia, you might well be disappointed. Our Army is being reduced in strength to 72.5k personnel. The same applies to a number of other NATO nations. None of this helped by a Government that think its Armed Forces exist to provide back up services.

Clearly, we are now well off topic. The key point is that any escalation of the War could result in a spike in wholesale energy prices.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/

The performance of Russia's forces so far has been less than stellar (to say the least). Imo the full brunt of a better trained NATO would blow through them in relatively short order - however, I do think that Putin is mad enough to consider going at least to  tactical nukes (it was standard Soviet doctrine anyway) & quite possibly strategic.

MikeJXE

matt_drummer said:

MikeJXE said:

K

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

So you think as you use very little you should not pay the same as everybody else to be connected to the grid?

Why is that?

The standing charge represented nearly 95% of my bill for April.

I am happy to pay, both for the service I receive and so that people like you don't have to pay even more to subsidise people like me.

I didn't say that and I am not about to argue as I have found over many energy threads it is a pointless exercise when you are up against those who see the energy companies who can do no wrong

I said there has been no one smart enough to find a fairer system like.

The railway tracks, a 10 mile journey on them cost less than a 100 mile journey yet the whole system is in place for your journey also.  Plus it is there for everyone yet if you don't use it you don't pay. 

I know the tracks are not connected to your home but neither would energy be if you didn't pay for that connection extra. 

Fair wear and tear does not apply to the energy grid as in if you don't use it much you don't pay as much.

I do wonder if those wealthy enough to have solar power who sell back to the grid have a higher standing charge as they are sending as well as receiving 

matt_drummer

MikeJXE said:

matt_drummer said:

MikeJXE said:

K

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

So you think as you use very little you should not pay the same as everybody else to be connected to the grid?

Why is that?

The standing charge represented nearly 95% of my bill for April.

I am happy to pay, both for the service I receive and so that people like you don't have to pay even more to subsidise people like me.

I didn't say that and I am not about to argue as I have found over many energy threads it is a pointless exercise when you are up against those who see the energy companies who can do no wrong

I said there has been no one smart enough to find a fairer system like.

The railway tracks, a 10 mile journey on them cost less than a 100 mile journey yet the whole system is in place for your journey also.  Plus it is there for everyone yet if you don't use it you don't pay. 

I know the tracks are not connected to your home but neither would energy be if you didn't pay for that connection extra. 

Fair wear and tear does not apply to the energy grid as in if you don't use it much you don't pay as much.

I do wonder if those wealthy enough to have solar power who sell back to the grid have a higher standing charge as they are sending as well as receiving 

Energy retailers are in no way like train operators.

The system is fair, you pay the same as me and everybody else for the provision of an energy connection to your home.

How could it be any less fair?


What you want is unfair, you want other people to pay more so you can pay less.


Where do people like you stop, how much do you want other people to pay for you?

All of it I assume!

I'm sick of it, stop whinging, £3.50 per week to supply electricity to your home, protect any credit balance you might have and invest in the future is peanuts.


And now you want people like me to pay more for having solar panels?


You are having a laugh, people with solar panels are not necessarily rich, just smart.

They pay for themselves easily in their lifetime.


What there should be is a tax on ignorant, the government's take would be massive!

MikeJXE

matt_drummer said:

MikeJXE said:

matt_drummer said:

MikeJXE said:

K

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

So you think as you use very little you should not pay the same as everybody else to be connected to the grid?

Why is that?

The standing charge represented nearly 95% of my bill for April.

I am happy to pay, both for the service I receive and so that people like you don't have to pay even more to subsidise people like me.

I didn't say that and I am not about to argue as I have found over many energy threads it is a pointless exercise when you are up against those who see the energy companies who can do no wrong

I said there has been no one smart enough to find a fairer system like.

The railway tracks, a 10 mile journey on them cost less than a 100 mile journey yet the whole system is in place for your journey also.  Plus it is there for everyone yet if you don't use it you don't pay. 

