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

EssexHebridean

Qyburn said:

wrf12345 said:

It has always been obvious that the only way to introduce zero s/c tariff is to have it as the default with a ten percent increase in unit cost (15 percent in reality but the government is probably going to take the five percent VAT off) and a five percent tightening of the buy/sell margin (currently 10/25p) to force efficiency into the system. 

You expect suppliers to trade at a loss, just so you don't have to pay a standing charge.

Remember how well it worked out last time suppliers ended up trading at a loss?! 

As for the vat thing, there has been some discussion about it again in the past couple of weeks, hasn't there? 

WibbleBaaaaaa

EssexHebridean said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

EssexHebridean said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Scot_39 said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Standing charge should be based on size of property and usage, so if you are sitting in a 4 bedroom semi with gas and lekky running through the building then you should be paying for all that in a higher standing charge, while those sitting in say a 1 bedroom flat with just lekky should be the lowest standing charge.......but at present the whole system is so broken that those sitting in a 1 bedroom flat can be paying some of the highest standing charges just for lekky, and this needs to be fixed because usually it is the poor that are the ones sitting in the 1 bedroom freezing through the winter months.......it's wrong at every level and i do not understand why it has been allowed to continue in this manner.

So the one pays the gas c£130 and the electric c£200 - and the person in the flat pays just the electric c£200

You missed the point totally, which around here is no surprise, so again for the crowd in the balcany, it does not matter if you have only lekky or gas, or both, what matters is that larger properties should be paying a bigger standing charge period for their lekky or gas sc because their larger property requires more piping and cabling, so as i said, the 4 bedroom house should NOT have a lower lekky standing charge than the 1 bedroom flat lekky standing charge, no matter where it is in the UK, the smaller properties should always cost less in lekky or gas standing charge than the bigger properties.

So that 4 bedroom house should in fact be paying at least 70p sc and upwards for their lekky, and the 1 bedroom should be paying 20p sc or less for their lekky, no matter where they are in the UK.........job done, people pay what they actually should be paying for their bigger properties and the materials it uses to transmit lekky and gas around said bigger properties, rather than at present where people sitting in small properties are paying more in lekky sc than people who live in largers properties, and all because of locations, and that is just wrong as the smaller properties with higher SC are basically funding the lower charges for bigger homes......and that is wrong on every level, and this is what Ofgem needs to change, lekky and gas standing charges based on property size, and not location.

BIB - whatever makes you think that - my gas supply to my old flat was fed with exactly the same size pipe to he same sized meter as my far larger house. Meanwhile on the electric side, the incoming cable was the same size as current, as was the meter, in real terms. The main fuse however had a greater capacity at the flat because the flat had electric heating. 

Standing charge should absolutely not be related to property size, and making it so would leave a lot of folk who could ill afford it in a far worse position currently. property size is irrelevant to the infrastructure in almost all cases.

I'm afraid your lengthy and repeated argument is based entirely on a misunderstanding of the facts. 

On the flip side, the flat did have two balconies in spite of being ground floor - one large enough to fit a small crowd, at least. 

And this is why we are all in this state, we are funding people who made bad decisions about debut and lifestyles the could ill afford, so now everyone else is supposed to take up the slack for their inability to live within their means, so if one cannot afford to buy and run a large property, then one should NOT have bought said property, it is simply maths, you can't afford it then do not take it on, and most certainly do not then roam the halls weeping about about how one cannot afford it, so everyone else should sholder the burden of their bad decisions.

Sc can be fixed tomorrow with ease, either charge on property size, you can afford a big home, then you obviuoly got the money to pay for all that brings with it, or make the SC a blanket cost across the whole UK, no percentage of people due to location lottery should be getting a specific lower lekky sc that can be almost half the price of others in the country, this needs to stop and the SC made a blanek cost across the whole UK, and that is the fair way to do it and will actually bring down the majority of the countries present SC.

Job done, no need to thank me.

You actually believe you're right on this one don't you...astonishing! Which bit of "property size is irrelevant to the infrastructure in almost all cases" do you not grasp?  

This feels like another scenario where someone living in a small property actually thinks for some reason that they should be subsidised by everyone else - we've seen this time and time again with these SC conversations, and these arguments are almost always presented by those who know they would be better off that way, and are happy to have that happen at everyone else's expense! 

Again - allowing that it has been explained to you that the infrastructure remains the same whether we're talking about a 1 bed flat or a 4 bed house (or larger!) - please explain your justification for suggesting that larger properties should pay higher SCs? 

