We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Energy standing Charges - OFGEM's inability to address unfair standing charges on consumers
Options
Comments
-
BarelySentientAI said:
And secondly, which might translate into this discussion, because why should one party pay for upgrades that anybody can later use.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3569
Easier to copy & paste
A Bill to require providers of electronic communications networks to grant other such providers access to their apparatus where that is necessary to ensure consistent network coverage; to prevent those providers from charging more than the standard market rate for such access; to require the regulator to impose penalties on providers who unreasonably fail to grant such access; to make provision for the purpose of incentivising providers to allow customers of other providers to use their networks where access cannot be granted to their apparatus; and for connected purpose
There could be a debate about whether such requirements hinder investment in building infrastructure which is where regulation should step in to ensure the cost of not doing so outweighs the cost of doing so.
The word "should" is an ethics debate really but the answer some may have is because the advancement of our society (I'll use that word too) "should" be there for the benefit of all rather than the few.
Either the government itself carries out such advancement or it imposes regulation on a private sector to balance profit against the interests of the people.
When you look at the state of the water companies it seems to suggest some of these regulators are useless, whether Ofgem is working in the right direction or not I guess could be another 10 page threadIn the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0 -
Scot_39 said:Ideally I would rather the past and present govts had / would take an honest long term view at the true rate of inflation for ... poor pensioners ...
I wasted a couple of hours yesterday checking the Minimum Income Standard, which I believe is widely used as a benchmark for the cost of living. I was astounded at the fanciful estimates of what a single, male pensioner needs as a minimum income. It looks to me to be a gross overestimate of need and merely a review of nice to have.
[OT some egregious examples:- 12.750 kg of solid food per week.
I get through 2.500 - 3.000 kg. Any wonder we have an obesity crisis? - 2 toilet rolls per week.
I get through 4 or 5 a year - New washing machine and microwave every 8 years.
- 10 pairs of pants every year.
What on earth happens to them? I'm still using pants bought last century!
I'm not being lazy ...
I'm just in energy-saving mode.0 - 12.750 kg of solid food per week.
-
BarelySentientAI said:
And secondly, which might translate into this discussion, because why should one party pay for upgrades that anybody can later use.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3569
Easier to copy & paste
A Bill to require providers of electronic communications networks to grant other such providers access to their apparatus where that is necessary to ensure consistent network coverage; to prevent those providers from charging more than the standard market rate for such access; to require the regulator to impose penalties on providers who unreasonably fail to grant such access; to make provision for the purpose of incentivising providers to allow customers of other providers to use their networks where access cannot be granted to their apparatus; and for connected purpose
There could be a debate about whether such requirements hinder investment in building infrastructure which is where regulation should step in to ensure the cost of not doing so outweighs the cost of doing so.
The word "should" is an ethics debate really but the answer some may have is because the advancement of our society (I'll use that word too) "should" be there for the benefit of all rather than the few.
Either the government itself carries out such advancement or it imposes regulation on a private sector to balance profit against the interests of the people.
When you look at the state of the water companies it seems to suggest some of these regulators are useless, whether Ofgem is working in the right direction or not I guess could be another 10 page thread
The case of the electricity system is one end user paying for something that another end user does not need to pay for, solely due to the timing of when each party has the requirement. Not a profit thing, not an advancement of society thing, not a relative merits of each's ability to pay thing, entirely timing.
"You were the individual customer that caused the upgrade, so you pay for it all and everyone else can then benefit for free".
I'm quite confident that even the outlier voices on this issue don't want standing charges to go that way - cuts for all apart from a massive uplift to be paid by the third person in the street to get an EV or the seventh person to fit solar panels.
I accept your point that a plausible outcome would be for everything to be funded by central government - but the same argument could be made for almost any expenditure and it's not necessarily a good thing.
Part of the problem with the regulators is that people misunderstand their role. They are not there to make everything as cheap as possible for customers focusing only on the immediate term. Your paraphrase is pretty accurate - to balance profit against the interests of the customers - or perhaps to balance the long term needs of the customers against the immediate costs. We already have problems with short term thinking then requiring urgent and expensive actions, I wouldn't want to make it worse by turning the regulator into a customer advocacy group.0 -
BarelySentientAI said:prowla said:BarelySentientAI said:bristolleedsfan said:MattMattMattUK said:The issue with Standing Charges comes up and again and again and it largely splits into two camps.
First there are those who understand the system, that there are fixed costs maintaining a network and a connection to a dwelling and think that it is fair to apportion that to individual bills, so that people pay for their connection and the energy they use.
Then there is the second group, who think that "someone else" should pay for their grid connection.
I am in the first group, because I am rational sensible and not selfish, as are many of the more learned members of this forum. Those who are reactionary and selfish normally fall into the second group, generally make a lot of noise and generally lack understanding.
Biggest single reason for current level of electricity standing charges at least for my region - costs shift from unit rate to SC that I think took effect from April 2022
Taken from scot_39 post on previous page
"But that was based in some part if not all on careful reflection in their view of actual costs / numbers - TCR (2019) - before crisis. OFGEM essentially decided low users were underpaying for the fixed component of infrastructure and high users were paying too much"
It's a view I suppose.
