energy prices to go down, but... standing charges remain

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Scot_39 said:

Chrysalis said:

I think its a bit vague to say grid costs are increasing, Ofgem have made a decision they prefer to have costs on SC than unit rate.

Some stuff that was funded via unit rates got moved to SC.

Some new stuff is funded via SC.

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

The answer is of course a mix of both.

Policy and expansion costs.

The electricity grid in particular is seeing £bns in new investment.  To hook up to new renewables - often 100s of miles from market - and too little grid capacity to support current let alone new c16GW of solar or wind farms in last 2 auctions for 2023-2027 delivery.

New overhead and ground lines, upgrades to existing route power line capacity, new uk to uk hvdc links like egl1 and egl2 Scotland to England, islands to mainland and ne mainland to link with egl2 in Aberdeenshire etc.

Many of them - running years behind the renewables field license supply dates.

And many projects being further delayed by environmental/green lobby groups, nimbys and local councils backing them.

Energy Security needs to be taken far more seriously.  The days when even just 1 NIMBY or minority pressue group can delay projects benefitting 100,000s or even all 67 million in this land even if only in a macro economic context - needs to stop.

The world doesn't owe us a living or subsidy - we as a nation cannot afford the pervasive liberal idealism of the minority.

And especially the poor - even the working poor - let alone millions more on benefits and minimal pensions - cannot afford their idealism.

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

CSI_Yorkshire

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Scot_39 said:

Chrysalis said:

I think its a bit vague to say grid costs are increasing, Ofgem have made a decision they prefer to have costs on SC than unit rate.

Some stuff that was funded via unit rates got moved to SC.

Some new stuff is funded via SC.

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

The answer is of course a mix of both.

Policy and expansion costs.

The electricity grid in particular is seeing £bns in new investment.  To hook up to new renewables - often 100s of miles from market - and too little grid capacity to support current let alone new c16GW of solar or wind farms in last 2 auctions for 2023-2027 delivery.

New overhead and ground lines, upgrades to existing route power line capacity, new uk to uk hvdc links like egl1 and egl2 Scotland to England, islands to mainland and ne mainland to link with egl2 in Aberdeenshire etc.

Many of them - running years behind the renewables field license supply dates.

And many projects being further delayed by environmental/green lobby groups, nimbys and local councils backing them.

Energy Security needs to be taken far more seriously.  The days when even just 1 NIMBY or minority pressue group can delay projects benefitting 100,000s or even all 67 million in this land even if only in a macro economic context - needs to stop.

The world doesn't owe us a living or subsidy - we as a nation cannot afford the pervasive liberal idealism of the minority.

And especially the poor - even the working poor - let alone millions more on benefits and minimal pensions - cannot afford their idealism.

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

Because then it wouldn't be a grid, it would be a whole mess of individually-owned lines with no spare capacity, no resilience, and no room for upgrade..

What happens when the next solar farm in the same area wants to connect?  They should pay for their own 100km line?  They should ask their competitor if they can "pretty please use some space on your line"?

CSI_Yorkshire

bristolleedsfan said:

Chrysalis said:

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

Total guess by me that green levies have been incorporated within July price cap which is why price cap has not fallen as much as might have been expected.

https://inews.co.uk/news/fuel-poverty-green-levies-taxes-energy-bills-campaigners-2448649

Policy costs contribution to both standing charge and unit rates remained unchanged between the April and July price caps.

[Deleted User]

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

Because at the end of the day, it is energy consumers that will pay. If more costs are added to a renewables contract, then the generator will expect to be paid a higher cost for each kWh produced. There are already reports that projects agreed in 2022 will not now be built because of materials and wage inflation, and the increased cost of borrowing. 

bristolleedsfan

CSI_Yorkshire said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Chrysalis said:

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

Total guess by me that green levies have been incorporated within July price cap which is why price cap has not fallen as much as might have been expected.

https://inews.co.uk/news/fuel-poverty-green-levies-taxes-energy-bills-campaigners-2448649

Policy costs contribution to both standing charge and unit rates remained unchanged between the April and July price caps.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-levies-return-household-energy-bills-july-grant-shapps-how-much-cost-b1089992.html

"Green levies that were temporarily removed from household electricity bills will hit consumers again from the start of July."

"Even as customers again pay energy rates in full, including for green levies, the average energy bill will fall by £426 a year due to the drop in the price cap"

CSI_Yorkshire

bristolleedsfan said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Chrysalis said:

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

Total guess by me that green levies have been incorporated within July price cap which is why price cap has not fallen as much as might have been expected.

https://inews.co.uk/news/fuel-poverty-green-levies-taxes-energy-bills-campaigners-2448649

Policy costs contribution to both standing charge and unit rates remained unchanged between the April and July price caps.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-levies-return-household-energy-bills-july-grant-shapps-how-much-cost-b1089992.html

"Green levies that were temporarily removed from household electricity bills will hit consumers again from the start of July."

