Are EV and ToU tariffs unfair to other electricity customers?

mmmmikey

Chrysalis said:

This question could be applied to all sorts of services.

Is it unfair some people get a good retentions deal and others dont?
Is it fair supermarkets cater their best prices to larger households?

Ultimately though TOU is available to everyone, its a choice of whether to use the tariffs, and a choice of to get a smart meter for access to the best tariffs.

I think the only people who could feel hard done by, are those who have no access due to smart meter communication issues out of their control.

My thoughts exactly, particularly in relation to non-communicating smart meters. I think there is a good case for offering people in those circumstances some kind of other compensatory tariff.

michaels

JKenH said:

I have started this thread to respond to a comment on a different thread ( Martin Lewis: Standing charges update risks households paying more) without taking that thread off topic

QrizB said:

» show previous quotes

This isn't entirely true if you look beyond standing charges (the subject of this thread) and include unit costs (which the thread has begun to include).

Someone on a flat rate tariff will be paying a weighed average price covering the entire period of the tariff (3 months for the SVT, 12 or more for a fix). Swapping to a ToU tariff will allow the householder to choose to use more electricity during cheaper periods and less during more expensive ones. This can save the householder money without creating a loss for the supplier that needs recovering from elsewhere. A "winner" without a corresponding "loser".

That is an interesting (and valid) point. 

Ultimately if every individual optimised their consumption to achieve the lowest import price on a ToU tariff then prices would adjust to meet demand until they levelled out. So at the moment those able to take advantage of ToU prices can do so because others can’t. 

That is the short answer and applies to tariffs such as EV tariffs which are underpinned by the variable utility of electricity - we value it more at tea time than in the middle of the night. 

The situation is more complicated with tariffs like Octopus Agile and Tracker and Intelligent Octopus which have arisen to reflect price variability driven by the intermittency of renewable generation and I concede there can be winners here without corresponding losers. In fact it can be win-win on occasions if curtailment is avoided as SVT customers also benefit. 

Seems a very odd question. Either we use prices to match supply and demand or we choose state control and rationing.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

I have started this thread to respond to a comment on a different thread ( Martin Lewis: Standing charges update risks households paying more) without taking that thread off topic

QrizB said:

» show previous quotes

This isn't entirely true if you look beyond standing charges (the subject of this thread) and include unit costs (which the thread has begun to include).

Someone on a flat rate tariff will be paying a weighed average price covering the entire period of the tariff (3 months for the SVT, 12 or more for a fix). Swapping to a ToU tariff will allow the householder to choose to use more electricity during cheaper periods and less during more expensive ones. This can save the householder money without creating a loss for the supplier that needs recovering from elsewhere. A "winner" without a corresponding "loser".

That is an interesting (and valid) point. 

Ultimately if every individual optimised their consumption to achieve the lowest import price on a ToU tariff then prices would adjust to meet demand until they levelled out. So at the moment those able to take advantage of ToU prices can do so because others can’t. 

That is the short answer and applies to tariffs such as EV tariffs which are underpinned by the variable utility of electricity - we value it more at tea time than in the middle of the night. 

The situation is more complicated with tariffs like Octopus Agile and Tracker and Intelligent Octopus which have arisen to reflect price variability driven by the intermittency of renewable generation and I concede there can be winners here without corresponding losers. In fact it can be win-win on occasions if curtailment is avoided as SVT customers also benefit. 

Seems a very odd question. Either we use prices to match supply and demand or we choose state control and rationing.

That’s the mess we are in because of the push for renewables. I accept that ToU tariffs serve a useful function in managing demand but before we relied so much on renewables we didn’t need to - we could simply ramp up gas or coal generation. I believe current peak demand is down around 25% from a few years ago so we shouldn’t really need to be talking about state control or rationing. 

Scot_39

michaels said:

JKenH said:

I have started this thread to respond to a comment on a different thread ( Martin Lewis: Standing charges update risks households paying more) without taking that thread off topic

QrizB said:

» show previous quotes

This isn't entirely true if you look beyond standing charges (the subject of this thread) and include unit costs (which the thread has begun to include).

