Energy standing Charges - OFGEM's inability to address unfair standing charges on consumers

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

When you look at the water companies, the infrastructure is outdated, sewage is being pumped into rivers and seas, there's mountains of debt and the companies are saying bills need to rise to cover requirements despite some £65 billion being paid out in dividends since privatisation of the market. 

I don't think that's a case of people wanting cheaper water but rather a case of people wanting these companies, who have a monopoly, to act in the interest of everyone to ensure they perform as expected rather than syphoning off as much cash as possible an then saying we all have to pay more for things to work properly. 

The grid appears similar, granted no sewage but a monopoly with high debt, decent profits and dividends suddenly saying the network they manage needs significant work that we all have to pay for. 

I don't think the average reasonable person would see these industries as acting in the interests of the majority. 

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

Indeed it isn't but it should be and yes it could be said for most areas of life. These threads seem to draw a lot of supermarket comparisons so to add another food is pretty cheap but it's often poor quality, decent quality is marketed as premium and beyond the reach of the average family budget again there should be greater government regulation.

Micro plastics are everywhere but farmers are still covering fields in sheets of plastic to ensure early growth of their crops with those plastics at best not being recycled and at worst breaking down into the soil that is growing the food we eat, that's without wondering about all the pesticides used and good knows what the animals we eat having been eating. 

Cheap certainly isn't best, there should be a decent standard for everyone that fits within both a lifestyle and budget that the average can afford, capitalism does drive innovation but rarely the interests of everyone and it is regulation that should attempt to address the balance rather than simply giving the people cheap stuff/services. 

BarelySentientAI said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

 And secondly, which might translate into this discussion, because why should one party pay for upgrades that anybody can later use.

There is currently a bill in Parliament titled the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill

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  

Not quite the same thing - in telecoms it's one infrastructure operator allowing access to the customers of the others. 

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.

No I don't think many people would want that.

Our village didn't have mobile signal so EE built a phone tower now we have phone signal if you go with EE, the bill proposes that despite EE paying out for the tower Vodaphone and the rest should also have access. That's not implying Mr Smith should pay for the tower because he complained about the lack of signal.  

BarelySentientAI

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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.

We have a high pressured gas main near us, it snakes it's way through valleys, across rivers, over hills climbing hundreds of metres, I can't imagine what it cost to install. It was putting in many years ago but they still fly helicopters up and down the route of the main to ensure no one is carrying out excavation work near the pipe.

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 life  

Which doesn't disagree with EH's point.

Each domestic property uses (from a design and capacity perspective) the same amount of that high pressure main, essentially because of the point EH made.

The same in the electricity network.

Capacity is as (if not more) important to infrastructure design that overall usage.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

The grid appears similar, granted no sewage but a monopoly with high debt, decent profits and dividends suddenly saying the network they manage needs significant work that we all have to pay for. 

I don't think the average reasonable person would see these industries as acting in the interests of the majority. 

I don't think the average reasonable person has any understanding of how the electricity network does or should work, or what works might or might not be necessary.  The average person sees a big number of pounds and panics despite not having the knowledge to determine whether that is an appropriate reaction.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

Indeed it isn't but it should be and yes it could be said for most areas of life. These threads seem to draw a lot of supermarket comparisons so to add another food is pretty cheap but it's often poor quality, decent quality is marketed as premium and beyond the reach of the average family budget again there should be greater government regulation.

Micro plastics are everywhere but farmers are still covering fields in sheets of plastic to ensure early growth of their crops with those plastics at best not being recycled and at worst breaking down into the soil that is growing the food we eat, that's without wondering about all the pesticides used and good knows what the animals we eat having been eating. 

Cheap certainly isn't best, there should be a decent standard for everyone that fits within both a lifestyle and budget that the average can afford, capitalism does drive innovation but rarely the interests of everyone and it is regulation that should attempt to address the balance rather than simply giving the people cheap stuff/services. 

There isn't the option of a 'cheap' grid or a 'premium' grid.  There's the choice between a grid that works and a grid that doesn't.

I disagree that the energy system should be funded by central government.  Even the infrastructure part.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

 And secondly, which might translate into this discussion, because why should one party pay for upgrades that anybody can later use.

There is currently a bill in Parliament titled the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill

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  

Not quite the same thing - in telecoms it's one infrastructure operator allowing access to the customers of the others. 