Oh dear, judging by this attack it seems i have hit the nail firmly on the head for some and come way too close to the truth for some..........well there you have it, conformation that i am 100% correct on how to fix the Sc for the majority of the UK, i mean when you are attacked here on this forum, then you know you are on the right path.

And i will say this again, no need to thank me.

michaels

wrf12345 said:

It has always been obvious that the only way to introduce zero s/c tariff is to have it as the default with a ten percent increase in unit cost (15 percent in reality but the government is probably going to take the five percent VAT off) and a five percent tightening of the buy/sell margin (currently 10/25p) to force efficiency into the system. That way all users up to the average would benefit and high users would have lots of alternative tariffs to choose from as that would become a highly competitive market. Moving to this system will make it much Greener as it would encourage lower usage, with instant benefits for those on the lower income scale who decide to cut back and even more incentive to install solar panels. Some of the cost would be moved on to gas, the default tariff having no s/c but a 20 percent rise in unit costs, encouraging more heat pumps, especially if the air-2-air systems come under the grants, which would basically be free installs if at £7500. Apart from the grants, the only government money involved would be the loss of five percent VAT, perhaps recovered the following year by putting ten percent on gas - earlier or later, depending where the gas price goes.

Please apply a modicum of rational thought to your posts - if the supply companies are buying power at 10p per unit and selling it at 25p then their margins would be more than the regulator mandated 4% of turnover - more like 150%.  Brain in gear please.

EssexHebridean

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

EssexHebridean said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

EssexHebridean said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Scot_39 said:

WibbleBaaaaaa said:

Standing charge should be based on size of property and usage, so if you are sitting in a 4 bedroom semi with gas and lekky running through the building then you should be paying for all that in a higher standing charge, while those sitting in say a 1 bedroom flat with just lekky should be the lowest standing charge.......but at present the whole system is so broken that those sitting in a 1 bedroom flat can be paying some of the highest standing charges just for lekky, and this needs to be fixed because usually it is the poor that are the ones sitting in the 1 bedroom freezing through the winter months.......it's wrong at every level and i do not understand why it has been allowed to continue in this manner.

So the one pays the gas c£130 and the electric c£200 - and the person in the flat pays just the electric c£200

You missed the point totally, which around here is no surprise, so again for the crowd in the balcany, it does not matter if you have only lekky or gas, or both, what matters is that larger properties should be paying a bigger standing charge period for their lekky or gas sc because their larger property requires more piping and cabling, so as i said, the 4 bedroom house should NOT have a lower lekky standing charge than the 1 bedroom flat lekky standing charge, no matter where it is in the UK, the smaller properties should always cost less in lekky or gas standing charge than the bigger properties.

So that 4 bedroom house should in fact be paying at least 70p sc and upwards for their lekky, and the 1 bedroom should be paying 20p sc or less for their lekky, no matter where they are in the UK.........job done, people pay what they actually should be paying for their bigger properties and the materials it uses to transmit lekky and gas around said bigger properties, rather than at present where people sitting in small properties are paying more in lekky sc than people who live in largers properties, and all because of locations, and that is just wrong as the smaller properties with higher SC are basically funding the lower charges for bigger homes......and that is wrong on every level, and this is what Ofgem needs to change, lekky and gas standing charges based on property size, and not location.

BIB - whatever makes you think that - my gas supply to my old flat was fed with exactly the same size pipe to he same sized meter as my far larger house. Meanwhile on the electric side, the incoming cable was the same size as current, as was the meter, in real terms. The main fuse however had a greater capacity at the flat because the flat had electric heating. 

Standing charge should absolutely not be related to property size, and making it so would leave a lot of folk who could ill afford it in a far worse position currently. property size is irrelevant to the infrastructure in almost all cases.

I'm afraid your lengthy and repeated argument is based entirely on a misunderstanding of the facts. 

On the flip side, the flat did have two balconies in spite of being ground floor - one large enough to fit a small crowd, at least. 

And this is why we are all in this state, we are funding people who made bad decisions about debut and lifestyles the could ill afford, so now everyone else is supposed to take up the slack for their inability to live within their means, so if one cannot afford to buy and run a large property, then one should NOT have bought said property, it is simply maths, you can't afford it then do not take it on, and most certainly do not then roam the halls weeping about about how one cannot afford it, so everyone else should sholder the burden of their bad decisions.

