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

prowla

Hoenir said:

prowla said:

The mistake is in thinking that OFGEM represents the consumers.

A greener energy system isn't going to be delivered at zero cost. As much as many think it should be. 

non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

BarelySentientAI

prowla said:

Hoenir said:

prowla said:

The mistake is in thinking that OFGEM represents the consumers.

A greener energy system isn't going to be delivered at zero cost. As much as many think it should be. 

non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Much like "OFGEM didn't do exactly what I thought they should do and make it cheaper for me specifically" somehow becomes "OFGEM doesn't represent consumers".

BarelySentientAI

Qyburn said:

matt_drummer said:

...
Our energy requirements have been privatised.

Why not just let the suppliers get on it with it? Market forces will win out in the end?
...

I don't actually see why anything but their default tariff needs to be price cap compliant. The original reason for the cap was to make sure that consumers who for whatever reason didn't shop around, weren't ripped, or not ripped off too badly.

Nothing but the default tariff does need to be price cap compliant.

A supplier could launch a zero standing charge fix tomorrow if they chose to.

However, people would just see the much higher unit rate and accuse them of price gouging.

mmmmikey

I'm pleased I'm not Ofgem :-)

It's my own view that Ofgem's role in this should be limited to facilitating a discussion between consumer groups and energy suppliers with a view to working out a reasonable mechanism that balances standing charges and unit rates, regardless of a customer's personal circumstances.

Any adjustment that reflects the need to make energy more affordable for vulnerable groups should be outside their remit and dealt with by a democratically elected government. I personally fully support the idea of taking measures to support those in need and don't have a strong view on how that is achieved, but if it is done via energy charges it should be explicit.

I am opposed to the idea of simply moving costs from standing charges to unit rates because within my circle of friends that would make things worse for the elderly, large families and less well off while I (as a very low user by virtue of solar panels and being a relatively secure home owner) would gain at their expense. There's no way I can reconcile that with any idea of fairness.

All that loading costs on unit rates would do is move the issue of unaffordable energy on to a different group.

What we need, IMHO, is to stop focusing on the balance between standing charges and unit rates and focus on the real issue of how those of us that can afford heating best support those who can't. There are lots of ways that could be achieved, the most obvious would be through the benefits system.

So please, please, please can we stop this obsession with standing charges and start again from a point that I truly believe is overwhelmingly agreed. There is a need to help those who are struggling with energy bills.

Passing that problem on to another group who are struggling is surely not the answer.

Qyburn

mmmmikey said:

What we need, IMHO, is to stop focusing on the balance between standing charges and unit rates and focus on the real issue of how those of us that can afford heating best support those who can't. There are lots of ways that could be achieved, the most obvious would be through the benefits system.

Agree 100%. The issue is whether or not people have enough to live on, and arbitrary subsidies of specific items doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Inflation of course has pushed the cost of living right up, but I'm not convinced that energy has risen disproportionately. Quick check shows today's cost for 2,700kWh is 6% less than July 2022 (N Scotland).

A 10% rise in October would make it 3% more than July 2022, probably less than October 2022.

prowla

BarelySentientAI said:

prowla said:

Hoenir said:

prowla said:

The mistake is in thinking that OFGEM represents the consumers.

A greener energy system isn't going to be delivered at zero cost. As much as many think it should be. 

non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Much like "OFGEM didn't do exactly what I thought they should do and make it cheaper for me specifically" somehow becomes "OFGEM doesn't represent consumers".

Maze non mon sewer... The thread's title is "OFGEM's inability to address unfair standing charges on consumers"; my post was entirely on-point.

coupleuk

dunstonh said:

Here we go again....

 The disproportionate standing charges applied to my and energy bill is a typical example.

How is it disproportionate to you and say the neighbour on your right, or your left or across the road from you? 
Does the infrastructure to supply energy cost less to your house than your neighbours?

It is disproportionate if my neighbour can get a standing charge of 40p (Tomato Energy) or 0p (Utilita) when I am paying 65p with Octopus.

Aren't we all using the "same infrastructure"? The Standing Charge should go into the Unit Rate - those using more energy are (possibly) putting more stress on the infrastructure anyway.

As someone said - if I buy a steak from ASDA they don't charge me their supply costs separately - a store located next to the abattoir isn't going to be cheaper than one 200 miles away.

And, while we're on the subject - the same argument applies to a litre of fuel and Vehicle Excide Duty - a HUGE department of Government could be closed in an instant.

powerful_Rogue

coupleuk said:

dunstonh said:

Here we go again....

 The disproportionate standing charges applied to my and energy bill is a typical example.

How is it disproportionate to you and say the neighbour on your right, or your left or across the road from you? 
Does the infrastructure to supply energy cost less to your house than your neighbours?

It is disproportionate if my neighbour can get a standing charge of 40p (Tomato Energy) or 0p (Utilita) when I am paying 65p with Octopus.

Aren't we all using the "same infrastructure"? The Standing Charge should go into the Unit Rate - those using more energy are (possibly) putting more stress on the infrastructure anyway.

As someone said - if I buy a steak from ASDA they don't charge me their supply costs separately - a store located next to the abattoir isn't going to be cheaper than one 200 miles away.

And, while we're on the subject - the same argument applies to a litre of fuel and Vehicle Excide Duty - a HUGE department of Government could be closed in an instant.

ASDA will charge to deliver that steak to your house......

coupleuk

powerful_Rogue said:

ASDA will charge to deliver that steak to your house......

It is YOUR choice whether to have it delivered to your door, so you pay for it.

If you collect your steak from the store, you aren't paying their infrastructure costs as a separate transaction.

Your logic would suggest we all use Calor Gas bottles and Battery Rental as we are paying separately for our gas and electric to reach our doors

born_again

coupleuk said:

powerful_Rogue said:

ASDA will charge to deliver that steak to your house......

It is YOUR choice whether to have it delivered to your door, so you pay for it.

If you collect your steak from the store, you aren't paying their infrastructure costs as a separate transaction.

Your logic would suggest we all use Calor Gas bottles and Battery Rental as we are paying separately for our gas and electric to reach our doors

If you pick up from store the cost is built into the steak's price, just like every other product. You do not get a discount for buying 100 products instead of one.