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

superkoopauk

QrizB said:

Thinking of alternative ways to structure the GB domestic energy market, you could split the cost of "providing a connection to the grid" from the cost of "supplying energy". So you'd have two electricity bills; one from your DNO (SSEN, SPEN, WPS etc) for the costs associated with the connection, and a second one from your chosen energy supplier (Octopus, BG, Outfox ...) for the electricity you've used.

This won't reduce prices but will make it more transparent to certain people as to what they're actually paying for with their "standing charge".

Why get the DNO's to do it?  Why can't suppliers provide a breakdown the standing charge elements?

pseudodox

I regard myself as so fortunate to have water, electricity and gas at the turn of a tap/flick of a switch.  I don't have to walk to a water hole, I don't have to rub sticks together to get fire.  And that when there is a problem like a power blackout, such as we might see in the next few days in some areas from Storm Amy, someone out there will ride to the rescue and get everything working again whilst I snuggle up under a duvet, reading by torchlight.  

Just had some Aussie friends to stay and really noticed how careful they were with water.  Back home they have no mains supply and rely on capturing rain water and when that runs out in a dry spell they have to pay for a tank delivery, so can have days where they have to be super frugal until it arrives.  One of their reasons for having a pool installed a few years back was for an on-site water supply in case of bush fires (which have come scarily close on occasions).  

QrizB

superkoopauk said:

QrizB said:

Thinking of alternative ways to structure the GB domestic energy market, you could split the cost of "providing a connection to the grid" from the cost of "supplying energy". So you'd have two electricity bills; one from your DNO (SSEN, SPEN, WPS etc) for the costs associated with the connection, and a second one from your chosen energy supplier (Octopus, BG, Outfox ...) for the electricity you've used.

This won't reduce prices but will make it more transparent to certain people as to what they're actually paying for with their "standing charge".

Why get the DNO's to do it? 

Bcause they operate the distribution network, and they own your supply as far as their cutout.

If there's a more appropriate organisation, I don't know who it would be (unless you'd ather add it on to Council Tax, a bit like the police and fire costs are handled).

superkoopauk said:

Why can't suppliers provide a breakdown the standing charge elements?

If you want a fully detailed breakdown, there's maybe a dozen different elements. Too much to include on a monthly energy bill (and I say this as someone whose monthly bill runs to 35 pages already).
You can find all the info on Ofgem's website.

matelodave

Lets base standing charges on the distance from the generating station so those who live further away pay more as they are using more of the infrastructure. A bit sad for those who live in rural locations and TBH there aren't many generating stations in the middle of towns or cities so that would clobber them as well.

Secondly lets have a tiered service charge, those who don't want to pay up front just pay for their energy but have to pay extra to get their electricity/gas reconnected if there's an outage whereas those who pay the s/c get it done automatically. 

To extend that concept, lets also have a tiered repair policy where you can pay extra for a premium or priority service and get repairs done immediately or pay a reduced s/c but the supplier has only to commit to a "best efforts" to get you back up after an outage.

Should be interesting in the case of storms or major outages. A bit like first and second class post (no deliveries or repairs over the weekend or outside office hours)

As @QrizB says, go off grid and sort it out yourself with solar panels, batteries, even a generator. Not forgetting the effort involved going down to the builders merchant/Calor depot to pick up your gas or the garage to get fuel for the genny.

Spoonie_Turtle

QrizB said:

Thinking of alternative ways to structure the GB domestic energy market, you could split the cost of "providing a connection to the grid" from the cost of "supplying energy". So you'd have two electricity bills; one from your DNO (SSEN, SPEN, WPS etc) for the costs associated with the connection, and a second one from your chosen energy supplier (Octopus, BG, Outfox ...) for the electricity you've used.

This won't reduce prices but will make it more transparent to certain people as to what they're actually paying for with their "standing charge".

I wonder how many people would think the extra clarity would be worth paying the extra costs for the DNOs and GDNs setting up customer service and a retail billing systems.  Plus the potential hassle of having to deal with double the number of energy bills.