I know the tracks are not connected to your home but neither would energy be if you didn't pay for that connection extra. 

Fair wear and tear does not apply to the energy grid as in if you don't use it much you don't pay as much.

I do wonder if those wealthy enough to have solar power who sell back to the grid have a higher standing charge as they are sending as well as receiving 

Energy retailers are in no way like train operators.

The system is fair, you pay the same as me and everybody else for the provision of an energy connection to your home.

How could it be any less fair?


What you want is unfair, you want other people to pay more so you can pay less.


Where do people like you stop, how much do you want other people to pay for you?

All of it I assume!

I'm sick of it, stop whinging, £3.50 per week to supply electricity to your home, protect any credit balance you might have and invest in the future is peanuts.


And now you want people like me to pay more for having solar panels?


You are having a laugh, people with solar panels are not necessarily rich, just smart.

They pay for themselves easily in their lifetime.


What there should be is a tax on ignorant, the government's take would be massive!

Lol like I said I am not here to argue for the said reasons

I didn't highlight they also get nasty and abusive 

Gerry1

MikeJXE said:

matt_drummer said:

MikeJXE said:

K

Not got solar I have dumb meters not particularly looking forward to the price reduction either.

I read my meters weekly and input them on a very accurate spreadsheet, give them to Octopus monthly 

I have read where high users do not agree with abolishing the standing charge and increasing the kWh  as it would not be fair to them.

So guess it's fair to me a low user as no one smart enough has found a formula that suits everyone. 

This week my standing charge for both electric and gas is now more expensive than the charge for the energy I use. 

So you think as you use very little you should not pay the same as everybody else to be connected to the grid?

Why is that?

The standing charge represented nearly 95% of my bill for April.

I am happy to pay, both for the service I receive and so that people like you don't have to pay even more to subsidise people like me.

The railway tracks, a 10 mile journey on them cost less than a 100 mile journey yet the whole system is in place for your journey also.  Plus it is there for everyone yet if you don't use it you don't pay.

You certainly do pay for the railways if you don't use them: taxpayer subsidies amount to more than twice the income from fares.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

Mstty said:

After all we are in all but name at war with Russia and if they team up with China we know what happens to energy prices

BBC News - F-16 fighter jets: US lets allies give jets to Ukraine

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471

The most sensible post of the day so far. We have an ongoing War in Europe: the first in 80 years.

There have been wars in Europe in the last 80 years. For example the Yugoslav wars, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Greek civil war. 

[Deleted User]

matt_drummer said:

Krakkkers said:

Fact is that high users pay less overall per unit (inc SC) than low users and that does not send the right message.
Not convinced the SC money is used in the way described.

High users just pay more, it is exactly right.

They pay the same per Kwh as everybody else.

The standing charge has got nothing to do with how much you use.

The standing charge is your equal share of the fixed costs of supply.

As it has always been, if you use more, you pay more.

I use virtually nothing, but I am relatively well off and make full use of the network. Is it right that I pay no standing charge?

I don't think so.

Higher energy use requires more infrastructure.
If you live in a rural area and like our PM want a mansion extension complete with heated swimming pool powered by the grid you have to pay to upgrade the local grids capacity. But then everyone gets to pay the same standing charge to maintain the extra infrastructure that was only needed because of your high energy use. 

michaels

Mstty said:

Latest predictions and they could lead to some suppliers dipping their toes back into the fixed market.

What matters is apart from the first quarter, these numbers show what it would cost to hedge the following quarters as of now.  Prices fluctuate all the time so when the companies actually have to buy for the SVR cap they may be very different.

These numbers do show what a 9m fix starting now should cost.

Personally I think we (as a nation) should be locking in these prices now as the upside risk is greater than the downside savings and no doubt the govt will not allow a big surge this winter because of electoral arithmetic so the risk falls on all of us as taxpayers.  Unfortunately due to the way the price cap operates supply companies are not permitted to hedge now for next winter.