Zero standing charge tariff proposal

wrf12345

On dead smart meters, does not the Octopus Mini IHD thingie overcome this problem, as long as you have a router and are with Octopus, as they can get the info from the Mini?

Doc_N

wrf12345 said:

On dead smart meters, does not the Octopus Mini IHD thingie overcome this problem, as long as you have a router and are with Octopus, as they can get the info from the Mini?

The Home Mini takes its data from the smart meter, though, so I don’t think it’s going to help. It’s quite a useful little toy, but it hasn’t exactly been a life changer.

FreeBear

wrf12345 said:

On dead smart meters, does not the Octopus Mini IHD thingie overcome this problem, as long as you have a router and are with Octopus, as they can get the info from the Mini?

No. Because of the way things currently stand, data from the Home Mini can not be used for billing purposes.

The firmware and hardware has not been certified, and it is very easy to hack in to the device and inject false data - Have one here, and opened it up to see what is inside. A small module to communicate with the meter(s), and another to handle the WiFi connection. The designers very thoughtfully included two sets of debugging ports that can be plugged in to with some basic (and cheap) probes, so it is possible to inject false data. Consequently, it fails to meet the required standards of security.

Scot_39

MarzipanCrumble said:

Can I throw in a spanner?  I have SM2 for both Elec and Gas.  Both rely on O2 and the signal does not get through so my meters are 'dumb'.  I lose out massively!  Not able to take advantage of the best tarrifs through a tech fail.

I feel disenfranchised.  Basically I should not have to contribute to any enhancement for SMs as I cannot take advantage of them - and hence not the standing charge.

It's part of life, we pay for all sorts of things we might not directly use for most of our lives- but nice to have when we do.

Like education if no kids,  nhs if not ill etc etc.  Which lots of people object to contributing to.  SM costs are trivial by comparison.

But the exclusion argument a valid one.

One often used to justify say for example cross subsidy for rural broadband at commercially unviable recovery rates.

Scot_39

See M Lewis blogging or X ing etc again on this - insisting on auto switching not opt in to zero SC tariffs for those who would benefit.

But no doubt will want protections for those who don't save not to be put on or even held on them.

It's a naive position unless you accept the potentially massive bill for underrecovery and so additional cross subsidies involved.

Say for example 2.5m homes - second or with solar or add more like those in the Hertslad thread - types with minimal heat use - many not in any need of financial aid - save an aver of 50% of dual fuel ave c£330  - that's upto £4bn per year - or around £15-20 needed from the  other 90% to plug the gap.

It's time this idea was killed dead - It's the wrong tool - one that will see pensioners or those on benefits on sub £20k a year in poor often rental accomodation - subsidising millionaires when include asset wealth like houses in SE or London  - with solar. 

That simple fact alone - should have seen this policy abandoned.

Under the old proposals as a sub tdcv user I might have gained a little - but cannot support the concept regardless.

For everyone not paying their share of fixed costs - someone else has to pick up that cost.

It's really not difficult to grasp.

Qyburn

If I read the consultation correctly it looks like Ofgem are suggesting a model where they assume that a certain proportion of customers whose usage is at or below TDCV would switch onto the zero s/c tariff. They propose to balance the costs by setting the unit rate such that this whole set, all those who choose zero-s/c pay in total the same as if they'd all paid the s/c.

They seem to have missed the fact that this relies on a number of customers choosing to switch, even though they'd be worse off. Illustrated in this table and graph ...





https://consult.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-supply/introducing-zero-standing-charge-variant/consultation/subpage.2025-02-17.8601559178/

wrf12345

I have shifted my usage downwards to compensate every time the s/c has gone up (as well as time-shifting on Agile), there would probably be a little room to use more electricity if the s/c was zero and the unit rate was 40 but such is the extent of the rip-off perpetrated by Ofgem and the energy retailers I might well squeeze things further just to make a point. Don't know yet, might even encourage me to go "off-grid" with a small (off-grid) solar set-up (still connected but not using mains electric). Interesting times.

Council Tax is the next problem to be addressed once energy s/c's are gone.

GingerTim

wrf12345 said:

 I might well squeeze things further just to make a point. 

A point to whom? 

username

Qyburn said:

If I read the consultation correctly it looks like Ofgem are suggesting a model where they assume that a certain proportion of customers whose usage is at or below TDCV would switch onto the zero s/c tariff. They propose to balance the costs by setting the unit rate such that this whole set, all those who choose zero-s/c pay in total the same as if they'd all paid the s/c.

They seem to have missed the fact that this relies on a number of customers choosing to switch, even though they'd be worse off. Illustrated in this table and graph ...





https://consult.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-supply/introducing-zero-standing-charge-variant/consultation/subpage.2025-02-17.8601559178/

I don't understand why the government are obsessed with this TDCV metric. Why is this? How do they ensure it actually does represent what people "typically" use?

michaels

EssexHebridean said:

michaels said:

You do know a big chunk of the SC is part of the benefits system, a direct transfer from the majority of consumers to those the govt deems worthy of subsidy.  Some would argue that benefits should come from taxation and be clearly reported as such but not surprisingly it suits govts of all colours to move benefits out of the national tax and spend figures

Moving cost to the electricity tariff from the SC so that higher users (like my daughter who rents an all electric non Economy 7 single glazed flat) get to subsidise the network and supplier costs of lower users like second home owners and those who have had the 500k needed to build an eco home - does anyone claim it is less costly to set up an account and do the billing and maintain the wires and pipes for someone who uses £50 per month compared to someone who uses £200?

Finally of course it sounds like very bad news for anyone who has or is contemplating a heat pump....

I too would like the source for that first sentence, please!

As to the second paragraph - why in earth would your daughter move to the zero SC tariff if it was going to cost her more? I take it she is currently on a tariff like the specialist Octopus Snug which is designed for storage heater users - which I assume she is? She just needs to stay out. Just because the zero SC tariffs will be offered doesn’t mean everyone should jump to them - it’s a bit like Economy 7 tariffs currently, they exist, most folk could get them, but also most folk would pay a bit more on them, so stay on single rate! 

Third paragraph - again, it’s not as those people simply won opt for that tariff. Again, there are specialist heat pump friendly tariffs available which are likely best for most folk with heat pumps. 

Remember, thanks to smart metering, energy is no longer a “one size fits all” approach - there are more tariffs out there designed to suit quite specific user profiles now than you can shake a stick at! 

It is not complicated: if some people are paying a lower standing charge then the amount recovered through unit costs must be higher - thus those who use more will be worse off - regardless of how their tariff is packaged as a time of use tariff.

Although if as suggested later it is all a confidence trick and only those opting for no SC will pay a higher unit rate then perhaps this is not a problem - but as suggested above, why would anyone chose a no SC tariff it it was going to make them have a higher bill?!