Sc can be fixed tomorrow with ease, either charge on property size, you can afford a big home, then you obviuoly got the money to pay for all that brings with it, or make the SC a blanket cost across the whole UK, no percentage of people due to location lottery should be getting a specific lower lekky sc that can be almost half the price of others in the country, this needs to stop and the SC made a blanek cost across the whole UK, and that is the fair way to do it and will actually bring down the majority of the countries present SC.

Job done, no need to thank me.

You actually believe you're right on this one don't you...astonishing! Which bit of "property size is irrelevant to the infrastructure in almost all cases" do you not grasp?  

This feels like another scenario where someone living in a small property actually thinks for some reason that they should be subsidised by everyone else - we've seen this time and time again with these SC conversations, and these arguments are almost always presented by those who know they would be better off that way, and are happy to have that happen at everyone else's expense! 

Again - allowing that it has been explained to you that the infrastructure remains the same whether we're talking about a 1 bed flat or a 4 bed house (or larger!) - please explain your justification for suggesting that larger properties should pay higher SCs? 

Oh dear, judging by this attack it seems i have hit the nail firmly on the head for some and come way too close to the truth for some..........well there you have it, conformation that i am 100% correct on how to fix the Sc for the majority of the UK, i mean when you are attacked here on this forum, then you know you are on the right path.

And i will say this again, no need to thank me.

You seem to be confusing someone telling you that you are incorrect about something for some form of personal attack - the two things really are quite different! 

Now - as you seem to have overlooked the question I'll ask again -  allowing that it has been explained to you that the infrastructure remains the same whether we're talking about a 1 bed flat or a 4 bed house (or larger!) - please explain your justification for suggesting that larger properties should pay higher SCs?  

QrizB

I find the "ignore" function quite helpful at times like this. Just saying!

The_Green_Hornet

QrizB said:

I find the "ignore" function quite helpful at times like this. Just saying!

I find not hitting the "quote" button has the same result.

wrf12345

"Please apply a modicum of rational thought to your posts - if the supply companies are buying power at 10p per unit and selling it at 25p then their margins would be more than the regulator mandated 4% of turnover - more like 150%.  Brain in gear please."

The average wholesale price of electric is roughly 10p, the average unit cost to the consumer is roughly 25p - that is a huge margin before overheads and running costs are taken into account. The 2-4 percent of turnover (not sure which figure is correct) comes after the big companies have possibly offshored a huge chunk of profit (via things like call centres) and in some cases moved the "profit" into the coffers of energy producers who are part of the same group or able to kickback the money. That is why there is such a fuss when small companies come along with lower unit rates and standing charges, showing up the large companies. There is no comparison to reducing the margin from 10p/25p to say 10p/23p to when the buying price was higher than sell prices back when Russia went mad.

Again, the only way to get enough mass of consumers to make zero tariffs viable is to have it as the standard tariff when both low users and those up to the fabled average users will gain.

debitcardmayhem

QrizB said:

I find the "ignore" function quite helpful at times like this. Just saying!

The_Green_Hornet said:

QrizB said:

I find the "ignore" function quite helpful at times like this. Just saying!

I find not hitting the "quote" button has the same result.

I must stick to my mantra DNFTT

Qyburn

born_again said:

Qyburn said:

wrf12345 said:

It has always been obvious that the only way to introduce zero s/c tariff is to have it as the default with a ten percent increase in unit cost (15 percent in reality but the government is probably going to take the five percent VAT off)

Is that actually proposed, to remove VAT from domestic energy?

Aside from that, your plan would mean a saving for low users, I guess that includes you. So suppliers get less money. As we all know they run on wafer thin margins at the moment, so that means prices have to rise for other users. If the high users cut back, their prices will need to rise further.

Removing VAT would not mean suppliers getting less money. VAT goes to Government, who are looking to save money, not give it away.

That's why I said "aside from that".  Meaning aside from the highly dubious VAT claim. To spell it out !!!!!! wants a zero s/c tariff with a 10% (or 15%) increase in unit price. Meaning low users pay less, meaning suppliers get less from those users.

Qyburn

wrf12345 said:

The average wholesale price of electric is roughly 10p, the average unit cost to the consumer is roughly 25p  ...

That's akin to comparing the price of bread with the wholesale price of wheat. 

It's as if you just have a dogmatic insistence that suppliers must be making monstrous profits, and the fact that their contradict you proves (in your head) that they must be cooking the books.