Status of No Standing Charge Tariff for December 2025

EssexHebridean

Qyburn said:

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.

I suspect that for every customer who took up the zero standing charge tariff because it would save them money, there would be another who would take it up because they think it would save them money, and would end up paying more… we see on an almost daily basis here how little understanding people have of how unit rates affect what they pay - and many of those people will be the same ones shouting about how terrible the standing charges are because they don’t truly understand those, either. That lack of understanding is a financial nightmare waiting in the wings. 

fiscoking

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81784219#Comment_81784219

You're over thinking this Matt. It's not selfish at all, it's just a different way of charging for the service.

Anyway, thanks for the long reply.

Spoonie_Turtle

It's not selfish at all, it's just a different way of charging for the service.

"I want other people to pay more so I can pay less" is a definitive example of selfishness.

(Quite literally definitive, it's exactly the sort of example we'd use to teach little children.)

tfhnota

People who behave in a Green manner should be rewarded, so low users should get low or zero s/c's with high users getting higher s/c's and unit rates to reign them in. Similarly solar pv and battery users should have lower s/c's as they are taking a huge load off the overtaxed Grid.

GingerTim

What would you do about the elderly, those with disabilities, those who live in some of the UK's wide range of poor quality housing, and those with medical conditions' who will he high users through no fault of their own? Why should they be punished and 'reined in' like you suggest?

Spoonie_Turtle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857209#Comment_81857209

They already are rewarded: with lower usage they pay less. Fewer kWh used = lower bill.

And people with high usage throughout the day or at non-green times that can't be load-shifted, especially those without green tech, are already 'punished' (if we're going with the reward framing) by generally not benefiting from smart tariffs that bring other people's bills down.

The only potential argument is for those with energy companies who'll charge a lot to disconnect their gas if they use nothing because they've changed their heating to not be gas, so their only options are pay the standing charge or pay the disconnection - but that's a separate issue from standing charges themselves. Octopus manage to disconnect gas for free because they believe in encouraging 'green' behaviour like stopping uaing gas. EDIT: and British Gas apparently, of which I was previously unaware.

bristolleedsfan

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857614#Comment_81857614

Maybe Octopus disconnect and cap Gas meter for free being as British Gas were doing so before Octopus existed and continue to do so.

Octopus have always priced electricity standard fixed rates higher than most, whilst pricing gas one of the cheapest,

michaels

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857209#Comment_81857209

I can see this but presumably it should be based on total domestic energy consumption per householder?

And exclude ev charging?

And have dispensation for health reasons?

And be adjusted for those who's properties can not be made energy efficient?

And for those in rental accomodation who can not make their properties energy efficient?

And for those on lie incomes who can not afford to make their properties energy efficient?

And......

Scot_39

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857209#Comment_81857209

If anything solar and battery time shift exporters should be paying not a reduced standing charge - but one for import and one for export - and directly paying for any additional constraint payments / balancing costs to grid level generators - their personal export causes - in todays - certainly in summer - often over saturated generation vs demand market.

When a dno has to send a team to adjust say your local sub transformer tap points - thats a new cost share amongst all users.

And if consider the grid balance in summer - even at todays installed renewables capacity (32GW wind - at 35% load factor say 12GW, 21.5GW solar and 5GW nuclear if include as carbon free vs c 27GW demand last summer) and in winter with solars limited output in particular some days - and its pretty obvious why solar is not a good solution for the UK.

And as to solar ability to impact UK winter peak demand - a joke - if the costs were not so high - on days like today (well yesterday)

the solar output on grid iamkate site -

started to register above 0.0GW at 830am - by which time grid demand was already over 42 GW

it then peaked at 2.15 GW 1230 slot - when grid demand over 46 GW

and died back to 0.0GW by 430pm - when grid demand over 44 GW

Just 0.43GW - 1.1 % of demand. We are now over a month from the shortest day of the year. And yet still 17hrs of 24 - without even 0.1GW output recorded.

Thats from c21.5GWp total solar in the UK as of this months latest figures.

Reaaistically just grid level - say 15-16GW grid level the rest domestic based on past split (about 1/3rd of last springs 18GW was domestic).

And whilst greens rush to extend the current c53GW of theoretical capacity - just over q yeaf ago - in the early am on Jan 22nd - wind was producing as litle as 0.25- 0.3GW for hours - in early am and as nightime solar again 0. £100sbn in costs for 0.27GW of power. Rrnewables lows - failing to keep our lights and hesting on, our energy intensive businessses running.

And why we need far more nuclear and yes the new gas plant we ars currently building - which the greens plan on adding their costs to too - like Milibands c£22bn plan for CCS.

EssexHebridean

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81857209#Comment_81857209

I'm curious - for the final two years of my Dad's life he relied on a machine to supply him with added oxygen at home. This machine used a fairly high amount of electricity. You feel that people with medical conditions that mean they have no choice but to use electricity in higher than average amounts should be "punished" for this because they are "not being green". On the flip side, many of those with solar and batteries are inevitably more affluent individuals as the initial installation of these comes at a fairly substantial cost - you feel those affluent individuals should be "rewarded" in effect, for being affluent? You aren't by any chance at all a healthy owner of solar panels and perhaps batteries tooo, are you?

How do users of EVs fit in with your thinking? I'm unsure how you would balance simultaneously rewarding them for being green by having an EV, while also punishing them for using a lot of electricity?