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

Chris_b2z

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

I bow to your intellectual superiority but I'm happy to be with Martin Lewis in the selfish and reactionary camp.

MattMattMattUK

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

I bow to your intellectual superiority but I'm happy to be with Martin Lewis in the selfish and reactionary camp.

Martin Lewis has jumped on the bandwagon because it is good publicity, not because it is the rational position to take, he unfortunately has done the same with WASPI and a few other things over the years and more recently the car finance "misselling scandal" which has resulted in huge admin burdens being placed on car finance providers well before the investigation has been concluded when we would know if any compensation was liable, as well as meaning a lot of people are ranting about not getting "my compensation" yet, about not getting a reply yet, when the finance providers are specifically not supposed to be doing anything until at least March 2025 now. 

Just because a group of people make a lot of noise does not make them right, it just means that they are noisy.

Can you rationally and logically explain why you feel that "someone else" should pay the cost of your grid connection and why your connection to and share of the infrastructure costs should be subsidised by "someone else"?

matt_drummer

I get the feeling that it is not so much about paying a standing charge but more to do with the level of it and what is included.

It has risen quite a lot over recent times and I suspect a lot of people think that these rises are to feed greedy executives and shareholders of energy companies.

Some people think they are bailing out failed energy suppliers and paying their debts, which of course we aren't.

Of course, there are just those people who think if they consume next to nothing they should pay next to nothing, they just resent not being able to reduce their bills to zero if they chose to.

We all understand the frustration with standing charges for some people but what they cover has to be paid for. If we absolve some people from paying others will have to make it up.

mmmmikey

Chris_b2z said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

I bow to your intellectual superiority but I'm happy to be with Martin Lewis in the selfish and reactionary camp.

I like Martin and have a lot of respect for him. Unfortunately I think he's lost the plot on this one. I can see this ending with Martin, head in hands, a bit like Alec Guiness at the end of Bridge Over the River Kwai, wailing "what have I done...."

If standing charges are substantially reduced, paid for by increasing unit rates, would anyone bet against a stream of posts on this forum along the lines of "standing charges have gone down but my bill hasn't gone down (or has gone up) - who's to blame"?

We seem to be in an era of populist politics with too many politicians and/or campaigners garnering support by telling people what they want to hear rather than telling them how it is :-(

bristolleedsfan

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"

BarelySentientAI

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.

MattMattMattUK

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"

Do you mean it is entirely reasonable to them to object to paying for their own grid connection, entirely reasonable for them to object to paying for infrastructure maintenance and investment? Entirely reasonable for them to expect others to subsidise them?

Previously there was a subsidy from average and high users to low users, Ofgem corrected that, now there is no subsidy (apart from those on social tariffs where they exist) within the energy market, what those proposing a lowering of standing charges are asking/demanding is that a subsidy is reintroduced. 

prowla

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. 

That was an amusing characterisation, albeit incorrect.

prowla

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.

BarelySentientAI

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.