Standing Charges: Gas & Electricity

mmmmikey

GingerTim said:

MattMattMattUK said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Dewpoint said:

I'm a pensioner living in a well-insulated flat and I try to minimise my impact on the environment by using as little water, electricity, and gas as I can.

My actual usage for all these is low, but the bills I pay don't reflect this because the standing charges for G & E represent between 30% and 50% of the total.

It seems to me I'm subsidising those who are not as careful. They pay the same standing charges as me, but it represents a far smaller proportion of the Bill.

Not fair in my opinion. I think standing charges should be scrapped, and those who use the most should pay the most in direct proportion.

Well said sir, totally agree.

Why do you keep selecting factually incorrect, emotional and hyperbolic posts and saying "Well said"?

Obviously just on a wind up. Best ignored.

Yes sir, I'm with you on that, well said

teaselMay

My standing charge over the year is half of the total electricity and gas costs. But surely it costs the same to supply me as it does my neighbour who uses 6 times as much gas and 8 times as much electricity as I do, and so I should pay the same for that component. Interestingly he somehow gets some knocked off his bill by keep using the phrase "i'm terminal" for hte past 8 years or so!

Scot_39

We pay for network costs via standing charges and unit rates.

We all need as a minimum one cable or pipe for gas if on gas.

But 10 users using 1 kW - will need less cable / grid capacity than 10 users using 5 or 10 kW.

The grid is capacity limited in several key areas - part why spending billions on new HVDC links Scotland to England - and why we pay renewables money to shutdown rather than overloading the cables - so called  thermal constraint payments - ESO forecast to peak at £3bn pa by 2030.

In the same way you might plug all your tv kit into one say 4 way 13A extension lead - but wouldn't ever I hope plug 2 let alone 4 say 2kW fires into one.  As that would overload the extension and the socket feeding it - with real risks of damage even house fire.

So it's not a simple split  of costs and Ofgem justification for current split - fixed so via standing charge vs capacity so unit rate based - is available on line to read.

So your neighbour is paying more - for the infrastructure that supplies him.

As of last years SC consultation just over half the cap TDCV network costs - now around £380+ vat as Apr 1st cap - were deemed fixed and allocated to standing charges.

[The same Ofgem consultation report gives the other major components of our gas and electric SCs.]

The rest to unit rates.

Higher users therefore do in general pay more than low users.

bob2302

teaselMay said:

My standing charge over the year is half of the total electricity and gas costs. But surely it costs the same to supply me as it does my neighbour who uses 6 times as much gas and 8 times as much electricity as I do, and so I should pay the same for that component.

The cost of the last leg of the connection and the metering is a fixed cost, but the rest of infrastructure costs scale in some way with usage. 

Auti

If you have energy and water from respective infrastructure it is only right that you pay for the privilege. As everyone who is connected has the same privilege it is correct the contribution is equal for everyone. 

I have a limited income and watch my use by budgeting so that I save in the summer to go towards winter use and by trying to use resources efficiently in an old and draughty house. 

This is just my view and no disrespect to anyone.

wrf12345

From this logic, high users who are causing the expensive grid upgrade need to pay more because if they did not exist there would be no need to upgrade the grid. The best thing would be s/c's at zero, the first couple of kw/day at half price, then the normal price up to say 10kw/day and above that say double the price. This would force Greenness and lower use into the system. Those with health problems that need constant electric use are already covered by the welfare system, which could possibly be increased a touch to help them out.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

From this logic, high users who are causing the expensive grid upgrade need to pay more because if they did not exist there would be no need to upgrade the grid. 

Firstly it is not high users who are causing the grid to need upgrades, it is because it is old, creaking and needs to adapt to different generation patterns. Secondly, they already do pay more, because they use more and pay for that.

wrf12345 said:

The best thing would be s/c's at zero, the first couple of kw/day at half price, then the normal price up to say 10kw/day and above that say double the price.

That would not be "the best thing", that would be a stupid thing to do.

wrf12345 said:

This would force Greenness and lower use into the system. 

No it would not, it would penalise average and higher users whatever the reason and create a subsidy for low users. 

wrf12345 said:

Those with health problems that need constant electric use are already covered by the welfare system, which could possibly be increased a touch to help them out.

No they are not, some are depending on the condition and other circumstances, others are not. The solution is not to break one system and then try to fix it with another broken system, it is to not break the first system.

Your posts continually show that you want other people to subsidise you, rather than making up reasons or continually posting factually incorrect information it would make far more sense to be honest about your desire to be subsidised. 

debitcardmayhem

wrf12345 said:

From this logic, high users who are causing the expensive grid upgrade need to pay more because if they did not exist there would be no need to upgrade the grid. The best thing would be s/c's at zero, the first couple of kw/day at half price, then the normal price up to say 10kw/day and above that say double the price. This would force Greenness and lower use into the system. Those with health problems that need constant electric use are already covered by the welfare system, which could possibly be increased a touch to help them out.

Flawed logic again, the welfare state doesn’t help us, we are too “rich”. Perhaps if you get your wish you will send us the few pennies you save. 
Still, money doesn’t cure the incurable nor would state handouts.
You are getting tiresome banging on about SC at every turn, why not go off grid.

Spoonie_Turtle

wrf12345 said:

From this logic, high users who are causing the expensive grid upgrade need to pay more because if they did not exist there would be no need to upgrade the grid. The best thing would be s/c's at zero, the first couple of kw/day at half price, then the normal price up to say 10kw/day and above that say double the price. This would force Greenness and lower use into the system. Those with health problems that need constant electric use are already covered by the welfare system, which could possibly be increased a touch to help them out.

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you do know they're planning to drastically reduce benefits, by making them EVEN harder to get and freezing then cutting them, right?  Under their proposals, only 13% of current standard PIP awards would continue. 
And that's before mentioning that nearly ⅔ of disabled people aren't currently in receipt of disability benefits in the first place.  (Source: Scope, DWP)

Thanks for the laugh though, I needed that.

GingerTim

Making the ill and disabled people's lives harder so I can save a few pence on a standing charge? Not for me, Clive.