Standing Charges: Gas & Electricity

Auti

My logic is: if you are connected to the infrastructure you pay an equal amount as everyone else who is connected ( I am talking about domestic customers as commercial/industrial have more expensive/different rates to reflect the increased costs). You are paying for the privilege of having energy at a flick of the switch no more no less. You control how much you choose to use and tailored to your means - you are not forced by the energy companies to use more or less. All the energy companies do is charge you for the privilege/ability to have instant energy as and when you choose via the standing charge.

It is a fact of life that the infrastructure needs maintaining whether you use it a little, a lot or not at all - if you have the ability to use it (a meter at your house) that ability needs paying for. The only solution is to remove the meter which they will do for you if you ask.

I think, and this is only my thought, that people find it harder to separate the energy used from the infrastructure costs - the reason why there are 2 components in the bill sent to the consumer.

born_again

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.

They already pay more.... 🙋🤷‍♀️🤣
Unless you know of a tariff where you pay a fixed amount no matter how much you use. Or is this what you think a fixed tariff is?

Spoonie_Turtle

born_again said:

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.

They already pay more.... 🙋🤷‍♀️🤣
Unless you know of a tariff where you pay a fixed amount no matter how much you use. Or is this what you think a fixed tariff is?

It's all that talk about the price cap - can't be charged more than that, didn't you know?

WibbleBaaaaaa

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.

Spot on, but you won't find the few bothy lawyers in here who have been happily paying 40p or less sc over the last few years screaming that they SHOULD be paying a higher sc, but they are quite happy to scream that YOUR sc should remain or increase, and that is the end of it, no possible way to fix it, so just bite your lip and move on..........and all on a money saving website, which if it were not so tragic to read, would actually be funny.

GingerTim

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

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.

Spot on, but you won't find the few bothy lawyers in here who have been happily paying 40p or less sc over the last few years screaming that they SHOULD be paying a higher sc, but they are quite happy to scream that YOUR sc should remain or increase, and that is the end of it, no possible way to fix it, so just bite your lip and move on..........and all on a money saving website, which if it were not so tragic to read, would actually be funny.

Sounds like something you've made up in your head. I've not seen anyone on this forum saying anything like this.

(For the record: I'm a very low user for whom the standing charge makes up a significant proportion of my annual bill. A standing charge reduction would reduce my bill quite a bit, but I think the current system is the least worst option).

mmmmikey

GingerTim said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

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.

Spot on, but you won't find the few bothy lawyers in here who have been happily paying 40p or less sc over the last few years screaming that they SHOULD be paying a higher sc, but they are quite happy to scream that YOUR sc should remain or increase, and that is the end of it, no possible way to fix it, so just bite your lip and move on..........and all on a money saving website, which if it were not so tragic to read, would actually be funny.

Sounds like something you've made up in your head. I've not seen anyone on this forum saying anything like this.

(For the record: I'm a very low user for whom the standing charge makes up a significant proportion of my annual bill. A standing charge reduction would reduce my bill quite a bit, but I think the current system is the least worst option).

Much the same here. Reducing or removing the standing charge would actually leave me in profit, with the income I get from exporting covering more than my import costs. Hardly seems right to me that I should have all the benefit of a grid connection (for both importing and exporting), not pay a penny for it and walk away with cash in my hand.

debitcardmayhem

Seems like @wrf12345 was happy to makes use of Octopus Agile and happily would take advantage of plunge prices, but they still ranted about SC even then.

Spoonie_Turtle

Okay I know what a bothy is, but what the heck is a 'bothy lawyer'?  Google doesn't even seem to know … 

GingerTim

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know what a bothy is, but what the heck is a 'bothy lawyer'?  Google doesn't even seem to know … 

Equivalent of a barrack-room lawyer (Scottish version).

Neither really work in the context being used, mind.

mmmmikey

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know what a bothy is, but what the heck is a 'bothy lawyer'?  Google doesn't even seem to know … 

I've just been googling that too, was thinking it must just me that was lost on :-)