Why am I still having to pay a Electricity Standing Charge, when I export more than I import.

davidkerr1956

I have embraced the Green Revolution in terms of:
1. Bought a New Home with an EPC rating of B 84.
2. Purchased 2 new EV’s, which, because of our requirements, only use our home charger during cheap rate electricity.
3. Installed a 4kwh PV Solar Array on our house
4. Have on order a Tesla Power Wall Battery Storage system.
5. Utilise cheap rate of peak electricity for the washing machine, Dishwasher etc.
6. Installed a Solar iBoost to heat all of our hot water whilst the sun is shining.
I think you will agree, we have invested a considerable amount of money to do our bit to alleviate our monthly energy costs with Green credentials that appear to be unrewarded by the current archaic standing charge for electricity.
In my sample 3 month period (May, June and July), we imported 482 kWh of electricity, whilst exporting 1424 kWh. 

I can’t be alone with my thoughts of: “ Why am I paying a Standing Charge for electricity, when I am exporting more than I am importing?
would it not be fairer for either, the standing charge be abolished in cases such as mine, or at least allow me to charge back a Standing Charge of my own to cover all of my “bad mistakes and decisions made historically, not to forget my considerable investment. After all, that is what the consumer is expected to do with the standing charges levied under the current system.
Your thoughts would be appreciated good or bad as I sometimes have some fairly whacky views on topics 

Mstty

Because you couldn't export or import your electricity without the infrastructure. The SC in a large part pays for the infrastructure of getting electricity to your property and in the case of self generation taking it away.

If you are ready to go off grid with your setup you can have your supply disconnected.

There will be many posts driving this home (sorry don't know why sometimes it's just best to see a reply and think yep no need to crush the OP lol)

CSI_Yorkshire

davidkerr1956 said:

would it not be fairer for either, the standing charge be abolished in cases such as mine, or at least allow me to charge back a Standing Charge of my own to cover all of my “bad mistakes and decisions made historically, not to forget my considerable investment. After all, that is what the consumer is expected to do with the standing charges levied under the current system.

No.

Export or import, you require the grid.  Pay for it.

matt_drummer

You could argue that people like you, and me for that matter, are using the infrastructure even more than people without solar panels and battery storage and therefore we should pay even more towards the fixed costs of our energy network.

I consider myself fortunate as I think you should. I have never thought of such a selfish idea as not paying my share of the standing costs of what I make full use of. 

MattMattMattUK

davidkerr1956 said:

I have embraced the Green Revolution in terms of:
1. Bought a New Home with an EPC rating of B 84.
2. Purchased 2 new EV’s, which, because of our requirements, only use our home charger during cheap rate electricity.
3. Installed a 4kwh PV Solar Array on our house
4. Have on order a Tesla Power Wall Battery Storage system.
5. Utilise cheap rate of peak electricity for the washing machine, Dishwasher etc.
6. Installed a Solar iBoost to heat all of our hot water whilst the sun is shining.
I think you will agree, we have invested a considerable amount of money to do our bit to alleviate our monthly energy costs with Green credentials that appear to be unrewarded by the current archaic standing charge for electricity.
In my sample 3 month period (May, June and July), we imported 482 kWh of electricity, whilst exporting 1424 kWh. 

I can’t be alone with my thoughts of: “ Why am I paying a Standing Charge for electricity, when I am exporting more than I am importing?

You are paying for the standing charge because it covers the cost of building, upgrading and maintaining the network, as you have a connection to it you pay for it. You are paid for electricity you export, you are charged for what you buy, it is a fairly simple system and inherently fair. 

davidkerr1956 said:

would it not be fairer for either, the standing charge be abolished in cases such as mine, or at least allow me to charge back a Standing Charge of my own to cover all of my “bad mistakes and decisions made historically,

No, it would not be fairer, as you would be getting your grid connection for free, so effectively subsidised by others. You do not provide a public service network so you cannot levy a standing charge. 

davidkerr1956 said:

not to forget my considerable investment. 

Your investment is returned in the form of reduced bills and payments for electricity you export.

davidkerr1956 said:

After all, that is what the consumer is expected to do with the standing charges levied under the current system. 

The consumer is expected to cover the cost of the network, in an industry where the profit is capped at 1.9%. The Standing Charge is there to cover the costs of the network, it does not generate profit, the profit is on the energy used. 

davidkerr1956 said:

Your thoughts would be appreciated good or bad as I sometimes have some fairly whacky views on topics 

I would put this down to being one of the latter. 

BeerSavesMoney

If you don’t want to pay the standing charge then have your electricity supply disconnected and the meter removed.

Scot_39

Arguably as a generator, in the past a system that often needed a second export meter - you should be paying twice.

Just as those on 2 mpan e7 or other RMI metering had to / have to.

Once to receive, one to export  - as well as the costs to monitor and administer it twice - although some might argue that's reflected in the unit rates paid for export.

The grid is increasingly being placed in a situation where on a sunny windy day we have over capacity and firms are increasingly collectively paid £100s of millions per annum not to generate.

The exported power you are generating only makes those costs that tiny bit more likely as an individual, but over all domestic installs, probably has an impact.

By cutting demand and adding generating capacity - two negative impacts on grid balance.

So by all mean invest to reduce use, store your own, but get a sense of perspective - in the bigger picture.

Unless you become self sufficient 100% of the time, in which case you might be able to go off grid and save a few pound a week.  And of course loose any feed in payments you earn.  Which I suspect will cover the standing charges.

But as many renewables systems rely on having a live grid connection to operate at all - so even a power cut some stopped working to keep external mains dead - that might not work without further costs.

dunstonh

I think you will agree, we have invested a considerable amount of money to do our bit to alleviate our monthly energy costs with Green credentials that appear to be unrewarded by the current archaic standing charge for electricity.