Someone on a flat rate tariff will be paying a weighed average price covering the entire period of the tariff (3 months for the SVT, 12 or more for a fix). Swapping to a ToU tariff will allow the householder to choose to use more electricity during cheaper periods and less during more expensive ones. This can save the householder money without creating a loss for the supplier that needs recovering from elsewhere. A "winner" without a corresponding "loser".

That is an interesting (and valid) point. 

Ultimately if every individual optimised their consumption to achieve the lowest import price on a ToU tariff then prices would adjust to meet demand until they levelled out. So at the moment those able to take advantage of ToU prices can do so because others can’t. 

That is the short answer and applies to tariffs such as EV tariffs which are underpinned by the variable utility of electricity - we value it more at tea time than in the middle of the night. 

The situation is more complicated with tariffs like Octopus Agile and Tracker and Intelligent Octopus which have arisen to reflect price variability driven by the intermittency of renewable generation and I concede there can be winners here without corresponding losers. In fact it can be win-win on occasions if curtailment is avoided as SVT customers also benefit. 

Seems a very odd question. Either we use prices to match supply and demand or we choose state control and rationing.

I don't see what state control has to do with rationing power.

Not at the moment anyway in UK.

In fact if anything its the exact opposite.

What we have is definitely not rationing - we have massive overcapacity thanks to net zero and renewables without storage model we use - so actual capacity duplication.

Solar (approaching 20GW) and wind (over 30GW) at certain times, and when they cannot, gas/biomass etc at others.

And the imbalance at times leading to folk like Octopus "dumping power" on people - certainly on agile in past for hours at a time - actually paying them to use energy - whether using for useful things (like moving a washing into cheap times) or say turning on a bar fire on in the middle of the garden in summer to get paid to burn kWh of power.  (Their was even a thread here discussing the morality of potentially "wasting power" in such ways - whether it was even wasteful at all)

So we have state - net zero policy - in control - actually interfering - de-stabilising the traditional supply and demand model - not by constraining peak supply to potentially require rationing - but by boosting it under the right weather conditions.

In fact the only rationing going on is amongst our poor and vulnerable - who cannot afford - not the luxury of what they might like to - but the basic standards of life - of using what they need - for a comfortable healthy existence.

As thanks to policy - including our rushed net zero policy - UK has amongst the highest energy costs in comparable countries.

JKenH

Although some recent comments might appear tangential I have put an edit into the original post to request Admin allow some latitude in developing this thread. 

JKenH

Chrysalis said:

This question could be applied to all sorts of services.

Is it unfair some people get a good retentions deal and others dont?
Is it fair supermarkets cater their best prices to larger households?

Ultimately though TOU is available to everyone, its a choice of whether to use the tariffs, and a choice of to get a smart meter for access to the best tariffs.

I think the only people who could feel hard done by, are those who have no access due to smart meter communication issues out of their control.

While ToU tariffs may theoretically be available to everyone many elderly people just don’t have the savvy or a computer to get on them. 

There is then that cohort of families who need to feed their children when they get home from school. Can they take advantage of ToU tariffs?

The comments on here will inevitably be skewed towards those who are already enjoying ToU and EV tariffs because they work for them and assume other people’s circumstances are the same. 

JKenH

Chrysalis said:

This question could be applied to all sorts of services.

Is it unfair some people get a good retentions deal and others dont?
Is it fair supermarkets cater their best prices to larger households?

Ultimately though TOU is available to everyone, its a choice of whether to use the tariffs, and a choice of to get a smart meter for access to the best tariffs.

I think the only people who could feel hard done by, are those who have no access due to smart meter communication issues out of their control.

For most of the year we are a two person household but if there are multi-buy offers on we take advantage of them as we have a large house with tons of storage room and freezers that enable us to buy large packs of meat etc. But does it cost a supermarket less to do multi-buy deals or does the single person household subsidise them?

