No Standing Charge Tariff

debitcardmayhem

@booneruk @WiserMiser be careful you will be called AI bots by the chump champ of zero sc

HillStreetBlues

WiserMiser said:

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?

On the other hand you wouldn't expect to pay a daily charge when not ordering a Mars bars, or paying a taxi when you're not actually using one.

MWT

HillStreetBlues said:

WiserMiser said:

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?

On the other hand you wouldn't expect to pay a daily charge when not ordering a Mars bars, or paying a taxi when you're not actually using one.

We can play this game all day...

You also don't want to pay the taxi for waiting outside your house just in case you need them, or the grocery delivery van to stop outside your house for a last minute order even if not actually delivering anything most of the time...

All of these analogies will fail if you don't acknowledge that their is a fixed cost component to providing an maintaining an energy delivery service to each and every home, regardless of variations in use.

There is a better debate to be had regarding some of the costs that have been added on to the standing charge that should perhaps be funded from general taxation... 

WiserMiser

HillStreetBlues said:

WiserMiser said:

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?

On the other hand you wouldn't expect to pay a daily charge when not ordering a Mars bars, or paying a taxi when you're not actually using one.

You'd no doubt have to pay the equivalent of a standing charge (a very hefty 'retainer') to have these services always available 24/7/365, especially with compensation payable whenever they failed to arrive on demand.

Altior

booneruk said:

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.

Not exactly 'deaf ears' is it, there is a difference between an understanding an argument (or lack of) and disagreeing with it.

As I stated, the standing charge isn't just made up of the infrastructure costs. It's effectively a tax, and disproportionately applied to single occupied households.  

That hypothetical example of a second property is pretty niche, and a rounding error. However if it's a second property then the owners are paying the 'tax' on their main property already. 

Why do single occupied households get a discounted CT? 

Perhaps a solution lies there, and properties that are singly occupied get a discounted standing charge, to reflect that otherwise the fixed costs would be disproportionately levied on them. 

WiserMiser

Altior said:

booneruk said:

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.

Why do single occupied households get a discounted CT? 

Because houses don't need to be taken into care homes.

Because houses don't need to be educated.

Because houses don't need to travel on the roads.

Because houses don't use services (with minor exceptions, e.g. Fire Brigade).  It's people that use services.  The Council Tax tax should be based on the number of occupiers.

Oh, wait...

HillStreetBlues

MWT said:

We can play this game all day...

You also don't want to pay the taxi for waiting outside your house just in case you need them, or the grocery delivery van to stop outside your house for a last minute order even if not actually delivering anything most of the time...

All of these analogies will fail if you don't acknowledge that their is a fixed cost component to providing an maintaining an energy delivery service to each and every home, regardless of variations in use.

There is a better debate to be had regarding some of the costs that have been added on to the standing charge that should perhaps be funded from general taxation... 

We can
But if I know I'm not going to need them why would I pay for them sitting outside?
I agree with the fixed costs but nearly everyone you buy from has these fixed costs. With Tesco their fixed costs are recouped by the value of amount spent, and 99.99% work on that principle.

Another debate is why do fixed charges vary so much, if they are "fixed" it should be a standard rate applied and only the unit rate adjusted.

I actually see both sides so not entrenched in a view who is correct, as makes little difference to me as my unit use would rule out zero SC and the amount extra I would pay if brought in wouldn't  bother me.

mmmmikey

Good to see this being debated again, hopefully we'll all reach a point of agreement this time round.....

Hoenir

Going to be really interesting when the really tough decisions have to be made. Somebody else always pays is unfortunately not the answer to the challenges ahead. 

MWT

HillStreetBlues said:

We can
But if I know I'm not going to need them why would I pay for them sitting outside?
I agree with the fixed costs but nearly everyone you buy from has these fixed costs. With Tesco their fixed costs are recouped by the value of amount spent, and 99.99% work on that principle.

Both of those points are based on the same false premise, they ignore the fact that the point of service delivery is the home, not the business premises of the supplier. 

If you are prepared to wait for the taxi to get to you at some point after you request it, and accept that it may not always be able to get to you at all then great, you don't have to pay for it to be waiting outside, but if you want it to be readily available exactly when you want it then their is a cost for that level of personal service. 

Let's get more specific, metered products delivered to the home with on-demand availability really do incur similar costs of providing the facility regardless of consumption volume with limited exceptions.

If you need to go above an 80/100A connection then you can pay more for 3-phase.

... and if you are willing to accept a much lower limit then perhaps we should look at the sort of tariff options available in Spain and other locations where the costs can be reduced in exchange for a lower peak limit.

The variations in these charges reflect changes in annual costs so they will change over time.

It is the policy cost component where I think there is perhaps more room for agreement on change... ?