• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,930
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The standing charge it's self, I understand and have no issue with, I do have an issue with how it has been increased to cover the costs of the failed energy companies.

I share your opinion on that (though I'd be paying it either way, standing charge or general taxation), but it isn't most of the standing charge.

I've just had a look at my bill for July, my gas usage cost 87 pence, the standing charge cost me £8...

It's not unreasonable that the standing charge should be quite high, because the cost of all the fixed infrastructure and maintenance of it utterly dwarfs the cost of the actual gas and has nothing at all to do with consumption levels. If you go on holiday for 2 weeks and use no gas in that period, the pipework between your house and the North Sea (or Russia! :) ) doesn't suddenly vanish and reappear when you get home.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
6,908
It's not unreasonable that the standing charge should be quite high, because the cost of all the fixed infrastructure and maintenance of it utterly dwarfs the cost of the actual gas and has nothing at all to do with consumption levels. If you go on holiday for 2 weeks and use no gas in that period, the pipework between your house and the North Sea (or Russia! :) ) doesn't suddenly vanish and reappear when you get home.
And if you had a gas emergency on your property you'd still expect them to come out and deal with it, even if you haven't actually used any gas.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,761
It's not unreasonable that the standing charge should be quite high, because the cost of all the fixed infrastructure and maintenance of it utterly dwarfs the cost of the actual gas and has nothing at all to do with consumption levels. If you go on holiday for 2 weeks and use no gas in that period, the pipework between your house and the North Sea (or Russia! :) ) doesn't suddenly vanish and reappear when you get home.

And if you had a gas emergency on your property you'd still expect them to come out and deal with it, even if you haven't actually used any gas.
A user also expects there to be gas in the pipe, ready and waiting for when they do want to burn some.

There is an alternative to paying the standing charge for gas - it comes in big cyclinders (which you can collect yourself or have delivered), or in a tank filled by a tanker as and when. I guess that works out more expensive though.

As a heavy user (of electric only), I don't see why the costs of failed companies should be lumped on to me to a greater degree than on to a lighter user, which it would be if the cost was put onto the unit price instead of the standing charge. Neither of us necessarily benefitted from the cheaper rates offered by companies that later failed, nor had our credit accounts reimbursed following a company failure. Whether the cost should be borne by general taxation rather than the standing charge is another issue. Someone somewhere has to pay. No-one discusses the 'nuclear option' of not protecting customer balances in the first place!
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
As a heavy user (of electric only), I don't see why the costs of failed companies should be lumped on to me to a greater degree than on to a lighter user, which it would be if the cost was put onto the unit price instead of the standing charge. Neither of us necessarily benefitted from the cheaper rates offered by companies that later failed, nor had our credit accounts reimbursed following a company failure. Whether the cost should be borne by general taxation rather than the standing charge is another issue. Someone somewhere has to pay. No-one discusses the 'nuclear option' of not protecting customer balances in the first place!
I would suggest that a better option would be for customer balances to be ringfenced from the rest of the company or at least covered by some sort of bond/insurance.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,761
I would suggest that a better option would be for customer balances to be ringfenced from the rest of the company or at least covered by some sort of bond/insurance.
Yes, definitely.

One of the most striking failures of the law / regulation / the regulator must be just that. The idea that what is essentially a 'billing company' can use 'customer advance payments' (perhaps with the full knowledge of the regulator) for anything other than those customers accounts is astonishing. You get cases where a dodgy builder has taken advance payment from customer A, spent the money on something else, then uses money from customer B to do customer A's job. They often end up with several customers chasing them for work not completed and the money 'gone'.
 

MidlandsChap

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
196
Mine was set to 21 degrees all day and 16 degrees overnight (though it rarely actually drops that far). I've reduced it to 19 to save cost and will put an extra jumper on, but yes, I work on the basis of a constant temperature when I'm in except at night. I use a Tado system so if I go out it allows it to drop and brings it back up as I start moving towards home again.

I think that approach provides a better comfort-cost ratio than blasting to 22 twice a day for a couple of hours as many do.