Irrelevant and nonsense reporting.

The green levies were never removed and have not, therefore, returned.

The arbitrary discount amount that made the EPG £2500 limit was nothing to do with how much any individual component cost or was funded.

That story might as well say "the operating costs and company profits that were temporarily removed from household electricity bills will hit consumers again from the start of July." or "the marketing budget and staff canteens that were temporarily removed from household electricity bills will hit consumers again from the start of July."

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

CSI_Yorkshire said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Scot_39 said:

Chrysalis said:

I think its a bit vague to say grid costs are increasing, Ofgem have made a decision they prefer to have costs on SC than unit rate.

Some stuff that was funded via unit rates got moved to SC.

Some new stuff is funded via SC.

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

The answer is of course a mix of both.

Policy and expansion costs.

The electricity grid in particular is seeing £bns in new investment.  To hook up to new renewables - often 100s of miles from market - and too little grid capacity to support current let alone new c16GW of solar or wind farms in last 2 auctions for 2023-2027 delivery.

New overhead and ground lines, upgrades to existing route power line capacity, new uk to uk hvdc links like egl1 and egl2 Scotland to England, islands to mainland and ne mainland to link with egl2 in Aberdeenshire etc.

Many of them - running years behind the renewables field license supply dates.

And many projects being further delayed by environmental/green lobby groups, nimbys and local councils backing them.

Energy Security needs to be taken far more seriously.  The days when even just 1 NIMBY or minority pressue group can delay projects benefitting 100,000s or even all 67 million in this land even if only in a macro economic context - needs to stop.

The world doesn't owe us a living or subsidy - we as a nation cannot afford the pervasive liberal idealism of the minority.

And especially the poor - even the working poor - let alone millions more on benefits and minimal pensions - cannot afford their idealism.

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

Because then it wouldn't be a grid, it would be a whole mess of individually-owned lines with no spare capacity, no resilience, and no room for upgrade..

What happens when the next solar farm in the same area wants to connect?  They should pay for their own 100km line?  They should ask their competitor if they can "pretty please use some space on your line"?

I didn't ask why they don't build their own, the question was why don't they foot the bill? Maybe they do contribute, I don't know, hence the question.  

CSI_Yorkshire

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Scot_39 said:

Chrysalis said:

I think its a bit vague to say grid costs are increasing, Ofgem have made a decision they prefer to have costs on SC than unit rate.

Some stuff that was funded via unit rates got moved to SC.

Some new stuff is funded via SC.

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

The answer is of course a mix of both.

Policy and expansion costs.

The electricity grid in particular is seeing £bns in new investment.  To hook up to new renewables - often 100s of miles from market - and too little grid capacity to support current let alone new c16GW of solar or wind farms in last 2 auctions for 2023-2027 delivery.

New overhead and ground lines, upgrades to existing route power line capacity, new uk to uk hvdc links like egl1 and egl2 Scotland to England, islands to mainland and ne mainland to link with egl2 in Aberdeenshire etc.

Many of them - running years behind the renewables field license supply dates.

And many projects being further delayed by environmental/green lobby groups, nimbys and local councils backing them.

Energy Security needs to be taken far more seriously.  The days when even just 1 NIMBY or minority pressue group can delay projects benefitting 100,000s or even all 67 million in this land even if only in a macro economic context - needs to stop.

The world doesn't owe us a living or subsidy - we as a nation cannot afford the pervasive liberal idealism of the minority.

And especially the poor - even the working poor - let alone millions more on benefits and minimal pensions - cannot afford their idealism.

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

Because then it wouldn't be a grid, it would be a whole mess of individually-owned lines with no spare capacity, no resilience, and no room for upgrade..

What happens when the next solar farm in the same area wants to connect?  They should pay for their own 100km line?  They should ask their competitor if they can "pretty please use some space on your line"?

I didn't ask why they don't build their own, the question was why don't they foot the bill? Maybe they do contribute, I don't know, hence the question.  

They used to.  They paid the complete connection charge to the local substation and for the upgrades to the substation.  And it was discovered to be an idiotic idea.  Many complaints and lawsuits about clawing costs back from competitors who came along to use the subsequently improved capability, a massive jump in the effective cost of generation if you were the site who triggered the need for works, but no change at all to the cost for any generator before or after them in the queue, disputes about how much upgrade was actually necessary based on that specific project and how much was just 'necessary works', disputes about how 'deep' in the network was the generator's responsibility to fund...

