Shell energy fix

vision2009

Shell energy have a new 1 year fix for electricity. However, the standing charge is being racked up yet again to 63.63p day. This rip off has to stop.  Why are they being allowed to get away with this? The standing charge will soon be £1 a day, it’s criminal. Rip off Britain and they are all in it together.

GingerTim

Scroll down a bit for the pie chart showing what the standing charge pays for. 

There is no cap on standing charges on fixed tariffs, so it's up to you whether you want to take it or not.

https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2023/07/martin-lewis--why-are-energy-standing-charges-so-high--what-can-/?_ga=2.94243545.538801011.1647962982-1764912342.1647962982&_gl=1*1968gt*_ga*MTc2NDkxMjM0Mi4xNjQ3OTYyOTgy*_ga_X74CWQS9F0*MTY4OTU2NTMyMy4xNjEuMS4xNjg5NzQ1NTg4LjQxLjAuMA..#whyhigh

[Deleted User]

vision2009 said:

Shell energy have a new 1 year fix for electricity. However, the standing charge is being racked up yet again to 63.63p day. This rip off has to stop.  Why are they being allowed to get away with this? The standing charge will soon be £1 a day, it’s criminal. Rip off Britain and they are all in it together.

How would you pay for such things as Grid improvements; support of those less well off; supplier failures; consumer credit balance protection……? Governments of all colours have added these costs to energy bills.

There is an argument that standing charges should be abolished and the cost added to unit prices. This sounds simple enough but it has a number of consequences. For example, it would result in those who use a lot of energy paying a lot more than they do today, and low users such as those with PV solar paying a lot less. 

Why not increase taxes and cover standing charges in that way? It might work but it is hardly a vote winner. 

vision2009

They are making extortionate profits as it is now to pay for all the (extras) you list. As for the supplier failures excuse, that’s what we were originally told the standing charge was increased to cover. Not many suppliers left that have gone bust lately, so that was all a con to increase the ST CH.
Its pure greed and about time all energy was renationalised to stop this rip off.

[Deleted User]

vision2009 said:

They are making extortionate profits as it is now to pay for all the (extras) you list. As for the supplier failures excuse, that’s what we were originally told the standing charge was increased to cover. Not many suppliers left that have gone bust lately, so that was all a con to increase the ST CH.
It’s pure greed and about time all energy was renationalised to stop this rip off.

Which suppliers are making extortionate profits? If energy supply is so lucrative, why is Shell Energy Retail trying to find a buyer? The truth is that companies like BP and Shell are making good profits around the World for the energy that they extract from the ground but suppliers are limited in the main to c.2% profit on each consumer energy bill.

https://www.sharecast.com/news/news-and-announcements/shell-puts-retail-energy-arm-up-for-sale--13642050.html

Nationalisation is not a free option. The Government would have to pay the above the market price to persuade shareholders to sell their shares. The French Government recently paid $9.8Bn for the last 14% of EDF Energy that it didn’t already own.

dunstonh

They are making extortionate profits as it is now to pay for all the (extras) you list.

What evidence do you have to support that statement?  (clue - you don't as they are not)

As for the supplier failures excuse, that’s what we were originally told the standing charge was increased to cover. Not many suppliers left that have gone bust lately, so that was all a con to increase the ST CH.

So, you think a month or two of an increased standing charge is going to cover the costs?

Its pure greed and about time all energy was renationalised to stop this rip off.

How is the rationalisation going to be funded with your plan?  Maybe by Increasing the standing charge?

vision2009

Let’s ask Martin Lewis about this, I think he knows more about this situation than you or me! 

QrizB

vision2009 said:

Let’s ask Martin Lewis about this, I think he knows more about this situation than you or me! 

He might know more than you do, but there are posters on this forum that are far more knowledgeable about the UK energy market than Saint Martin of Lewis is.

vision2009

Don’t think so. Perhaps you’re on the wrong forum? 

[Deleted User]

vision2009 said:

Let’s ask Martin Lewis about this, I think he knows more about this situation than you or me! 

Yes, Martin Lewis is undoubtedly an advocate for lower standing charges but he isn’t arguing that these costs should just be ignored. He has met with the Secretary of State who responded with the following:

Mr Shapps: "I did exactly what I said I'd do. I spoke to Ofgem, and actually the boss of Ofgem came out in, we spoke in March, we came out in May and said that they are going to be having a look at this with the energy companies.

"Now remember, and I just want to put this on record, what that standing charge is there to pay for are all of the network costs, the maintenance costs and the things which happen before you get the live supply of energy to the household, so it's not for nothing.

"But like you, and as I said to you in March, I was concerned about the balance of these costs because I spotted on my energy bill, for example, at the beginning of this month, that whilst I was having a welcome drop in the cost of my energy, they were tweaking up the standing order itself. So, that work is ongoing."

Martin: "To be fair, that's because Ofgem choose to put that cost there rather than on the unit rate."

Martin Lewis seems to be advocating that these costs should be added to unit charges.This would add about 6p/kWh to the unit price for an average consumer. This would hardly be deemed fair on consumers who have no choice but to live in poorly insulated properties so I suspect that there would be a case for having a sliding scale of unit charges based on how many units people use. If my old memory hasn’t completely gone,  we had a system similar to this a few decades ago which was changed as consumers deemed it to be unfair.

Should we be worried that the politician in charge of our energy security seems to have no idea about the difference between a monthly DD payment and charges for energy used?