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.

No I don't think many people would want that.

Our village didn't have mobile signal so EE built a phone tower now we have phone signal if you go with EE, the bill proposes that despite EE paying out for the tower Vodaphone and the rest should also have access. That's not implying Mr Smith should pay for the tower because he complained about the lack of signal.  

But the "heavy users should pay all the standing charge" arguments want essentially that.

Mr Smith wanted EE, others didn't, so it's all on him to pay.  Mr Jones doesn't use much energy, but Mr Bloggs does, so Mr Bloggs should pay Mr Jones' part of the standing charge (either directly or hidden in unit rates).

EssexHebridean

BarelySentientAI said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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.

We have a high pressured gas main near us, it snakes it's way through valleys, across rivers, over hills climbing hundreds of metres, I can't imagine what it cost to install. It was putting in many years ago but they still fly helicopters up and down the route of the main to ensure no one is carrying out excavation work near the pipe.

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 life  

Which doesn't disagree with EH's point.

Each domestic property uses (from a design and capacity perspective) the same amount of that high pressure main, essentially because of the point EH made.

The same in the electricity network.

Capacity is as (if not more) important to infrastructure design that overall usage.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

The grid appears similar, granted no sewage but a monopoly with high debt, decent profits and dividends suddenly saying the network they manage needs significant work that we all have to pay for. 

I don't think the average reasonable person would see these industries as acting in the interests of the majority. 

I don't think the average reasonable person has any understanding of how the electricity network does or should work, or what works might or might not be necessary.  The average person sees a big number of pounds and panics despite not having the knowledge to determine whether that is an appropriate reaction.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

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.

Indeed it isn't but it should be and yes it could be said for most areas of life. These threads seem to draw a lot of supermarket comparisons so to add another food is pretty cheap but it's often poor quality, decent quality is marketed as premium and beyond the reach of the average family budget again there should be greater government regulation.

Micro plastics are everywhere but farmers are still covering fields in sheets of plastic to ensure early growth of their crops with those plastics at best not being recycled and at worst breaking down into the soil that is growing the food we eat, that's without wondering about all the pesticides used and good knows what the animals we eat having been eating. 

Cheap certainly isn't best, there should be a decent standard for everyone that fits within both a lifestyle and budget that the average can afford, capitalism does drive innovation but rarely the interests of everyone and it is regulation that should attempt to address the balance rather than simply giving the people cheap stuff/services. 

There isn't the option of a 'cheap' grid or a 'premium' grid.  There's the choice between a grid that works and a grid that doesn't.

I disagree that the energy system should be funded by central government.  Even the infrastructure part.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

 And secondly, which might translate into this discussion, because why should one party pay for upgrades that anybody can later use.

There is currently a bill in Parliament titled the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill

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  

Not quite the same thing - in telecoms it's one infrastructure operator allowing access to the customers of the others. 

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.

No I don't think many people would want that.

Our village didn't have mobile signal so EE built a phone tower now we have phone signal if you go with EE, the bill proposes that despite EE paying out for the tower Vodaphone and the rest should also have access. That's not implying Mr Smith should pay for the tower because he complained about the lack of signal.  

But the "heavy users should pay all the standing charge" arguments want essentially that.

Mr Smith wanted EE, others didn't, so it's all on him to pay.  Mr Jones doesn't use much energy, but Mr Bloggs does, so Mr Bloggs should pay Mr Jones' part of the standing charge (either directly or hidden in unit rates).

And on this point, the oft-used argument on that subject also neatly ignores that the reason Mr Bloggs uses a lot of energy is because he has a medical condition that necessitates a lot of heating needed and washing being done, As a result of this Mr Bloggs can't work and so finances are a struggle - yet still people think that it would be fair if he paid their share of the SC! 

MattMattMattUK

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. 

Entirely reasonable for low users to object (if they are minded to do so ) to - 

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"

Entirely reasonable to object to paying their fair share?

It's a view I suppose.

A pointed use of "fair share", based on the premise of one positon being correct.

Based on the fact that the previous arrangement (and the one being advocated for a return to) was discovered not to be fair and the present arrangement determined to be significantly fairer as its replacement.

So if pointed means "based on the statistical analyses carried out to determine the relative merits of the two scenarios", then yes.

