Plans for all major energy suppliers to offer at least one low Standing Charge tariff from Jan 2026

Scot_39

QrizB said:

born_again said:

If they want a S/C free product. Spend some money & go off grid, they would soon make the money back.

Or possibly "they would soon want ther grid connection back".

I'm sure that some people coud happily leave the grid, but others would find it a nightmare.

Remebered scanning this exchange and then this article has popped up on the BBC - 2000 properties identified but total unknown by Ofgem.

An interesting reality check - countering the perhaps romantic idea of living in such remote properties - particularly as age - and an interesting problem for the scrapping of ICE - EVs charged by diesel generator anybody ??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgd9l8wxjpo

Only a few interviewed - but suspect more in their situation would love to be paying a SC and have a grid connection instead of their various workarounds - solar, diesel, personal wind turbines etc.

QrizB

Saint Martin (cough) was on BBC Radio 4 a few minutes ago, talking about this.

I might have missed something but it sounded as though he thought there should be two different Ofgem caps, one with a standing charge and one without, and "vulnerable customers" (however you define them) should be automatically charged the lower of the two.

Exactly how everyone can save money while still raising enough that the costs of supplying energy are met, wasn't explained.

(I accept this would be possible by clever use of ToU tariffs to better utilise renewables and minimise abatement payments, but that's an entirely different proposition.)

I was reminded of Michael Gove as education secretary saying proudly how he hoped one day every school would be above average ...

born_again

Scot_39 said:

QrizB said:

born_again said:

If they want a S/C free product. Spend some money & go off grid, they would soon make the money back.

Or possibly "they would soon want ther grid connection back".

I'm sure that some people coud happily leave the grid, but others would find it a nightmare.

Remebered scanning this exchange and then this article has popped up on the BBC - 2000 properties identified but total unknown by Ofgem.

An interesting reality check - countering the perhaps romantic idea of living in such remote properties - particularly as age - and an interesting problem for the scrapping of ICE - EVs charged by diesel generator anybody ??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgd9l8wxjpo

Only a few interviewed - but suspect more in their situation would love to be paying a SC and have a grid connection instead of their various workarounds - solar, diesel, personal wind turbines etc.

Solar & wind. Possibly even hydro in some locations.

Why do people only think in terms of old technology to solve problems?

Never mind some of these people may not want any form of motorised transport.

GingerTim

QrizB said:

Saint Martin (cough) was on BBC Radio 4 a few minutes ago, talking about this.

I might have missed something but it sounded as though he thought there should be two different Ofgem caps, one with a standing charge and one without, and "vulnerable customers" (however you define them) should be automatically charged the lower of the two.

Exactly how everyone can save money while still raising enough that the costs of supplying energy are met, wasn't explained.

(I accept this would be possible by clever use of ToU tariffs to better utilise renewables and minimise abatement payments, but that's an entirely different proposition.)

I was reminded of Michael Gove as education secretary saying proudly how he hoped one day every school would be above average ...

On standing charges ML says it best, to quote the great philosopher R. Keating, when he says nothing at all.

wrf12345

As mentioned, the only way to get zero s/c to work is to have it as the sole default tariff, thus spreading the cost out amongst the max possible number of consumers - high users would still have the option to change tariffs if they want to and there would be good competition amongst providers to attract or retain them. The unit rate would go up by around ten percent, meaning only those above average use would lose out - totally in line with Green energy policies.

There is plenty of money sloshing around the energy companies, Octopus for instance giving six month s/c holidays (and free electric blankets) to those on benefits or very low income.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

As mentioned, the only way to get zero s/c to work is to have it as the sole default tariff, thus spreading the cost out amongst the max possible number of consumers - high users would still have the option to change tariffs if they want to and there would be good competition amongst providers to attract or retain them. The unit rate would go up by around ten percent, meaning only those above average use would lose out - totally in line with Green energy policies.

You keep repeating this incorrect figure but repeating it again and again does not make it true. Unit rates would increase between 50% and 100% depending on how the change impacted consumption. Everyone apart from the lowest 8% of users would loose out, largely those with solar and battery supplies at home.

wrf12345 said:

There is plenty of money sloshing around the energy companies, Octopus for instance giving six month s/c holidays (and free electric blankets) to those on benefits or very low income.

You are once again demonstrating that you totally misunderstand the finances of energy supply. Very low margin, but because of scale that means there are big numbers when it comes to profits.