We moved to a partially socialised approach for the local sub works a few years ago, but for the big 'structural' works (which individual generation project is responsible for the underwhelming Sco-Eng connections?) that's all NG's work.

Generators still directly pay for Single User Connection Assets through their connection charges (like a standing charge over 40 years, backed by a bond, escrow account etc):

It'll be described in CUSC - possibly section 14.

Scot_39

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Scot_39 said:

Chrysalis said:

I think its a bit vague to say grid costs are increasing, Ofgem have made a decision they prefer to have costs on SC than unit rate.

Some stuff that was funded via unit rates got moved to SC.

Some new stuff is funded via SC.

Also recently came out in the open, that the gov paying the green levies might be footed by customers again, unclear at this point if this will go on SC or not or if gov will put it back on general taxation.  Suppliers are trying to get them back on general taxation, as is jacob rees-mog.

The answer is of course a mix of both.

Policy and expansion costs.

The electricity grid in particular is seeing £bns in new investment.  To hook up to new renewables - often 100s of miles from market - and too little grid capacity to support current let alone new c16GW of solar or wind farms in last 2 auctions for 2023-2027 delivery.

New overhead and ground lines, upgrades to existing route power line capacity, new uk to uk hvdc links like egl1 and egl2 Scotland to England, islands to mainland and ne mainland to link with egl2 in Aberdeenshire etc.

Many of them - running years behind the renewables field license supply dates.

And many projects being further delayed by environmental/green lobby groups, nimbys and local councils backing them.

Energy Security needs to be taken far more seriously.  The days when even just 1 NIMBY or minority pressue group can delay projects benefitting 100,000s or even all 67 million in this land even if only in a macro economic context - needs to stop.

The world doesn't owe us a living or subsidy - we as a nation cannot afford the pervasive liberal idealism of the minority.

And especially the poor - even the working poor - let alone millions more on benefits and minimal pensions - cannot afford their idealism.

Why doesn't the company building the solar/wind farms pay for their own connection to the grid? 

Because the grid has to be balanced and regulated as a unit.

And that requires the right balance of generation, transmission capacity, substations etc to match user demand.

Yes the suppliers could I guess pay national grid operators (note plural) direct - and we could pay them via I guess CfD unit rates or some other payment  - but in the end we will pay regardless.

Egl2 involves 3 so called TOs - SSEN, SP EN and National Grid.

But it is not how it is done.

And as per usual @CSI_Yorkshire seems to have far more specific detailed knowledge than most - including me.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

CSI_Yorkshire said:

They used to.  They paid the complete connection charge to the local substation and for the upgrades to the substation.  And it was discovered to be an idiotic idea.  Many complaints and lawsuits about clawing costs back from competitors who came along to use the subsequently improved capability, a massive jump in the effective cost of generation if you were the site who triggered the need for works, but no change at all to the cost for any generator before or after them in the queue, disputes about how much upgrade was actually necessary based on that specific project and how much was just 'necessary works', disputes about how 'deep' in the network was the generator's responsibility to fund...

We moved to a partially socialised approach for the local sub works a few years ago, but for the big 'structural' works (which individual generation project is responsible for the underwhelming Sco-Eng connections?) that's all NG's work.

Generators still directly pay for Single User Connection Assets through their connection charges (like a standing charge over 40 years, backed by a bond, escrow account etc):

It'll be described in CUSC - possibly section 14.

Scot_39 said:

Because the grid has to be balanced and regulated as a unit.

And that requires the right balance of generation, transmission capacity, substations etc to match user demand.

Yes the suppliers could I guess pay national grid operators (note plural) direct - and we could pay them via I guess CfD unit rates or some other payment  - but in the end we will pay regardless.

Egl2 involves 3 so called TOs - SSEN, SP EN and National Grid.

But it is not how it is done.

And as per usual @CSI_Yorkshire seems to have far more specific detailed knowledge than most - including me.

Thanks both, interesting info  

Given the companies running these solar farms are (presumably) turning a profit you'd perhaps expect some contribution to these costs but yes we'd probably pay for it one way or another. 

I know a lot of people say tax the extraction companies more without realising their profits are also overseas (and they are taxed fairly heavily here from what I understand), perhaps with more energy generation in the UK through wind and solar there will be more tax generated in the UK at the end of the day.

The standing charge for us is £222 a year just for electric, it is a lot but personally I don't mind too much as we rely on it to live and use a fair amount (4000kw a year), the unit price on the other hand could be a bit lower but what can you do, however I can see why lower users find the increases, umm, unpleasant.