Well, the concept of there being a standing charge is a premise: - You don't do it when you fill up your car. - You don't do it for your weekly shop. - You don't do it for your TV service. - You don't do it for eating at a restaurant. So why should it be there for supply of energy to your house?

If you are unable to see the difference then I am not sure any of us can help, but the petrol station, or the TV shop, or the supermarket or restaurant do not maintain an on demand connection directly to your premises. Services like broadband are effectively all service charge, with no usage fees. 

prowla said:
Even if you do accept it as a necessary, one of its stated elements is for "Maintaining the energy supply network that delivers gas and electricity to your home"; looking at that, the cost is not the same per household. - The idea that it costs the same to provide the infra for each house is flawed, because the infra has to be sized to suit the workload. - Therefore a house with multiple residents and high(er) use takes more of the capacity than a single occupancy house with frugal use. - Therefore making the same standing charge means that the low use customer is subsidising the infrastructure requirements to provide the service to the high-use household. 

Again, not correct. The energy network still needs to accommodate the supply to that premises up to the supply limit (60/80/100A normally) and also because the vast majority of the cost you are talking about is in generation capacity, not cables or substations. The cost generation capacity and upgrades is in the unit price, it is only the network itself that is in the standing charge. 

prowla said:
Another element of the standing charge is to cover "Visiting homes to take meter readings". - But if a person has a smart meter then there is no need for visiting to take meter readings. 

However smart meters need to be installed and replaced, the comms network needs to be maintained and managed etc. so it still has a cost, yes it has a lower cost than meter readers, but it still has a cost. 

prowla said:
Therefore, the assertion that the standing charge means that everybody pays a "fair share" is based on unfair assumptions and so cannot be a "fair share". The term "fair share" is basically baloney and is mostly used two somehow bolster an opinion and attribute it some sense of righteousness which it doesn't merit..

The concept of "fair" is subjective and as many on this thread have proven, can be entirely irrational, eg. they think that it is fair that someone else should subsidise them. It is however rational to apply costs in the way they fall, so fixed costs should be applied where applicable and variable costs where they are applicable, where possible avoiding subsidy from one group to another. Those who are having a tantrum about standing charges and wanting them abolished/dramatically lowered are effectively demanding that average and higher users, as well as all electric homes, subsidise lower users. They throw around various discredited figures about who low users are, usually claiming that they are poor and/or pensioners, where as those groups tend to be average users or above, with low users generally being second homes/holiday homes and those with solar and battery installations. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

BarelySentientAI said:

I don't think the average reasonable person has any understanding of how the electricity network does or should work, or what works might or might not be necessary.  The average person sees a big number of pounds and panics despite not having the knowledge to determine whether that is an appropriate reaction.

It would be good if there was more education on such things.

BarelySentientAI said:

I disagree that the energy system should be funded by central government.  Even the infrastructure part.

I don't think the current system of government should, I think in an ideal world however they should and that's would people should be questioning rather than arguing amongst themselves.

BarelySentientAI said:

But the "heavy users should pay all the standing charge" arguments want essentially that.

Mr Smith wanted EE, others didn't, so it's all on him to pay.  Mr Jones doesn't use much energy, but Mr Bloggs does, so Mr Bloggs should pay Mr Jones' part of the standing charge (either directly or hidden in unit rates).

I guess it depends on what a heavy user is, people seem to think someone with a hot tub is a heavy user but similar to a housing developer being required to contribute to parks, doctors and schools, those building data centres for example should be required to contribute more (perhaps they do). 

BarelySentientAI

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

I don't think the average reasonable person has any understanding of how the electricity network does or should work, or what works might or might not be necessary.  The average person sees a big number of pounds and panics despite not having the knowledge to determine whether that is an appropriate reaction.

It would be good if there was more education on such things.

BarelySentientAI said:

I disagree that the energy system should be funded by central government.  Even the infrastructure part.

I don't think the current system of government should, I think in an ideal world however they should and that's would people should be questioning rather than arguing amongst themselves.

BarelySentientAI said:

But the "heavy users should pay all the standing charge" arguments want essentially that.

Mr Smith wanted EE, others didn't, so it's all on him to pay.  Mr Jones doesn't use much energy, but Mr Bloggs does, so Mr Bloggs should pay Mr Jones' part of the standing charge (either directly or hidden in unit rates).