VoucherMan

GingerTim said:

wrf12345 said:

The reality still remains that the network costs can be added to the unit cost so that the more you use the more you pay (especially given that the Grid has to be upgraded to meet the accumulated needs of high users not low users) 

A connection to the grid is a connection to the grid, no matter how much you use.

I may have it completely wrong, so feel free to correct me, but aren't 'network costs' much more than the grid connection,? A recent guide I came across has a useful breakdown.
One example that could be used to highlight the 'unfairness' of the current system is Eastern Green Link. We need them for all the extra energy we're generating, yet if it weren't for the 'high users' we wouldn't need all the extra energy in the first place. 
To me, that would be much fairer added to the unit cost.

QrizB

matelodave said:

As QrizB says, go off grid and sort it out yourself with solar panels, batteries, even a generator.

75-80% of my household electricity demand is met by locally-grown, artisanally-harvested, zero-miles electrons. Not those grubby, uncivilised, ultra-processed industrial electrons that your multinational energy supplier finds sloshing around on the wholesale markets.

But I'm still happy to pay for my grid connection.

debitcardmayhem

VoucherMan said:

GingerTim said:

wrf12345 said:

The reality still remains that the network costs can be added to the unit cost so that the more you use the more you pay (especially given that the Grid has to be upgraded to meet the accumulated needs of high users not low users) 

A connection to the grid is a connection to the grid, no matter how much you use.

I may have it completely wrong, so feel free to correct me, but aren't 'network costs' much more than the grid connection,? A recent guide I came across has a useful breakdown.
One example that could be used to highlight the 'unfairness' of the current system is Eastern Green Link. We need them for all the extra energy we're generating, yet if it weren't for the 'high users' we wouldn't need all the extra energy in the first place. 
To me, that would be much fairer added to the unit cost.

Oh like electric cars/buses/vans/bin lorries,not forgetting the data centres which use electricity for you to voice your opinion. And to service your mobile phones , etc.

matt_drummer

Scot_39 said:

Its a discount on the top line that includes the cost of providing the benefit.

Everyone knows its a £150 reduction - the problem is the top line - which includes the cost of the benefit.

And all the other costs the govt keeps adding.

Av cap up £35 - wholesale cost in that cap down £15 ex vat and margins.  So £51+ in extras elesewhere.

So its not a net £150 benefit.

Its classic govt smoke and mirrors - give with one hand - and take (policy costs) take (net zero costs) take (other costs) with the others.

The UK official inflation target is 2% per annum.

The ave DF cap went up 2% - the profile class 2 cap went up 3% yesterday  - in just one quarter - there's already another nuclear cost to be fed in for new funding model (maybe of similar order to WHD £17).

So in the Oct Ofgem split - lets see where the rises are coming form - well the  

The network costs went up 6% - including net zero

The policy costs went up 9% - including WHD

Levelisation on DD DF - up 19% (only up c£2).

If it wasn't for wholesale dropping 2% - our bills - including those on WHD - would be higher still. 

You woud think this govt and Ofgem - didnt realise the official inflation target in the UK is 2% - per annum ( and not 2% / 3% per quarter).

Wholesale cost lines have risen c£200 since pre crisis in late 21/early 22 - the cap itself - £478.

£150 doesnt come close to covering the difference

It's £150 more than I get!

As me not getting the WHD and somebody receiving pay the same towards it, they end up a net £150 better off compared to me.

And it's all relative, somebody getting WHD has £150 more than somebody not receiving it.

Let's not forget, many of us are paying for something that we will never get but don't keep complaining about it.

Bendo

matelodave said:

Lets base standing charges on the distance from the generating station so those who live further away pay more as they are using more of the infrastructure. A bit sad for those who live in rural locations and TBH there aren't many generating stations in the middle of towns or cities so that would clobber them as well.

Isn't that already the case with the regional SC and unit rates? Here in Merseyside and North Wales we have some of the highest SCs. Although the system quite clearly doesn't work as intended as I live a stones throw from the site of Fiddlers Ferry and even when that was chucking out it's huge clouds of steam, we still got the higher SC.