Compulsory Smart Meters.

Rip Off Britain item today. The official mouthpieces are obviously well versed in talking !!!!!!!! and believing it !

DavidP24 wrote: »

Look we were told when this sheeet was privatised that it would be good because we would not have to pay for infrastructure, well that was a lie. Fact is they find a way to screw us and they screw us hard, some people like it, defend it even, I don't.

I can see both sides of the argument here, the fact is there is an inventory of fixed assets the utilities have to maintain to deliver the service. Whether they are charged for by a standing charge or an increase in unit rate probably doesn't matter that much in the wider scheme of things, but for individual consumers it can make a big difference.

The theory of the public not having to pay for infrastructure only means the public don't pay the up-front capital costs of the infrastructure, it still has to be paid for. Various governments have tried the same trick, PFI is just another example of shifting capital expenditure off the government's books at the expense of paying higher revenue costs. The same applies to the utilities - the public don't pay the capital cost of installing a new meters, we just pay the leasing costs. If the capital costs were met through public money then you can be sure the scrutiny of the smart meter scheme would be far greater. :mad:

I also feel the public haven't got a very good deal, as the utilities generally have skimped on replacement and renewal knowing that the government one day will have to bail them out because it is politically unacceptable for the utilities to fail. Whether that is leakage of water from mains, poor broadband speeds, minimal generating capacity surplus, sewers overflowing into rivers. All these things you would expect the utilities to invest in as part of the business have been failures the taxpayer or consumer has paid to rectify. The failure has been ineffective regulation not ensuring the correct levels of investment.

My gripe with standing charges is that they do not adequately encourage reduction in consumption. The energy companies abandoned standing charges post-privatisation, but facing the prospect of profits being hit by a reduction in consumption (through energy efficiency and high cost) they were very quick to reinstate standing charges when the government gave them a golden opportunity to do so.

My own view is the old block tariff arrangement, where the standing charge was effectively paid through the first block rate, was the fairest way of charging for energy. Those who consumed the least were still encouraged to consume less. Those that consumed the most saw their costs reduce and level off at higher levels of consumption, so the 'penalty' for high consumption was not excessive.

But unfortunately the government decided to meddle and abolish that system on the basis it was far too complicated for simple consumers to understand. If consumers are really so collectively stupid they cannot work out a block tariff bill then the obvious thing to do would have been to re-nationalise the energy companies and take away competition so consumers would not need to compare prices between suppliers... but the government is never going to do that, are they?

EachPenny wrote: »

The energy companies abandoned standing charges post-privatisation,

AFAIAW the energy companies never abandoned standing charges but simply absorbed them into a higher first tier unit price which meant all but the absolute lowest consumption consumer still paid the standing charge.

lstar337 wrote: »

The point is variety. Tariffs with no or very low standing charge reward those with low consumption, tariffs with higher standing charge are easier on those that have a high consumption (this is not always their fault. When I lived in a flat with NSH, reducing consumption was very hard).

Completely agree, that's why I said I can see both sides of the argument, and wouldn't want high consumers penalised because they have to have high consumption. For me the block tariff approach meant the best of both worlds for everybody.

lstar337 wrote: »

I think one national supplier might shake things up a bit.

If my job was writing the Conservative party manifesto then rather than the pointless and counterproductive price cap I would have promised to introduce a national power company offering basic tariffs (as a safety net) in competition with the private sector. This would have been a far more popular initiative with some voters, whilst ensuring those that benefit from privatised competition can still do so. It would also have created a new nationally owned asset ready for privatisation in a few year's time... but that's another story

molerat wrote: »

AFAIAW the energy companies never abandoned standing charges but simply absorbed them into a higher first tier unit price which meant all but the absolute lowest consumption consumer still paid the standing charge.

Yes, maybe it would have been more accurate to have added a 'separate' in that sentence.