No Standing Charge Tariff

MouldyOldDough

What happened to this ?

Martin Lewis was supposedly working on this - back in February - but no more has been heard .....

born_again

The cogs turn very lowly on changes. 
Expect at least a year for any sort of meaningful consultation period.

Not keen on the vulnerable customers should be opted in.. As they may prefer not to be.

twopenny

I'm all for it. I don't mind a small amount but the standing charge is the same as my usage because I work on keeping it low.

It started a way back when we had to submit our own meter readings and pay to ring in.

Small business doesn't have an extra charge for maintaining their building , they work it out of their profit.
These companies have made themselves so far removed from their customers that they don't care about them.  they're rubbing their hands with glee as always shareholders always get a profit. There's no risk any more.

Scot_39

The Ofgem targetted charge review is publicly published - 100s of pages of reports and data to back it..
The consultations on zero SC are publicly published.
The old NG ESO, now NESO forecasts for renewables curtailment and total grid balancing costs are published.
The breakdown of cap and the 25p is published in summary letters and backed up by additional data in public domain.

You could try reading,  even  just a fraction of it, rather than attacking others as AI bots.

If you really want lower bills and lower standing charges then write to your MP, your energy minister or your PM regarding 

Policy costs  - £198 ex VAT
Debt costs - £50 - yes even some of that policy cost - no cut off protections and no force fitting of prepayment for over a year.
And of course the big elephant in the room
Net zero
£10s Bn investment in new grid for net zero.
£1bn last year on rebewables curtailment - 649m for wind in 1sg 6months this already according to Octopus - and even grid level solar in on the act for first time last quarter (£0.1m). 
Old NG ESO charts show balancing cost us all over £40 on ave 2023-2024, renewables growth particularly curtailment near exponential growth - wiping out past savings as had dropped in 2022- 23 - and with total growing rapidly to £8bn (*) by 2030 - far more to come.

Vat itself - we dont have to charge the 5% anymore.

(*) That £8bn over c31m connections averages out at over £250 each.  The final split business vs domestic, / cost on units vs SC etc will no doubt follow.

born_again

twopenny said:

I'm all for it. I don't mind a small amount but the standing charge is the same as my usage because I work on keeping it low.

It started a way back when we had to submit our own meter readings and pay to ring in.

Small business doesn't have an extra charge for maintaining their building , they work it out of their profit.
These companies have made themselves so far removed from their customers that they don't care about them.  they're rubbing their hands with glee as always shareholders always get a profit. There's no risk any more.

Your energy provider does not own the supply/generation infrastructure.

Unlike a small business that does. So how do you think that small business profit is funded to cover the expenses?
Yep they charge their customers more.. 🤷‍♀️

Qyburn

One point is never covered in these discussions. A zero SC option will reduce costs for some people, reducing suppliers' income but not their costs. Where will the shortfall come from? Presumably higher prices for everyone else.  So it's really a subsidy for a specific group of users, funded by the others.

I would be one of those saving money, but that doesn't mean I think it's right.

powerful_Rogue

Too many people wanting their cake and eating it. They want electric/gas available 24/7 at the flip of a switch, but don't want to contribute towards the infrastructure. Someone else can pay for that........

Altior

It's absolutely ballooned and the funds don't only go directly to supporting infrastructure.

The ballooning costs of the standing charge mean that low volume users now have a huge chunk of their bill as a fixed amount that they can't influence. So a household of one pays the same as a household of ten. When the standing charge was a smaller portion of the bill, that differential was less material. 

Everyone who uses energy should contribute to maintenance of the system, but it should be aligned with overall usage in my opinion. 

MouldyOldDough

Altior said:

It's absolutely ballooned and the funds don't only go directly to supporting infrastructure.

The ballooning costs of the standing charge mean that low volume users now have a huge chunk of their bill as a fixed amount that they can't influence. So a household of one pays the same as a household of ten. When the standing charge was a smaller portion of the bill, that differential was less material. 

Everyone who uses energy should contribute to maintenance of the system, but it should be aligned with overall usage in my opinion. 

Of course it should - why should someone who uses 1/4 of the average amount - not pay 1/4 of the standing charge - any more is wrong !

booneruk

MouldyOldDough said:

Altior said:

It's absolutely ballooned and the funds don't only go directly to supporting infrastructure.

The ballooning costs of the standing charge mean that low volume users now have a huge chunk of their bill as a fixed amount that they can't influence. So a household of one pays the same as a household of ten. When the standing charge was a smaller portion of the bill, that differential was less material. 

Everyone who uses energy should contribute to maintenance of the system, but it should be aligned with overall usage in my opinion. 

Of course it should - why should someone who uses 1/4 of the average amount - not pay 1/4 of the standing charge - any more is wrong !

It's not wrong, there are costs incurred with supplying energy which aren't smaller because of reduced use.

What would a fair standing charge be for someone who owns a 2nd property as a holiday bolthole and visits 2 weeks a year? Nothing? a few pence? How is that property incurring smaller costs of supply?

I fear this argument has been done to death around here and falls on deaf ears.

WiserMiser

MouldyOldDough said:

Altior said:

It's absolutely ballooned and the funds don't only go directly to supporting infrastructure.

The ballooning costs of the standing charge mean that low volume users now have a huge chunk of their bill as a fixed amount that they can't influence. So a household of one pays the same as a household of ten. When the standing charge was a smaller portion of the bill, that differential was less material. 

Everyone who uses energy should contribute to maintenance of the system, but it should be aligned with overall usage in my opinion. 

Of course it should - why should someone who uses 1/4 of the average amount - not pay 1/4 of the standing charge - any more is wrong !

That means you've completely abolished the standing charge.  Someone with a second home who uses 0/4 of the average amount would pay absolutely nothing and a housebound person who has to stay very warm and uses 8/4 of the average amount would pay double the standing charge.  No fairness there.

You wouldn't expect to order just a Mars bar in an online groceries order and pay a minute fraction of the delivery charge paid by a family doing a big weekly shop.  You wouldn't expect to call a taxi to drive you 100 yards and pay only 1/88 of the cost of a five mile ride.  Why should energy be any different?