Standing charge explain

GingerTim

Chris_b2z said:

Put yourself into the position of a low energy user trying to cut costs as much as possible and finding that no matter how much they reduce heating, etc a large portion of their bill still includes the ever increasing Standing Charge. Sure, it's no big deal for high energy users.

It really isn't beyond the capability of bean-counters in the 21st century to work out a system where infrastructure costs are absorbed and spread more fairly.

I don't need to put myself in the position of a low energy user - I am a very low energy user. I think the current arrangement is the least worst , least unfair option currently available. I don't see why my contribution to energy infrastructure should be lower than someone who, such as the millions renting or living in poor housing stock, who through no fault of their own are high energy users.

TheElectricCow

Chris_b2z said:

Put yourself into the position of a low energy user trying to cut costs as much as possible and finding that no matter how much they reduce heating, etc a large portion of their bill still includes the ever increasing Standing Charge. Sure, it's no big deal for high energy users.

It really isn't beyond the capability of bean-counters in the 21st century to work out a system where infrastructure costs are absorbed and spread more fairly.

I am a low user. So much so that I didn’t need to pay anything towards my energy bills for 11 months this year thanks to all the money that was being thrown about last winter (albeit ~10% of that was a GSOP payment so feel free to discount 1 of those months).

Exactly what is the relevance of the proportion of standing charges out of the total bill? It’s a fixed cost just like any other fixed cost I’d pay each month, why would it matter if it’s 1% of my bill or 80% if the actual amount stays the same?

What’s your idea for spreading these charges “more fairly” than distributing them equally between every supply point? There are some quite clever bean-counters here on the forum who I’m sure could work out roughly the actual implications of your suggestion for you.

EssexHebridean

Chris_b2z said:

GingerTim said:

Presumably the supermarkets will do just that when there is permanent infrastructure to pipe groceries into your home on demand.

I love it when MSEers repeatedly try to convince regular consumers that paying a high Standing Charge is such a wonderful concept that we should all embrace.

Amusing but perfectly understandable.

Nobody is trying to convince anyone it's a wonderful idea - simply explaining why standing charges are there and what they are for, something which it's clear a lot of people don't fully understand. Mocking that explanation just suggests that you are one of those who doesn't fully understand, and from seeing your posts previously, I don't think that does apply to you. 

Chris_b2z said:

Put yourself into the position of a low energy user trying to cut costs as much as possible and finding that no matter how much they reduce heating, etc a large portion of their bill still includes the ever increasing Standing Charge. Sure, it's no big deal for high energy users.

It really isn't beyond the capability of bean-counters in the 21st century to work out a system where infrastructure costs are absorbed and spread more fairly.

And now you put YOURself in the position of someone who is a high user not through choice, but because their property - which they rent - is poorly insulated, something they can do nothing about. Or because they have to use peak rate electricity for heating. Or because they simply7 have needs that require a warmer temperature - and again, this is not a choice, it's a necessity. The only other way of dealing with infrastructure costs is to add them to unit rates - so that method means that those people in the situations I have mentioned, who are frequently also those who are the most vulnerable and on the lowest incomes, are now paying even more for their energy.  The assumption that the low energy users are also those most in need of saving money is frequently false - those using the lowest amount of energy from the grid are often those who have the privilege of having solar, perhaps a battery, and very well insulated modern homes - while also being on incomes that make all those things possible. 

I have previously been on the extreme end of low use with gas - for a number of years I was paying a DD of around £10 per month, of which roughly £2 was for actual gas used, and the balance was the SC. Did I think that was unreasonable? No, not at all. I was still using precisely the same infrastructure as someone using 12,000kWh P/A after all. Why should I pay less for the costs of that?