I guess it depends on what a heavy user is, people seem to think someone with a hot tub is a heavy user but similar to a housing developer being required to contribute to parks, doctors and schools, those building data centres for example should be required to contribute more (perhaps they do). 

They do.  Business tariffs are very different from residential tariffs, and there are also connection costs to be accounted for in the initial building of the infrastructure (which very few private individuals ever need to pay).

It's difficult to educate on the complexities of the system when it's much easier to write shouty headlines. 

Chris_b2z

MattMattMattUK said:

They throw around various discredited figures about who low users are, usually claiming that they are poor and/or pensioners, where as those groups tend to be average users or above, with low users generally being second homes/holiday homes and those with solar and battery installations. 

Do you have a source for published stats that support this statement?

MattMattMattUK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

I don't think the average reasonable person has any understanding of how the electricity network does or should work, or what works might or might not be necessary.  The average person sees a big number of pounds and panics despite not having the knowledge to determine whether that is an appropriate reaction.

It would be good if there was more education on such things.

Whilst I generally take the view that more education is good, people have to be both willing to learn and able to understand the information. People would rather get angry and rant than taking the time to understand as many of those who think that the energy suppliers are making huge margins etc, they are unable to understand gross and net, they are unable to understand that there is more to energy costs than just the price of buying it from a power station, they are unwilling to invest time and (albeit minimal) effort in understanding. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

I disagree that the energy system should be funded by central government.  Even the infrastructure part.

I don't think the current system of government should, I think in an ideal world however they should and that's would people should be questioning rather than arguing amongst themselves.

Funding the system, or even just the infrastructure from central taxation would require taxes to rise to fund that. The UK electorate, despite having low taxes by European standards is still very averse to paying for what we currently need, let alone further increases in taxes. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

BarelySentientAI said:

But the "heavy users should pay all the standing charge" arguments want essentially that.

Mr Smith wanted EE, others didn't, so it's all on him to pay.  Mr Jones doesn't use much energy, but Mr Bloggs does, so Mr Bloggs should pay Mr Jones' part of the standing charge (either directly or hidden in unit rates).

I guess it depends on what a heavy user is, people seem to think someone with a hot tub is a heavy user but similar to a housing developer being required to contribute to parks, doctors and schools, those building data centres for example should be required to contribute more (perhaps they do). 

The hot tub user would likely be a high user in domestic terms, but low in industrial terms. The site where I have my office needs a lot of power, not all the time, but in bursts. To meet that requirement they have to pay for the upgraded power lines and the maintenance of those lines, they have to pay for the four onsite substations, they also have a disconnect clause so that they can be cut off at certain times (three of the four substations). Many other high use businesses have the same or similar, they will pay a significant premium for three phase etc. There was also a data centre recently built where I live, they had to pay for all the infrastructure to be installed, power lines, fibre optics, water for cooling, it cost tens of millions to have it all put in and none of the cost of that fell on other energy users. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

BarelySentientAI said:there are also connection costs to be accounted for in the initial building of the infrastructure (which very few private individuals ever need to pay).

That's true of any building really, even houses would have that cost factored in by the developer as an overhead essentially being paid by the first person to buy the home as part of the price. 

BarelySentientAI said:Business tariffs are very different from residential tariffs,

Less business energy tariffs and more levies on their activity, it's estimated 3% of global electricity consumption is used by data centres, greater taxation put directly back into investing in energy grids would ease the costs to the consumers. Would obviously require a harmonised agreement across counties. 

BarelySentientAI said:

It's difficult to educate on the complexities of the system when it's much easier to write shouty headlines. 

That's just a side effect of capitalism where the news is an opportunity to provide information to suit a certain agenda to attract a certain readership to earn money via advertising rather than simply being purveyors of truth and offering up neutral information. 

MattMattMattUK

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

They throw around various discredited figures about who low users are, usually claiming that they are poor and/or pensioners, where as those groups tend to be average users or above, with low users generally being second homes/holiday homes and those with solar and battery installations. 

Do you have a source for published stats that support this statement?

Some of it is in the link below, I cannot find the specific publication from Ofgem at the moment that split them out. That being said it is common sense that second homes and those with solar and batteries will use less.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Ofgem_archetypes_update_2024_FinalReport_v4.1.3.pdf