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

Qyburn

Why don't you switch to Octopus and get 15p/kWh for your export?

I don't think people are necessarily saying things should continue as they are, with no change. I think what is being challenged is the idea that you're so special that everyone should club together to fund a free electricity connection for you. 

MattMattMattUK

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. 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.

No one has said that, your statement is a straw man. The grid needs wholesale modernisation, as it is currently designed it will not be able to operate with huge amounts of microgeneration, it needs changes and upgrades, these are funded from the standing charge and from a small amount of the unit rate. You do not need to be given "credit" you are paid back in reduced energy costs and payment for energy you export, your ROI based on current prices will be 3-5 years for break even and after that profit. 

davidkerr1956 said:

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.

You can get a higher rate than that per kWh, up to 15p per kWh even without using demand based pricing. 
https://octopus.energy/smart/outgoing/

davidkerr1956 said:

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

The margin is not 26p, because the costs, transmission losses etc. still exist. The wholesale price of the electricity is around 14p per kWh, but it depends on region, time of export, your location on the grid, local transformers etc. You are paid for your electricity, when they sell it on that covers other costs, as does any kWh bought from traditional generators and sold on.

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 

No one has stated that they think that having solar generation is selfish.

davidkerr1956 said:

not withstanding the £295 for a DNO for the privilege.

You pay the standing charge for your grid connection, not because you export, not because you import, but for the connection itself. If you do not wish to pay it then go fully self sufficient and grid-independent. 

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. On this basis, I would suggest that the circa 1.3m people that have embrace the technology, should be applauded and not rounded upon.

No one is "rounding upon" you, they are merely pointing out that you misunderstand what the standing charge is for, and that the idea that cost should be subsidised for you, by increasing costs on others, is an inherently "unfair" position. Most people are doing it because it puts them in a better financial position in the medium and long term, nothing for or against that, it is a sensible course of action to take, but it is largely done for individual benefit, not some wider sense of purpose.

theoretica

You produce more than you use - so why do you still need the grid? Because your use doesn't match the time of your production. What would it cost you to go off grid and produce your own energy when you need it, or store it until you want it?  That is what you are paying the standing charge for.

dunstonh

 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 should continue to pay for the infrastructure.    And that means the many upgrades and improvements that are occurring that means it shouldn't fall 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. 

Those same people are also creating additional costs and demands to the infrastructure.   For example, the grid was never designed with localised generation in mind.  Investment was necessary to allow you to do what you are currently doing.   

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.

There are no dissenters on what you are doing.    Just a difference in opinion as you seem to believe you do not need the grid whereas the other posters have shown that you do.

There is some argument to be had as to why there is such a margin between input and output but the argument back is that personal generation doesn't benefit from economies of scale. 

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 don't know why you feel that way.   No-one is rounding on you.   The only negative towards your position was your belief that you feel you shouldn't be paying towards the cost of the grid 

markin

Its a free market, its been your choice not to move to Octopus to get 15p kwh or far more on the Flux tariff. Or to pay for smart meter roll out in standing charges and not benefit from having one.

NorfolkCanary

So you generate an excess now, so what's the plan for mid-October through mid-February, when in theory we won't have 10 hours per day of suitable sunshine? Are you still going to provide an excess into the grid? Will your comments re. S.Cs still apply?

davidkerr1956

Out of interest, has CSI_Yorkshire, a Solar installation as the I am amazed at your point:
” 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”.
I have quoted hard facts, yours appears to be ill thought out opinion.

ArbitraryRandom

davidkerr1956 said:

Out of interest, has CSI_Yorkshire, a Solar installation as the I am amazed at your point:
” 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”.
I have quoted hard facts, yours appears to be ill thought out opinion.

I think what they're referring to is your suggestion that you are somehow benefiting the grid by exporting your excess at a time when there's already excess available, and that your excess is 'worth' retail value (so the difference should pay your contribution to the standing charge)?

As several people have stated - and you have not acknowledged - balancing the grid is expensive; actively paying people to not produce electricity at a time when generation is higher than demand (and conversely, paying those same generators to produce electricity when demand is higher than supply). 

You adding extra energy to the grid on sunny days, therefore can be argued to add a cost (not a benefit) to the network. Once you understand that 'fact', then why your contribution doesn't replace your liability for standing charges is easier to understand. 

Mstty

It looks like you refuse to concede you also draw electricity at times where demand is high (winter).

It is quite clear that your views do not appear to gain much traction here.

[Deleted User]

This is what is being considered in Australia:

‘Households with solar panels that export power to the grid could be slugged a fee under a proposal by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC).

The AEMC said the increasing number of households with solar panels were causing "traffic jams" in some areas of the grid. 

It said tariffs would give network operators the option of encouraging people to export energy back into the grid at times it could handle it, while discouraging it at a time when the grid was overwhelmed with supply.

In the proposal, it said solar panel owners would lose some cash on existing returns, but doing nothing would result in blackouts and intermittent blocking of energy exports — ultimately leaving customers worse off.

The AEMC said the scheme would also raise money for network upgrades, instead of going to all consumers.’

Ofgem had this on its radar a couple of years ago.