Martin Lewis: Why are energy standing charges so high? What can be done

MouldyOldDough

GingerTim said:

No solar, no batteries, not rich, very low energy user - and I still think the current standing charge regime is the fairest, least worst way to spread the network/fixed costs. Not sure I would characterise it as a 'pro standing charge' position, though.

Any alternative I've seen put forward tends towards widening inequalities as far as I can see, e.g. loading it onto the unit rate penalises those who use a lot of energy through no fault of their own.

OK There needs to be a 2  tier system for charging. extremely carefully adminiistered

QrizB

MouldyOldDough said:

I assume that most of the pro-standing charge customers - are HIGHER users

I'm a lower-than-average user of both electricity and gas. I think standing charges are a fair way of recovering the fixed costs associated with providing an energy supply.

matt_drummer said:

I am not so sure about SoLR costs though, I think they should have been borne entirely by those customers that benefitted from those suppliers that we all ended up paying for.

I can see how that might seem "fair" - they took the risk and reaped the benefits, they should be responsible for the losses - but at the same time the domestic energy market is regulated and Joe & Josephine Public aren't expected to check out the financial stability of their energy suppliers. We reply on our Government and their regulators to do that for us.
It could be argued that those costs should have been met from general taxation, as they were the result of Government policy to encourage disruptive energy suppliers without requiring adequate financial reserves. Neverthess, we are where we are.

GingerTim

MouldyOldDough said:

GingerTim said:

No solar, no batteries, not rich, very low energy user - and I still think the current standing charge regime is the fairest, least worst way to spread the network/fixed costs. Not sure I would characterise it as a 'pro standing charge' position, though.

Any alternative I've seen put forward tends towards widening inequalities as far as I can see, e.g. loading it onto the unit rate penalises those who use a lot of energy through no fault of their own.

OK There needs to be a 2  tier system for charging. extremely carefully adminiistered

An extremely carefully administered system would require oversight and expense to run - something else to add to the standing charge.

MattMattMattUK

MouldyOldDough said:

MikeJXE said:

Not necessarily some anti standing charge customers are rich who can afford solar panels that for some covers there entire electric bill and some more 

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Why do you feel that paying for your grid connection and contributing towards the maintenance of the grid is "unfair"?

matt_drummer

QrizB said:

matt_drummer said:

I am not so sure about SoLR costs though, I think they should have been borne entirely by those customers that benefitted from those suppliers that we all ended up paying for.

I can see how that might seem "fair" - they took the risk and reaped the benefits, they should be responsible for the losses - but at the same time the domestic energy market is regulated and Joe & Josephine Public aren't expected to check out the financial stability of their energy suppliers. We reply on our Government and their regulators to do that for us.
It could be argued that those costs should have been met from general taxation, as they were the result of Government policy to encourage disruptive energy suppliers without requiring adequate financial reserves. Neverthess, we are where we are.

I agree, probably.

But then those customers shouldn't come on here complaining about the costs when they have benefitted from the lower costs they enjoyed, the protection of their credit balances and being able to switch to another supplier at just the same rates as everybody else even though their custom wasn't planned for.

Cake and eat it, some of these people want low rates, no risk and then want somebody else to contribute when it all goes wrong expecting not to contribute at all themselves as it's all so unfair!

matt_drummer

MouldyOldDough said:

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Use some more then?

If you do, the standing charge will be a lower percentage of your bill, and then you'll be happy, right?

MouldyOldDough

MattMattMattUK said:

MouldyOldDough said:

MikeJXE said:

Not necessarily some anti standing charge customers are rich who can afford solar panels that for some covers there entire electric bill and some more 

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Why do you feel that paying for your grid connection and contributing towards the maintenance of the grid is "unfair"?

Because - if you look at the reason for charging - we are paying for the transport of energy - either electricity or gas and that should be paid on quantity transported not a standard amount

MouldyOldDough

matt_drummer said:

MouldyOldDough said:

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Use some more then?

If you do, the standing charge will be a lower percentage of your bill, and then you'll be happy, right?

And the costs would be more ?

unless we go down the route of everyone paying a standard charge for power - no matter how much you use ?

MikeJXE

MouldyOldDough said:

MikeJXE said:

Not necessarily some anti standing charge customers are rich who can afford solar panels that for some covers there entire electric bill and some more 

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Green credentials?

like one one country exceeding their Co2 emissions and buying credits from another country, how is that fair ?
 

Those who can afford solar panels can use as much as they want and then sell back to the grid. They can make that much the standing charge makes little difference. They can even make a profit from their energy use. 

Unfair charge added to your bill ? 

My electric standing charge is £50 more than my units and gas sc is about £50 more than my usage 

I can’t cut down anymore unless I want to be cold and at 84 that’s not a good idea. 

400ixl

MouldyOldDough said:

MattMattMattUK said:

MouldyOldDough said:

MikeJXE said:

Not necessarily some anti standing charge customers are rich who can afford solar panels that for some covers there entire electric bill and some more 

I am happy with that because they are adding to their "green credentials" but I am a very low user and feel that an unfair charge is added to my monthly bill (sometimes 75% of my bill is SC..)

Why do you feel that paying for your grid connection and contributing towards the maintenance of the grid is "unfair"?

Because - if you look at the reason for charging - we are paying for the transport of energy - either electricity or gas and that should be paid on quantity transported not a standard amount

You are paying for the capability to transport energy (amongst other things) in the standing charge. The unit rate includes the quantity transported.