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

MattMattMattUK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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, 

Most data centres already pay a premium, they have dedicated supplies, often redundancy in supply as well (multiple lines on different routes, from different parts of the network), they will be paying a 20-50% premium on all their energy for a guaranteed supply. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
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. 

That cost would be passed onto consumers, though it already is as whilst not paid by taxation data centres do pay in their increased energy costs. 

Chris_b2z

MattMattMattUK said:

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

Thank you. So the answer is no. You don't have any data to back up your statement that a significant number of those claiming to be low income are in fact second home owners or solar households ... other than it being 'common sense'?

MattMattMattUK

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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

Thank you. So the answer is no. 

The answer is yes, it is all in that document, but it is not easy to digest, running to 119 pages and requiring one to delve down into detail. Where as there is somewhere a five ish page Ofgem document that summarises it and presents it in an easy to understand way. 

Chris_b2z said:
You don't have any data to back up your statement that a significant number of those claiming to be low income are in fact second home owners or solar households ... other than it being 'common sense'?

That was not my statement, low users are different to low income, although they can align under some circumstances. 

EssexHebridean

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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

Thank you. So the answer is no. You don't have any data to back up your statement that a significant number of those claiming to be low income are in fact second home owners or solar households ... other than it being 'common sense'?

I think you may have mis-read Matt's post - he wasn't suggesting that second home owners or those with solar are claiming to be on a low income. (Although allowing that solar panels are attached to a lot of social housing these days, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a decent level -of cross-over there.)

Matt's suggestion - if I am indeed reading it correctly - was that a lot of those households who are seemingly the lowest energy consumers may well be second homes (and so only occupied occasionally, perhaps simply for holidays, and standing on minimal use the remainder of the year) and those with solar panels (where particularly during the summer months, and even more so if they have batteries too , their grid-draw might indeed be remarkably small. On the balance of probabilities, it's probably a generally pretty fair assumption that those with second homes are reasonably well heeled - and so are those least in need of benefiting from reducing costs due to the removal of a standing charge. As stated above, it's less straightforward to draw quite as much of an assumption from solar these days - but even there, if we are talking an owner-occupier with solar and all the more so if batteries too - that does require a decent chunk of outlay - it's likely to be fair to say that those people too really are not those who we ought to be looking at ways to try to assist financially. (Or indeed simply not to disadvantage more than they are already, financially!) 

And no - before you ask, I do not have statistics or peer-reviewed studies to back up the above, and yes, it is mostly down to common sense I would have thought. Funnily enough though, common sense quite often proves to be correct! 

BarelySentientAI

EssexHebridean said:

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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

Thank you. So the answer is no. You don't have any data to back up your statement that a significant number of those claiming to be low income are in fact second home owners or solar households ... other than it being 'common sense'?

I think you may have mis-read Matt's post - he wasn't suggesting that second home owners or those with solar are claiming to be on a low income. (Although allowing that solar panels are attached to a lot of social housing these days, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that there is a decent level -of cross-over there.)

Matt's suggestion - if I am indeed reading it correctly - was that a lot of those households who are seemingly the lowest energy consumers may well be second homes (and so only occupied occasionally, perhaps simply for holidays, and standing on minimal use the remainder of the year) and those with solar panels (where particularly during the summer months, and even more so if they have batteries too , their grid-draw might indeed be remarkably small. On the balance of probabilities, it's probably a generally pretty fair assumption that those with second homes are reasonably well heeled - and so are those least in need of benefiting from reducing costs due to the removal of a standing charge. As stated above, it's less straightforward to draw quite as much of an assumption from solar these days - but even there, if we are talking an owner-occupier with solar and all the more so if batteries too - that does require a decent chunk of outlay - it's likely to be fair to say that those people too really are not those who we ought to be looking at ways to try to assist financially. (Or indeed simply not to disadvantage more than they are already, financially!) 

And no - before you ask, I do not have statistics or peer-reviewed studies to back up the above, and yes, it is mostly down to common sense I would have thought. Funnily enough though, common sense quite often proves to be correct! 

The best 'statistic' might be that a proportion of meters are disregarded for the for the purposes of TDCV calculations as their consumption is too low to be considered representative.  These are described as including 2nd homes and holiday cottages.  They are not described as referring to low-income households.

