Standing Charge up - unit prices down (the logic?)

MeteredOut

MultiFuelBurner said:

It is amazing how many people post without educating themselves first on what makes up the standing charge.

Or even reading forum posts on the subject already posted to death.

wrf12345 said:

The cost of the grid etc can just as easily come out of the unit cost as the s/c, the reason the s/c has doubled over the past few years is greed, simple as that.

Perfectly timed!

pseudodox

When you look at all the troubles around the globe, people who live without energy or water on tap 24/7/365, places where destruction of infrastructure leaves even emergency services unable to function due to lack of electricity and clean water it makes me grateful I have these instant services, no matter what they cost.  It is time people differentiated between the cost of supplying infrastructure and the cost of consumable energy.

I have a car sitting on the drive.  It costs me road tax, insurance, servicing/MOT, general maintenance, depreciation in value etc even I choose not to drive it.  When I do want to go somewhere it is there at a moments notice and all I have to do is put fuel in the tank.  The more miles I drive, the more the general costs are defrayed, but my low mileage does mean a high overall cost per mile.  I could use public transport and travel by taxi when that is not convenient for what I spend in a year on keeping a car but I prefer the convenience of my travel means being "on tap" 24/7/265.  

Those who resent the standing charges can go off grid.  Have your meters removed.  Enjoy life cooking on bottled gas, fetching buckets of water from a well (then boiling it to make it safe to drink), listen to your wind up radio, use solar power to charge your phones and laptops etc.  Live without lights at the flick of a switch, your fridge, your washing machine, your hot water on demand.  

Perhaps energy charges should be re-organised to give us an annual service bill (like council tax), with annual or monthly payment options.  Plus separate (monthly) bills for whatever we consume - either paid by variable full amounts or by fixed plans, which are reconciled annually.

CouldntResist

Ignoring the element of SC that goes towards making good the debts of non-billpayers and assuming that you rely on the electricity supply to your house (and don't have an alternative means of supply) do you think you should pay the same amount as everyone else to maintain that supply?

Or does the fact you don't use a lot mean it somehow costs less to maintain your supply?

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

The other standing charge is council tax, an even bigger joke (not!), both have a commonality whereby billions of pounds disappear into the ether, thanks to very clever accountants.  

Neither disappear into the ether, the standing charge covers the cost of building and operating the network, as well as upgrades, Council Tax goes towards the funding of council operated services. 

MattMattMattUK

Yorkie006 said:

Hi, a bit of a rant.
just had an email from BG about the price changes for electricity from April.
Basically they're saying that because the price per unit is going down but standing charges are going up, and because I'm a low user, my total bill will be higher as a result.

That happens for some people, the nature of needing to fund the upgrades to the network, as well as the additional fixed costs and maintenance work which is placed on the standing charge. The cost of supplying energy has dropped, hence the reduction in unit prices. 

Yorkie006 said:

The standing charge is a joke. How is that an incentive for people to cut usage when their bills will be higher when unit prices go down? So people with higher usage will have lower bills from April but people who use less energy will pay more. 

Not really, everyone pays the standing charge, it covers the cost of being connected to the network. The energy unit rate covers the cost of supplying the energy, everyone pays for that based on what they use. The incentive to reduce usage is that is reduces costs, regardless of whether one is a high or low user. 

Yorkie006 said:

I don't mind paying the SC as such but it needs to be set at a reasonable amount. Clearly if it's so high that it actually makes people's bill higher when unit price drops, it's not fit for purpose. It gives no reason to try and cut usage now.
I'm on standard variable tariff, btw.

If you take the time to understand it you will realise that it is a reasonable amount, it covers the cost of building, maintaining and upgrading the network, the fixed costs, with unit rates covering the cost of energy. The standing charge is not rising because unit costs are falling, it is rising because the fixed costs are increasing. The reason/incentive to reduce usage is that it lowers one's bills over using more energy. 

NorfolkCanary

CouldntResist said:

Ignoring the element of SC that goes towards making good the debts of non-billpayers

That can't be ignored though.
It's oft. mentioned here, but why should the rest of us who pay bills on time, as agreed pay extra for those who don't.

MultiFuelBurner

NorfolkCanary said:

CouldntResist said:

Ignoring the element of SC that goes towards making good the debts of non-billpayers

That can't be ignored though.
It's oft. mentioned here, but why should the rest of us who pay bills on time, as agreed pay extra for those who don't.

Same as tax payers paying for those on benefits and the like.

It's what makes us at the core good people.

There will always be many people that take more out of the system than they put in but for those that put in more than they take out they can have a little smile to themselves and a feel good factor.

Or they can be miserable old gits 🤣

Qyburn

mongoose2009 said:
...

a 1 GW gas power stations in one place and works 100%

a 1 GW wind farms massive and all needs wiring and only works 30% of the time 

I think you've misunderstood on both counts. Yes this country has banked heavily on a combination of gas (CCGT) and wind. The ability of CCGT to ramp up and down quickly allows us to include a greater proportion of wind into the mix. So yes we need to have enough gas capacity to deal with the dips in wind, but it only runs and consumes gas at the output needed at the moment.

There are site where you can see this almost live, I like  https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand

On the wind farm side I think you're misunderstanding the often quote rough production figure. Averaged over a year a wind turbine will very roughly average 30% of its maximum rating.  That's not a defect, it's a natural consequence of designing to make best use of a variable resource. You want nearer to 100%? Build a big turbine with a tiny generator so it hits its maximum output in 5 knots of wind. That just wastes all the energy it could have generated in stronger winds. 

prowla

Prices go up = profits for the supplier.

Prices fall = how can we keep our profits up?

Ah - let's swap them to the standing charge!

MeteredOut

prowla said:

Prices go up = profits for the supplier.

Prices fall = how can we keep our profits up?

Ah - let's swap them to the standing charge!

Have you read this thread?