Why do you insist on posting the same factually incorrect, economically illiterate statements again and again?

Spoonie_Turtle

wrf12345 said:

There is plenty of money sloshing around the energy companies, Octopus for instance giving six month s/c holidays (and free electric blankets) to those on benefits or very low income.

Is that (deliberately) sloppy wording or are you genuinely under the impression that all of Octopus' customers on benefits or other low income can get one?

Chrysalis

pseudodox said:

Chrysalis said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

I should be in favour of having the SC abolished as I have solar and batteries, but i'm not.

For £5.22 a week, I can flick a switch and a light comes on. I can turn on the hot tap and have hot running water. A lot of people pay that for a coffee or a pint. I believe we're very fortunate to have the infrastucture to do that for what I think is a very reasonable price.

Remember, there is nothing to stop you going off grid and having your meters removed.

To be fair £5 is a lot for SC, and a lot of money for some people as well.  What other utility is £20 plus a month whilst having no inclusive usage?

When you consider the state of the grid, state of metering, state of the suppliers, that we have some of the highest prices in the world for energy, I think its understandable where people wonder where all the money from these high standing charges have gone.

Not all of the SC goes to the infrastructure.

My modest elderly car (which I cannot afford to replace) costs me £22 per month VED.  On top of that I have to have insurance - another £16 per month.  Plus it needs an annual MOT which equates to almost £5 per month.  So over £40 per month even if I don't put in petrol and drive anywhere or have to pay out for any repairs, tyres etc.  But just as I value having water, light and heat at the flick of a switch I value having transport available 24/7, living in an area where there is limited local bus service within 2 miles of home. It gives me independence & allows me to visit elderly relatives and friends who live some distance away.  Today I made a rare visit to a cafe with friends.  A coffee cost me almost £4.  That is what I regard as "a lot of money".

Well a car isnt a utility, its not even a service.  Thats a device and you telling me running costs.
I am talking about utility services.

Chrysalis

born_again said:

Chrysalis said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

I should be in favour of having the SC abolished as I have solar and batteries, but i'm not.

For £5.22 a week, I can flick a switch and a light comes on. I can turn on the hot tap and have hot running water. A lot of people pay that for a coffee or a pint. I believe we're very fortunate to have the infrastucture to do that for what I think is a very reasonable price.

Remember, there is nothing to stop you going off grid and having your meters removed.

To be fair £5 is a lot for SC, and a lot of money for some people as well.  What other utility is £20 plus a month whilst having no inclusive usage?

When you consider the state of the grid, state of metering, state of the suppliers, that we have some of the highest prices in the world for energy, I think its understandable where people wonder where all the money from these high standing charges have gone.

Not all of the SC goes to the infrastructure.

How many of the people complaining about standing charges will spend more than that on their mobile phone monthly charge?

Agree with @powerful_Rogue
People need to look at the bigger picture. Not just focus on what is better for them.
If they want a S/C free product. Spend some money & go off grid, they would soon make the money back.

I am not aware of any £20 tariffs on mobile services that have no inclusive usage.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

born_again said:

Chrysalis said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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.

I should be in favour of having the SC abolished as I have solar and batteries, but i'm not.

For £5.22 a week, I can flick a switch and a light comes on. I can turn on the hot tap and have hot running water. A lot of people pay that for a coffee or a pint. I believe we're very fortunate to have the infrastucture to do that for what I think is a very reasonable price.

Remember, there is nothing to stop you going off grid and having your meters removed.

To be fair £5 is a lot for SC, and a lot of money for some people as well.  What other utility is £20 plus a month whilst having no inclusive usage?

When you consider the state of the grid, state of metering, state of the suppliers, that we have some of the highest prices in the world for energy, I think its understandable where people wonder where all the money from these high standing charges have gone.

Not all of the SC goes to the infrastructure.

How many of the people complaining about standing charges will spend more than that on their mobile phone monthly charge?

Agree with @powerful_Rogue
People need to look at the bigger picture. Not just focus on what is better for them.
If they want a S/C free product. Spend some money & go off grid, they would soon make the money back.

I am not aware of any £20 tariffs on mobile services that have no inclusive usage.

I am not aware of any mobile telephone services where the provider is told by a regulator how much they can charge their customers.

I am not aware of any mobile telephone service provider who is required to carry on providing the service to customers that don't pay.

Are you?