I take your point that that’s just life and some people end up subsidising others which I think is what is happening with smart tariffs. Those who can take advantage do. 

JKenH

Scot_39 said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

I have started this thread to respond to a comment on a different thread ( Martin Lewis: Standing charges update risks households paying more) without taking that thread off topic

QrizB said:

» show previous quotes

This isn't entirely true if you look beyond standing charges (the subject of this thread) and include unit costs (which the thread has begun to include).

Someone on a flat rate tariff will be paying a weighed average price covering the entire period of the tariff (3 months for the SVT, 12 or more for a fix). Swapping to a ToU tariff will allow the householder to choose to use more electricity during cheaper periods and less during more expensive ones. This can save the householder money without creating a loss for the supplier that needs recovering from elsewhere. A "winner" without a corresponding "loser".

That is an interesting (and valid) point. 

Ultimately if every individual optimised their consumption to achieve the lowest import price on a ToU tariff then prices would adjust to meet demand until they levelled out. So at the moment those able to take advantage of ToU prices can do so because others can’t. 

That is the short answer and applies to tariffs such as EV tariffs which are underpinned by the variable utility of electricity - we value it more at tea time than in the middle of the night. 

The situation is more complicated with tariffs like Octopus Agile and Tracker and Intelligent Octopus which have arisen to reflect price variability driven by the intermittency of renewable generation and I concede there can be winners here without corresponding losers. In fact it can be win-win on occasions if curtailment is avoided as SVT customers also benefit. 

Seems a very odd question. Either we use prices to match supply and demand or we choose state control and rationing.

I don't see what state control has to do with rationing power.

Not at the moment anyway in UK.

In fact if anything its the exact opposite.

What we have is definitely not rationing - we have massive overcapacity thanks to net zero and renewables without storage model we use - so actual capacity duplication.

Solar (approaching 20GW) and wind (over 30GW) at certain times, and when they cannot, gas/biomass etc at others.

And the imbalance at times leading to folk like Octopus "dumping power" on people - certainly on agile in past for hours at a time - actually paying them to use energy - whether using for useful things (like moving a washing into cheap times) or say turning on a bar fire on in the middle of the garden in summer to get paid to burn kWh of power.  (Their was even a thread here discussing the morality of potentially "wasting power" in such ways - whether it was even wasteful at all)

So we have state - net zero policy - in control - actually interfering - de-stabilising the traditional supply and demand model - not by constraining peak supply to potentially require rationing - but by boosting it under the right weather conditions.

In fact the only rationing going on is amongst our poor and vulnerable - who cannot afford - not the luxury of what they might like to - but the basic standards of life - of using what they need - for a comfortable healthy existence.

As thanks to policy - including our rushed net zero policy - UK has amongst the highest energy costs in comparable countries.

While I generally agree with your comments you do appear to be confusing generation capacity with generation. At times our renewables capacity means that we can generate more than we need resulting in all the expenses associated with curtailment that you refer to but at times during the winter months there is a genuine shortage of generation because of intermittency of renewable generation. Much of the year we are relying on imports to fill the gaps but when they are tight prices surge. As @michaels suggests ToU tariffs play a role in managing demand or we might well need rationing. ToU pricing also includes the provision for surge (negative) pricing to enable consumers to dump excess generation into the garden which presumably is a cheaper option than curtailment. I have enjoyed many afternoons of negative pricing this summer.

These problems of generation shortages and excesses are solely the result of our renewables focussed generation policies (aka Net Zero madness) and lack of storage and the development of smart tariffs to manage demand is an integral part of the roll out of renewables. As you have pointed out the UK has some of the highest energy costs (both domestic and commercial) in the world but because of my solar panels and smart tariff I am not (so far) feeling these. Given the furore in the media about energy prices someone else must be taking my pain. 

MWT

JKenH said:

Chrysalis said:

This question could be applied to all sorts of services.

Is it unfair some people get a good retentions deal and others dont?
Is it fair supermarkets cater their best prices to larger households?

Ultimately though TOU is available to everyone, its a choice of whether to use the tariffs, and a choice of to get a smart meter for access to the best tariffs.