So if pointed means "based on the statistical analyses carried out to determine the relative merits of the two scenarios", then yes.1 -
prowla said:BarelySentientAI said:prowla said:BarelySentientAI said:bristolleedsfan said:MattMattMattUK said:The issue with Standing Charges comes up and again and again and it largely splits into two camps.
First there are those who understand the system, that there are fixed costs maintaining a network and a connection to a dwelling and think that it is fair to apportion that to individual bills, so that people pay for their connection and the energy they use.
Then there is the second group, who think that "someone else" should pay for their grid connection.
I am in the first group, because I am rational sensible and not selfish, as are many of the more learned members of this forum. Those who are reactionary and selfish normally fall into the second group, generally make a lot of noise and generally lack understanding.
Biggest single reason for current level of electricity standing charges at least for my region - costs shift from unit rate to SC that I think took effect from April 2022
Taken from scot_39 post on previous page
"But that was based in some part if not all on careful reflection in their view of actual costs / numbers - TCR (2019) - before crisis. OFGEM essentially decided low users were underpaying for the fixed component of infrastructure and high users were paying too much"
It's a view I suppose.
So if pointed means "based on the statistical analyses carried out to determine the relative merits of the two scenarios", then yes.2 -
Generally speaking, the infrastructure to the property is pretty similar regardless of occupancy. My incoming gas pipe is no smaller than the gas pipe serving the house of the family of 5 along the road, and no larger than the single lady opposite. Similarly on the electricity side, meters these days are largely the same regardless of home size they are installed in.🎉 MORTGAGE FREE (First time!) 30/09/2016 🎉 And now we go again…New mortgage taken 01/09/23 🏡
Balance as at 01/09/23 = £115,000.00 Balance as at 31/12/23 = £112,000.00
Balance as at 31/08/24 = £105,400.00 Balance as at 31/12/24 = £102,500.00
£100k barrier broken 1/4/25SOA CALCULATOR (for DFW newbies): SOA Calculatorshe/her2 -
prowla said:BarelySentientAI said:prowla said:BarelySentientAI said:bristolleedsfan said:MattMattMattUK said:The issue with Standing Charges comes up and again and again and it largely splits into two camps.
First there are those who understand the system, that there are fixed costs maintaining a network and a connection to a dwelling and think that it is fair to apportion that to individual bills, so that people pay for their connection and the energy they use.
Then there is the second group, who think that "someone else" should pay for their grid connection.
I am in the first group, because I am rational sensible and not selfish, as are many of the more learned members of this forum. Those who are reactionary and selfish normally fall into the second group, generally make a lot of noise and generally lack understanding.
Biggest single reason for current level of electricity standing charges at least for my region - costs shift from unit rate to SC that I think took effect from April 2022
Taken from scot_39 post on previous page
"But that was based in some part if not all on careful reflection in their view of actual costs / numbers - TCR (2019) - before crisis. OFGEM essentially decided low users were underpaying for the fixed component of infrastructure and high users were paying too much"
It's a view I suppose.
So if pointed means "based on the statistical analyses carried out to determine the relative merits of the two scenarios", then yes.There is no obligation on the petrol station company to build and operate a petrol station in every street, or even every town. If they don't think they'll get enough custom, they don't have to operate. If an existing petrol station is not selling enough petrol, the company can close it down. If an existing petrol station needs its tanks or pumps replacing, the company could decide to close rather than invest the money. On the other hand the electricity network has to maintain a connection to every property regardless of how much energy they're using. And they are obliged to repair faults to make sure everyone can get as much electricity as they need, 24/7.
There is no obligation on a petrol station to make sure petrol is always available 24/7, sometimes they run out of fuel. And when this happens customers just have to either wait for the next delivery or (more likely) go somewhere else. You can't do that with electricity.
The same applies to supermarkets and restaurants - they choose where to offer their services based on how many customers they think they can attract, and how much they think those customers will spend. And if they get it wrong, they close down. People might be upset that a restaurant has closed, but it's not the same as the electricity supplier saying 'sorry, we're not supplying your street any more, because the cables need replacing and you're not using enough power to make it worthwhile spending the money'.3 -
@prowla looking at current gas bottle charges if you had to go and collect your own gas it's 15p kwh
And unless you are going to invest in quick charge batteries to pop along to your nearest electricity charging point they are circ 60-100p kwh.
Of course that's not realistic but just a point back to why distribution costs to the Property are important and the upkeep.
0 -
EssexHebridean said:Generally speaking, the infrastructure to the property is pretty similar regardless of occupancy. My incoming gas pipe is no smaller than the gas pipe serving the house of the family of 5 along the road, and no larger than the single lady opposite. Similarly on the electricity side, meters these days are largely the same regardless of home size they are installed in.
The pipe going into the house is probably one of the cheaper and easier aspects of the system, when these threads talk about access to the supply I think that's more to do with the vastly complex network that we don't really see or think off in day to day lifeIn the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards