Status of No Standing Charge Tariff for December 2025

fiscoking

Does anyone know the status of the proposed zero standing charge tariff for utilities as of December 2025?

Ofgem did a consultation back in Nov 2023 and the press releases after closure in 2024 suggested all utility suppliers were to offer at least one tariff by Winter 2025.  Well, one year later and none of the main suppliers I've rung are offering one at present.

Ofgem publications can be found at the link below, and I now see the question has gone back out to consultation, this time for 'reduced' standing charges: '​Requirement to offer lower standing charge tariffs'.

If this is the case then it looks like Ofgem have caved into pressure from industry and they're still just talking about it.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-regulation/domestic-and-non-domestic/energy-pricing-rules/standing-charges/standing-charges-publications

MattMattMattUK

fiscoking said:

Does anyone know the status of the proposed zero standing charge tariff for utilities as of December 2025?

Ofgem did a consultation back in Nov 2023 and the press releases after closure in 2024 suggested all utility suppliers were to offer at least one tariff by Winter 2025.  Well, one year later and none of the main suppliers I've rung are offering one at present.

Ofgem publications can be found at the link below, and I now see the question has gone back out to consultation, this time for 'reduced' standing charges: '​Requirement to offer lower standing charge tariffs'.

If this is the case then it looks like Ofgem have caved into pressure from industry and they're still just talking about it.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-regulation/domestic-and-non-domestic/energy-pricing-rules/standing-charges/standing-charges-publications

There are major issues with the concept of zero standing charge tariffs, vulnerable users may switch thinking it would be cheaper without accounting for the higher unit rate, it may mean suppliers would be losing money on those customers as the original proposal required they had over the network fees and charges even if the customer was not billed anything and in almost all cases it would result in a subsidy of low net users (largely those with solar and batteries) by those who use more than 1 kWh a day. 

It has not had anything to do with "caving into pressure from the industry" and more from taking a rational approach. 

fiscoking

MattMattMattUK said:

There are major issues with the concept of zero standing charge tariffs..

There will always be winners and losers when change happens.Those that subsidize the rest. I thought that was the point of the proposal, otherwise why propose it?

MattMattMattUK said:

It has not had anything to do with "caving into pressure from the industry" and more from taking a rational approach. 

Ofgem said suppliers would be forced to offer a zero standing charge tariff back in 2024, after the public consultation had closed. Now it's a 'reduced' charge tariff - which means those on a full charge will still be subing the reduced charge crowd, just to a lesser extent, if it ever happens at all.

If Ofgem didn't cave in to industry, what was the point of the original consultation and proposal that followed on zero rates? If they knew it was unworkable and had major issues then they were deliberately wasting time, which I find hard to believe.

In any case, I just wanted to know if their proposals had become law yet, and the answer seems to be 'no', which is a shame. I thought the regulator was going to do something useful for once.

matt_drummer

fiscoking said:

In any case, I just wanted to know if their proposals had become law yet, and the answer seems to be 'no', which is a shame. I thought the regulator was going to do something useful for once.

Useful for who?

matt_drummer

You don't get what standing charges are.

They are your share of the fixed costs, those determined by the regulator.

If you do not pay your share everybody else will have pay it for you.

Your standing charge covers your facility to draw as much electricity as you want (up to the limit of your main fuse) whenever you want.

It is not related to how much electricity you actually use, that is covered by your usage charge.

Your kettle, your washing machine, your oven use just the same amount of instantaneous power as everybody elses.

If you choose to use your appliances less than me then you pay less than me, but you must pay the same as me for the same ability to do what you want when you want.

If you want to do some welding you can, at whatever time of day you feel like doing it. If you only weld for 5 minutes then your usage charge will be quite low. You still need to pay for being able to weld whenever you want to! Just like me!

If you want to pay lower standing charges then you should have a lower level of service than those who pay the full charge.

So limit the amount of power you can draw at any time and then a lower service charge would be appropriate.

But whilst you have the same level of service as everybody else, you should pay the same as everybody else, why shouldn't you?


Around 50p per day to be able to use any electrical appliance you want at any time is an absolute bargain, it is repaired foc and works without fault almost all of the time, name us anything that represents better value for money?

born_again

fiscoking said:

If Ofgem didn't cave in to industry, what was the point of the original consultation and proposal that followed on zero rates? If they knew it was unworkable and had major issues then they were deliberately wasting time, which I find hard to believe.

They realised from the consultation that it was not a workable idea.
That is the whole point of a consultation. The likes of ML & their fad at the time, with no thought of how it could work causes consultations by the likes of Ofgem, or they just get called lackies of the suppliers.

Even one of the few (or only one?) Utilita pulled a zero S/C tariff not so long ago & now only offer it to PAYG customers. But state from £3.14 a day. (Average price)
https://utilita.co.uk/energy

MattMattMattUK

fiscoking said:

MattMattMattUK said:

There are major issues with the concept of zero standing charge tariffs..

There will always be winners and losers when change happens.Those that subsidize the rest. I thought that was the point of the proposal, otherwise why propose it?

The current system of standing charges and unit rates means that there is a small subsidy from average and high users to low users, abolishing standing charges turns that into a substantial subsidy. Many often claim that the abolition of standing charges would be "fair", however they do not mean fair in the traditional sense, but they mean "I want my own way and I want other people to subsidise me", which is not what most people would view as fair. 

The consultation was largely a response to the regular tantrums that people were having in the media, the proposal was to look at it and see if it was viable, even though they already knew it would not be, because they had to be seen to be addressing the tantrums.

fiscoking said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It has not had anything to do with "caving into pressure from the industry" and more from taking a rational approach. 

Ofgem said suppliers would be forced to offer a zero standing charge tariff back in 2024, after the public consultation had closed. Now it's a 'reduced' charge tariff - which means those on a full charge will still be subing the reduced charge crowd, just to a lesser extent, if it ever happens at all.

If Ofgem didn't cave in to industry, what was the point of the original consultation and proposal that followed on zero rates? If they knew it was unworkable and had major issues then they were deliberately wasting time, which I find hard to believe.

The point of the original proposal was to shut up the loud shouty people, when government realised that them originally pushing Ofgem to do this would create even more loud shouty people they told them to backtrack and changed the terms of the consultation, hence slightly reducing standing charges and increasing unit rates. Nothing to do with "caving to industry" and everything to do with the political reality, especially as low users who would benefit from the subsidy are mostly those with solar and batteries and those with higher usage are those at home more often, parents with young children, the elderly and disabled, which has awful optics for any government. 

fiscoking said:

In any case, I just wanted to know if their proposals had become law yet, and the answer seems to be 'no', which is a shame. I thought the regulator was going to do something useful for once.

Abolishing standing charges would not be "useful", it would be pandering to shouty selfish people. 

fiscoking

MattMattMattUK said:

Abolishing standing charges would not be "useful", it would be pandering to shouty selfish people. 

LOL. Bit of an extreme view there fella.

It's just pay as you go for standing charges by another name. The utilities still get their cut via higher unit prices. Many of the arguments against on this thread apply to any PAYG system. All it really comes down to is differing definitions of 'fair'.

It would certainly be useful to me, and many others as well because the original public consultation received huge support for abolition.

I'll be glad when it does go ahead, even in reduced form.

Scot_39

The initial OFgem consultation got c30,000 responses - yes a lot for them - but they dont often open them up to the public - so yes it might even have seemed a lot to them - many supporting - but many negative too.

But even if all 30,000 were supportive - thats 0.1% of homes in the UK.

Shouty people may be the wrong term in this case to use against individuals - but it's also a generic phrase for anything where policy driven by opinionated minorities - and 30k was certainly a tiny minority of homes by any reasonable analysis.

I hope if they do introduce it - they ring fence it from others on the standard cap - and then set the limits so nearly everyone saves nothing. 

To prove what a pointless distraction to all the added costs on our bills completely unrelated to the cheapest ways to buy and distribute energy to our homes.  

Including even more govt policy costs in the last 2 cap announcements - and again those policy costs - adding to standing charges - as well as unit rates - especially so on electric.

A couple of 100kWh per year should see to that for any even part time occupied properties - and to cover summer solar / battery users who import nothing several months of the year.  But still need the grid to export - and to get power when the sun doesnt shine

Qyburn

fiscoking said:

It's just pay as you go for standing charges by another name. The utilities still get their cut via higher unit prices. Many of the arguments against on this thread apply to any PAYG system. All it really comes down to is differing definitions of 'fair'.

They don't if you're just considering people who would take up the zero standing charge option. That will only be people who would be better off even with the higher unit rates. To to spell it out that means people who will overall pay less for receiving the same amount of energy.

A saving for a subset of customers would need to be made up from somewhere. Given the fine margins allowed to suppliers I can't see where that can come except by a price rise for everyone else.

MattMattMattUK

fiscoking said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Abolishing standing charges would not be "useful", it would be pandering to shouty selfish people. 

LOL. Bit of an extreme view there fella.

It is rational, not extreme.

fiscoking said:

It's just pay as you go for standing charges by another name. The utilities still get their cut via higher unit prices. Many of the arguments against on this thread apply to any PAYG system. 

There is a fixed cost of providing a connection to the grid, network connections must be maintained, transformers must be maintained, sufficient transmission capacity must be in place to support that connection so that the consumer can then draw up to 100 amps on demand. The cost of maintaining that connection is the standing charge, the energy used is the unit rate. For most PAYG systems the fixed costs are minimal or in many cases basically zero, so not comparable.

fiscoking said:
All it really comes down to is differing definitions of 'fair'.

No, it does not. Those arguing for the abolition of standing charges want to be subsidised by other people, that by any definition is inherently unfair. The current system is fair because people pay for the cost of their connection and the cost of their usage, any system which moves away creates a subsidised group, or expands low users who are already subsidised, which is inherently unfair.

fiscoking said:

It would certainly be useful to me, and many others as well

It would be beneficial to you, because you would save money, at the expense of others, your statements demonstrate you have a selfish desire to be subsidised. 

fiscoking said:
because the original public consultation received huge support for abolition.

All that demonstrates is that there are a huge number of people who are either selfish and/or do not understand the costs of energy supply, nothing more.

fiscoking said:

I'll be glad when it does go ahead, even in reduced form.

Good for you, selfishness rules, and people wonder why the country is in the state it is in.