I think the only people who could feel hard done by, are those who have no access due to smart meter communication issues out of their control.

While ToU tariffs may theoretically be available to everyone many elderly people just don’t have the savvy or a computer to get on them. 

There is then that cohort of families who need to feed their children when they get home from school. Can they take advantage of ToU tariffs?

The comments on here will inevitably be skewed towards those who are already enjoying ToU and EV tariffs because they work for them and assume other people’s circumstances are the same. 

The older I get the more I wonder who these 'elderly people' are...? The reality is they are not a group defined by age, there are people of all ages who in your words 'don’t have the savvy or a computer to get on them.'

Also it would be a mistake to view ToU as equating to 'avoid 16:00-19:00', E7 is also a ToU tariff, probably still the most adopted ToU tariff. Yet still people do not fully understand if they really should be using it or not.

Even if the 'best' tariffs do put a premium on hours that are unavoidable it doesn't mean that the tariff should be completely avoided, it is just a balance between limiting the use in those periods where practical and shifting what you can to low-rate periods.

... and for now at least, there is no compulsion, nobody has to use any of the ToU tariffs if they do not want to or do not have the facilities or capability. 

Scot_39

JKenH said:

Scot_39 said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

I have started this thread to respond to a comment on a different thread ( Martin Lewis: Standing charges update risks households paying more) without taking that thread off topic

QrizB said:

» show previous quotes

This isn't entirely true if you look beyond standing charges (the subject of this thread) and include unit costs (which the thread has begun to include).

Someone on a flat rate tariff will be paying a weighed average price covering the entire period of the tariff (3 months for the SVT, 12 or more for a fix). Swapping to a ToU tariff will allow the householder to choose to use more electricity during cheaper periods and less during more expensive ones. This can save the householder money without creating a loss for the supplier that needs recovering from elsewhere. A "winner" without a corresponding "loser".

That is an interesting (and valid) point. 

Ultimately if every individual optimised their consumption to achieve the lowest import price on a ToU tariff then prices would adjust to meet demand until they levelled out. So at the moment those able to take advantage of ToU prices can do so because others can’t. 

That is the short answer and applies to tariffs such as EV tariffs which are underpinned by the variable utility of electricity - we value it more at tea time than in the middle of the night. 

The situation is more complicated with tariffs like Octopus Agile and Tracker and Intelligent Octopus which have arisen to reflect price variability driven by the intermittency of renewable generation and I concede there can be winners here without corresponding losers. In fact it can be win-win on occasions if curtailment is avoided as SVT customers also benefit. 

Seems a very odd question. Either we use prices to match supply and demand or we choose state control and rationing.

I don't see what state control has to do with rationing power.

Not at the moment anyway in UK.

In fact if anything its the exact opposite.

What we have is definitely not rationing - we have massive overcapacity thanks to net zero and renewables without storage model we use - so actual capacity duplication.

Solar (approaching 20GW) and wind (over 30GW) at certain times, and when they cannot, gas/biomass etc at others.

And the imbalance at times leading to folk like Octopus "dumping power" on people - certainly on agile in past for hours at a time - actually paying them to use energy - whether using for useful things (like moving a washing into cheap times) or say turning on a bar fire on in the middle of the garden in summer to get paid to burn kWh of power.  (Their was even a thread here discussing the morality of potentially "wasting power" in such ways - whether it was even wasteful at all)

So we have state - net zero policy - in control - actually interfering - de-stabilising the traditional supply and demand model - not by constraining peak supply to potentially require rationing - but by boosting it under the right weather conditions.

In fact the only rationing going on is amongst our poor and vulnerable - who cannot afford - not the luxury of what they might like to - but the basic standards of life - of using what they need - for a comfortable healthy existence.

As thanks to policy - including our rushed net zero policy - UK has amongst the highest energy costs in comparable countries.

