MSE News: More energy deals with NO standing charges finally on the cards

kten

The SC includes "cost of meter readings" according to its interpretation, so in my situation that the energy suppler can't install a smart meter because there's no signal where the meter located and I have been asked to do the meter readings every month ever since. Could I not claim back some of the SC I paid over the years?

wrf12345

Ebico are down to 20p s/c for electric and 35p unit rate, Tomato 42p and TOU tariff that seems better than Agile (esp these couple of days), the bigger companies occasionally offer lower s/c fixed deals but the old Ebico zero s/c was finished off when they were forced to offer the std capped tariff as well, which diluted the base for the zero s/c. Gas seems to be much more difficult as many users only indulge for a few months. Utilia front-load the first couple of kw per day to compensate, the gas incredibly high, but zero s/c. Ofgem have no interest in consumer fairness so I am not holding my breath about the resulting unit rates they will suggest but the long drawn out process shows they still want to let the energy companies take as much as they can for as long as they can get away with it - the energy secretary can always wake up and save the day, BTW.

Netexporter

born_again said:

dealyboy said:

@born_again said:

dealyboy said:

I think this a positive move and look forward to the consultation next year. I know it won't happen but I would like the consultation to include what charges 'are/should be' the responsibility of the bill payer versus general taxation, leaving aside some of the charges themselves which are the result of policy.

Given the % of people who pay no tax.
Any utility costs should fall on the user. A simple you use you pay.

As I understand it a portion of the SC is used to subsidise 'green' or renewable energy construction/generation. I would prefer that to be from general taxation, as in the future it is anticipated that a lot of revenue may be gained from taxing the operating companies.

I do understand the point that a significant number of people are not direct tax payers, but in theory these are the poorest.

Good point.

TBH, there should be no subsidy, as they are now more often than not the main % of power supply. So should be profitable.

The greening costs should be on gas prices/SC, that's what causing the need to decarbonise. Then we have the ridiculous policy of gas prices determining the electricity price. If you want people to move to heat pumps, make gas more expensive.

MeteredOut

kten said:

The SC includes "cost of meter readings" according to its interpretation, so in my situation that the energy suppler can't install a smart meter because there's no signal where the meter located and I have been asked to do the meter readings every month ever since. Could I not claim back some of the SC I paid over the years?

You can make a claim if you think that's the right thing to do. Please let us know how you get on.

polymaff

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Today's wholesale price for a kWh of gas is 3.64p; that for electricity is 8.41p.

I hear all the propaganda that the collosal retail mark-up is needed to pay off the collapse of the dodgy dealers of yester-year, cross-subsidisation  etc. etc.  Huh!

I believe that Standing Charges are over-inflated - but don't ignore the elephant in the room!

Bendo

Netexporter said:

born_again said:

dealyboy said:

@born_again said:

dealyboy said:

I think this a positive move and look forward to the consultation next year. I know it won't happen but I would like the consultation to include what charges 'are/should be' the responsibility of the bill payer versus general taxation, leaving aside some of the charges themselves which are the result of policy.

Given the % of people who pay no tax.
Any utility costs should fall on the user. A simple you use you pay.

As I understand it a portion of the SC is used to subsidise 'green' or renewable energy construction/generation. I would prefer that to be from general taxation, as in the future it is anticipated that a lot of revenue may be gained from taxing the operating companies.

I do understand the point that a significant number of people are not direct tax payers, but in theory these are the poorest.

Good point.

TBH, there should be no subsidy, as they are now more often than not the main % of power supply. So should be profitable.

The greening costs should be on gas prices/SC, that's what causing the need to decarbonise. Then we have the ridiculous policy of gas prices determining the electricity price. If you want people to move to heat pumps, make gas more expensive.

A reasonable argument until you factor in most electric is generated in gas fired power stations.

booneruk

Bendo said:

A reasonable argument until you factor in most electric is generated in gas fired power stations.

I'm not sure that's accurate to be honest, from https://grid.iamkate.com/

I've also read that the UK is predicted to be a regular net exporter of electricity in the near future. We keep on-lining renewable sources. Hopefully we can wean ourselves away from the international energy market in the years to come.

Grizebeck

Ofgem say zero Sc tariffs already exist
Where?

QrizB

Grizebeck said:

Ofgem say zero Sc tariffs already exist
Where?

Utilita have one.

booneruk said:

Hopefully we can wean ourselves away from the international energy market in the years to come.

From the number of interconnectors currently in service, under construction or proposed, we're only gone to become more closely integrated into the international energy market.

We're currently importing a Hinkley Point C-worth of nuclear power from France, for example.

Scot_39

Netexporter said:

born_again said:

dealyboy said:

@born_again said:

dealyboy said:

I think this a positive move and look forward to the consultation next year. I know it won't happen but I would like the consultation to include what charges 'are/should be' the responsibility of the bill payer versus general taxation, leaving aside some of the charges themselves which are the result of policy.

Given the % of people who pay no tax.
Any utility costs should fall on the user. A simple you use you pay.

As I understand it a portion of the SC is used to subsidise 'green' or renewable energy construction/generation. I would prefer that to be from general taxation, as in the future it is anticipated that a lot of revenue may be gained from taxing the operating companies.

I do understand the point that a significant number of people are not direct tax payers, but in theory these are the poorest.

Good point.

TBH, there should be no subsidy, as they are now more often than not the main % of power supply. So should be profitable.

The greening costs should be on gas prices/SC, that's what causing the need to decarbonise. Then we have the ridiculous policy of gas prices determining the electricity price. If you want people to move to heat pumps, make gas more expensive.

The greening costs are on gas - and gas is still used to generate over half our electricity on many days - often even more on windless days.

And their are more than likely already offsets in the cost of domestic gas too - but yes greens have certainly in the past suggested a CO2 levy for domestic gas boilers.

It's just a pretty good way to lose the votes of many of the 20+m homeowners with gas to announce it outright.

But the time for the carrot - like the temporary ASHP grants - the take up of which has been underwhelming according to some reports - is now passing - just as many of the grants and some of the tax breaks for EV drivers are now gone or going - and if govts are serious about net zero - the sticks will clearly be required.

Scottish greens harder targets for domestic zero carbon heating - unpopular with popn - argaubly one of the things that led to Bute House collapse.  Targets that the SNP have since said are in many cases pushed back - one iirc the classic short termism report in UK politics - plans to be announced 2026 - i.e. after next Holyrood election.