There is a strong possibility you needed to upgrade your fuse and wiring.   The stuff you have would need 100amp and most houses, unless recent newbuilds, would be on 60 or 80.   How much did you pay the DNO for that?  - hint, you didn't as its done free up to 100amp as the cost is covered within the standing charge.

In my sample 3 month period (May, June and July), we imported 482 kWh of electricity, whilst exporting 1424 kWh. 
I can’t be alone with my thoughts of: “ Why am I paying a Standing Charge for electricity, when I am exporting more than I am importing?

Who is going to pay for that infrastructure that allows you to import and export?  At the moment, the standing charge goes towards that.

would it not be fairer for either, the standing charge be abolished in cases such as mine, or at least allow me to charge back a Standing Charge of my own to cover all of my “bad mistakes and decisions made historically, not to forget my considerable investment. Why should others have to pay for your increased use of the infrastructure?

The answer in your case, is to get yourself disconnected from the grid if you don't believe it is offering you any value for the daily standing charge.

Scot_39

Re collective impact on grid balance, already c1.3m people with solar panels.

At the OPs 4kWp - I assume he means - thats unles I am mistaken - 5.2GW at rated output.

About 20% of summer demand.

And that's a real and significant impact on grid balancing costs.

And arguably another  variability that should no longer be encouraged - the same as the rush to massive overcapacity by large scale renewables.

30GW peak already installed - 45GW By 2027 as auctioned.

Add in domestic PV 5GW - that's 50GW max / rated.

So taking out just core nuclear etc - demand c20GW -any summers day when renewables at c40% rated - we are likely looking at over capacity.

And curtailment compensation already running in £100s millions at sub 30GW commercial last year.

Each kWh exported domestically could be costing both feed in tariff rates and curtailment costs at certain times.

And remember users were being paid to use - even waste energy - to balance grid demand.

The whole system is unbalanced - driven by cheap renewables without storage to match variability in its output.

And old pricing models - commercial and domestic are no longer fit for purpose - at least in terms of minimising costs to average domestic users - at high renewables levels.

davidkerr1956

Well, I have read your comments on the matter and have to take that onboard. There appears that the consensus is  that everyone should carry on as they are until the grid eventually falls over. There does not appear to be any credit given to people who are technically assisting this not to happen by taking the initiative and installing alternative sources for generation and storage of electricity.  Let me remind the dissenters that any surplus electricity I produce receives 4.01p per KWh, whilst any electricity consumed during the daytime costs circa 30p per KWh. Surely the margin of 26p per KWh exported  which I produce for the grid, would support the infrastructure costs etc. etc. I would also like to state that I do not consider myself selfish generating 1424 KWh of electricity (3 months) for the grid and receiving 4.01p per KWh not withstanding the £295 for a DNO for the privilege. I must also state that it was my choice alone to invest in the Solar and Battery Storage, made, to reduce my monthly energy bills and also share the over capacity to the Grid, which by the way the Government and Energy providers are encouraging. On this basis, I would suggest that the circa 1.3m people that have embrace the technology, should be applauded and not rounded upon. I would also suggest that some of the comments above, I applaud, but some, have been made without knowledge of real hard facts.

CSI_Yorkshire

davidkerr1956 said:

Well, I have read your comments on the matter and have to take that onboard. There appears that the consensus is  that everyone should carry on as they are until the grid eventually falls over. 

The consensus is that everyone who uses the grid should pay for the grid.  Why do you disagree with this?

davidkerr1956 said:

There does not appear to be any credit given to people who are technically assisting this not to happen by taking the initiative and installing alternative sources for generation and storage of electricity.  

The credit is that you are not paying for the energy that you have generated when you use it, and you are paid for the generation when you export it.

You are not providing a balancing service to the system - if you were, you would be paid for that too.

davidkerr1956 said:

Surely the margin of 26p per KWh exported  which I produce for the grid, would support the infrastructure costs etc. etc.

No.  That's not how it works.  And you are not producing energy "for the grid", or at a time when "the grid" necessarily wants it.  What you are doing is simply dumping your excess into the grid and expecting some sort of reward.

davidkerr1956 said:

 I would also like to state that I do not consider myself selfish generating 1424 KWh of electricity (3 months) for the grid and receiving 4.01p per KWh not withstanding the £295 for a DNO for the privilege. 

Nobody said you were selfish for generating.  Why do you think you should be allowed to dump your excess generation into the grid without paying for the grid being there?

davidkerr1956 said:

I must also state that it was my choice alone to invest in the Solar and Battery Storage, made, to reduce my monthly energy bills and also share the over capacity to the Grid, which by the way the Government and Energy providers are encouraging. 

You made your choice to invest, and you have had a (likely substantial) reduction in your monthly bills because of it.  Why then should you get some sort of bonus for dumping the excess onto the rest of us?  The grid doesn't control your "over capacity", it must simply deal with it whenever you choose to dump it there.

davidkerr1956 said:

On this basis, I would suggest that the circa 1.3m people that have embrace the technology, should be applauded and not rounded upon. I would also suggest that some of the comments above, I applaud, but some, have been made without knowledge of real hard facts.

Your basis is simplistic and misunderstood.  However, I will join your applause for those choosing to fit similar technologies, as I think overall it is beneficial.  Again, people embracing such technologies already benefit from lower bills, and get paid when they choose to dump their excess into the system, so to argue that they should have a third benefit either by not having to pay for the system's existence or to somehow be paid a second time for the service that the system is providing to them would seem like a poor use of effort.

I recommend that, should you wish to get involved in similar discussions in the future, you obtain "knowledge of real hard facts" before mistakenly arguing a false point.