While I generally agree with your comments you do appear to be confusing generation capacity with generation. At times our renewables capacity means that we can generate more than we need resulting in all the expenses associated with curtailment that you refer to but at times during the winter months there is a genuine shortage of generation because of intermittency of renewable generation. Much of the year we are relying on imports to fill the gaps but when they are tight prices surge. As @michaels suggests ToU tariffs play a role in managing demand or we might well need rationing. ToU pricing also includes the provision for surge (negative) pricing to enable consumers to dump excess generation into the garden which presumably is a cheaper option than curtailment. I have enjoyed many afternoons of negative pricing this summer.

These problems of generation shortages and excesses are solely the result of our renewables focussed generation policies (aka Net Zero madness) and lack of storage and the development of smart tariffs to manage demand is an integral part of the roll out of renewables. As you have pointed out the UK has some of the highest energy costs (both domestic and commercial) in the world but because of my solar panels and smart tariff I am not (so far) feeling these. Given the furore in the media about energy prices someone else must be taking my pain. 

No I fully understand the difference between capacity and actual generation.

Unlike it would seem those who continue to march us over the cliff, by accelerating down the path of installing 10s GW more of the same, at a cost of £10s billions pa we all pay for eventually.

Iirc the 95% by 2030 needs c£40bn pa at 2024 rates to achieve it.  Guess who pays in the end.

Intermittency is just a nice greenwashing term for unreliable or undependable - because what it means is we simply cannot afford to rely on them.
Edit 
"Failure would ve a better description even - because that's what it does - it fails to deliver the power we need from it.

So we have 2 generation sets - renewables and fossil - vying for same market business.
So we now have curtailment plus balancing costs forecast by NESO at £8bn - £250+ per connection - by end of decade."

Shutting our last coal plants the ultimate example of the problem.  Plants we relied on in 2024 when wind delivered just 1.6GW at one point - plant we couldn't use because mothballed and disconnected from grid in Jan 25 when wind failed us again. 

Whilst our German neighbours have a plan to ramp out their far higher - as dramatically increased it as part of response to Russian gas crisis - dependence on coal by 2038, dirty low efficiency lignite brown coal plants amongst those reopened, by 2035 iirc. 
Sanity over UKs accelerated "madness".  
Whilst we laughingly rely on upto 2.6GW of dirtier higher carbon emissions from Drax wood pellet generation, again imported from 1000s of miles away, and other schemes.

Its a model that is failing the majority of homes - and many businesses - homes who stay on conventional tariffs, svt and fixes alike - at a huge detrimental cost to the UK.
As UK races to be the first, it is simply risking being the first to wreck its collective wealth, it's economy by doing so.
Whilst other countries temper their approach, the UK has adopted 2030 based targets that are doing great harm to our economy in tge short term.  And failing the poorest, and most vulnerable in it, ax it does so.

Arguably the recent whd extension, just another admission of the failure of net zero to provide the promised savings.

Most people currently on gas for most of their energy needs are perversely still sheltered from it - but the greens will be coming after their gas generation emissions at some point.  

And the £bns in net zero money all too often spent on profits for foreign ownership, using foreign manufacturers and foreign labour to install. 

Whilst other aspects of your "aka net zero madness" - importing oil and gas from 1000s of miles away as we fail to develop our own reserves - at the cost of 10,000s jobs in N Sea oil and gas - 100,000s in recent decades.

So who is realky suffering right now, well

Those owners on all electric who dont have £1000s to invest in their own generation or heating upgrades that suit more modern tariffs. 
Those who even if do have cash, simply have no understanding of the tech available and the options, or if elderly or ill, the prospect of being in their homes for decade plus payback on such investments.

The millions of young and old - as many now are - who rent who do not have the control to do so.

And spare a thought for the million or so, who during this period of net zero loaded electricity costs, on mainly all electric I would guess - who have lost or about to lose old rts tariffs.  As some will lose suitable timing for heating needs, others will lose lower average rates on old dual metered systems via rts replacement metering e.g. day circuit meter from flat rate to mix of peak and off peak.
When I lost rts my predicted energy costs were 30% higher on the e10 with tge same heating circuit timings.