EssexHebridean

Good info - thanks @BarelySentientAI ! 

Qyburn

EssexHebridean said:
(Although allowing that solar panels are attached to a lot of social housing these days

In those cases do the tenants benefit from export payments? I had been wondering how fair it would be to charge a second S/C for an export account, whether metered or deemed. Then reduce the S/C by 10% or whatever figure keeps the overall total unchanged.

EssexHebridean

Qyburn said:

EssexHebridean said:
(Although allowing that solar panels are attached to a lot of social housing these days

In those cases do the tenants benefit from export payments? I had been wondering how fair it would be to charge a second S/C for an export account, whether metered or deemed. Then reduce the S/C by 10% or whatever figure keeps the overall total unchanged.

I think it varies - I have heard of scenarios where the tenant gets to use what energy they can from the panels but any excess is sold back to the grid with income to the owner of the panels, but I believe there are also cases where the opposite is true. 

silverwhistle

EssexHebridean said:

those with solar panels (where particularly during the summer months, and even more so if they have batteries too , their grid-draw might indeed be remarkably small.

Indeed. As I mentioned before in this busy thread, so I haven't followed all the arguments, that is exactly my position, and just this morning I've just had notification of a £400 FIT payment coming my way.

When I comment about my SC for gas being about the same it's with a rueful chuckle. My concern is with those who don't have a nice warm terraced house, and where cutting consumption in line with their budgets leads to the situation where they are paying more, a lot more, for each unit than the better off like myself.

Quite a number on here are saying that the argument is for and against SCs, but it isn't, it's getting the correct balance. From the point of view of the planning perspective, yes, diversity means all customers are regarded as equal from a supply point of view (meter, fuse, capacity, system demand etc.) but the effect is a more regressive system when the SC is high. It's not that the new jacuzzi owner should (say) pay for the upgrade of the local sub-station, but how much of the system costs be included in their unit rate? All the SC, most of it, half?

Many years ago I was talking to a local distribution Third Engineer and he joked about the need for a new substation locally: "it would be cheaper to give them all a few low energy lightbulbs" to meet the diversity calculations. Since then LED lighting and more efficient appliances has done the job for him!

In future heat pumps will change the calculations again, but nobody has picked up on my comment about how gas costs are going to be paid as the user base declines? It's not an immediate issue but one that needs to be planned for.

MattMattMattUK

silverwhistle said:

EssexHebridean said:

those with solar panels (where particularly during the summer months, and even more so if they have batteries too , their grid-draw might indeed be remarkably small.

Indeed. As I mentioned before in this busy thread, so I haven't followed all the arguments, that is exactly my position, and just this morning I've just had notification of a £400 FIT payment coming my way.

When I comment about my SC for gas being about the same it's with a rueful chuckle. My concern is with those who don't have a nice warm terraced house, and where cutting consumption in line with their budgets leads to the situation where they are paying more, a lot more, for each unit than the better off like myself.

Quite a number on here are saying that the argument is for and against SCs, but it isn't, it's getting the correct balance. From the point of view of the planning perspective, yes, diversity means all customers are regarded as equal from a supply point of view (meter, fuse, capacity, system demand etc.) but the effect is a more regressive system when the SC is high. It's not that the new jacuzzi owner should (say) pay for the upgrade of the local sub-station, but how much of the system costs be included in their unit rate? All the SC, most of it, half?

Take the fixed costs, divide them by all the dwellings, that is the service charge. Take the variable costs, divide them by all the energy used, that is the unit rate.

silverwhistle said:

Many years ago I was talking to a local distribution Third Engineer and he joked about the need for a new substation locally: "it would be cheaper to give them all a few low energy lightbulbs" to meet the diversity calculations. Since then LED lighting and more efficient appliances has done the job for him!

Load management is separate, but it is also why ToU tariffs are going to become compulsory at some point, flattening the peaks will reduce the requirement to increase maxim supply. 

silverwhistle said:

In future heat pumps will change the calculations again, but nobody has picked up on my comment about how gas costs are going to be paid as the user base declines? It's not an immediate issue but one that needs to be planned for.

It is fairly simple with gas, standing charge and unit cost will increase until it is phased out in a particular area, then region and finally nationally.