Am I reading this right? Reducing to 19 degrees means you will need to put on an "extra" jumper....does that mean you already had a jumper on with the stat set to 21??
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,802
After a day off, I don't know if this has been mentioned although the release is dated today; OVO boss's 10-point solution;


I only have one concern, apart from nothing about axeing VAT on fuel, if standing charges are abolished then those on dual fuel will benefit as if (say) gas use reaches the end of the cheaper threshold, one can start to use electricity for heating. To get over that dual-fuel users could be given a lower threshold for each?

Those with two houses (ie a holiday home) would benefit the most by removing standing charges.

01 September 2022

We know that the record-level increases in energy prices are unsettling for millions of households across the country. Since prices first started to rise, we have been working with the regulator, government, consumer groups and industry to limit the impact on household energy bills as much as possible.
With the average price set to rise further from 1st October to £3,549 under the energy Price Cap set by Ofgem, households - particularly those who are the most in need - face a lack of support compared to the scale of the crisis.
At this stage, there are no perfect solutions - but OVO believes that a compassionate and creative approach must be followed to address the energy bill crisis in the short, medium and long-term:
In the short-term:
  1. Bring forward the energy rebate to be paid in full before Christmas\ The £400 Energy Bill Support Scheme is not perfect - those who can afford higher energy bills will still receive it. But, it’s an existing mechanism we should utilise. To support households in need with keeping their homes warm this winter, the rebate should be paid in full to households over the next three months.
  2. Set up a Fuel Poverty Taskforce to identify those most in need\ Higher energy bills are going to be a tough reality for everyone in the UK for the foreseeable future, but they won't affect everyone equally. For some, it will mean cutting back on their spending in other areas, but for others, they simply will have no way of making more cuts. Identifying those households most at risk should be an urgent priority. Data exists in multiple places, held by charities, energy companies and government departments. Bringing all of this together will make sure help gets to those who need it and provides a safety net that can ensure vulnerable households are supported for as long as needed. We need a Fuel Poverty Task Force to coordinate this immediately.
.
  1. Immediately increase funding for debt advisory charities\ Consumer debt charities are a vital port of call for struggling households, but they face a considerable shortfall in financial resources to meet the level of public need arising from the cost of living crisis. The demand for their services will continue to rise as we head into one of the most difficult winters we have faced. Citizens Advice has seen an increase in people seeking advice on their energy bills rise by more than 1000%. Millions of people will be in real poverty for the first time, these charities are on the front line. They urgently need more funding to help.
In the medium-term:
  1. Abolish the prepayment meter poverty penalty.\ Millions of customers already pay in advance for their energy. For many, it is a useful way for them to manage their household budget. Historically prepayment meter customers have paid less for their energy than those paying in arrears, but more than those customers paying by Direct Debit. We think this is wrong. Under the regulations set by Ofgem, a prepayment meter customer pays around £59 more per year than a customer paying by monthly Direct Debit. Ofgem should lower the unit rates under the Price Cap to make sure a prepayment meter is the cheapest way to pay for energy.
  2. Reduce bill shocks - in a progressive way.\ Over time, consumers may have to adjust to permanently higher energy prices. But the scale of the shock of the recent price rise this winter threatens to tip the economy into a deep recession and will be catastrophic for millions of low income households. It is right that we find ways to smooth further price increases in the short term. Bills should be subsidised through a ‘Tariff Deficit Fund’ and repaid over a period of years. But this scheme can’t be open ended and unlimited. It should be progressive just like the tax system. This can best be achieved through limiting the number of subsidised units of energy households receive, as higher-income households typically use more energy. Of course there will be exceptions; certain types of customers with low incomes do have large energy consumption (for example customers who have at-home medical care). These customers should be identified through the Fuel Poverty Task Force and helped through targeted support.
  3. Make bills simpler and fairer by abolishing the standing charge.\ There are fixed costs to serving energy consumers, regardless of how much energy they use. The economic principle behind standing charges is sound, but the reality is standing charges represent the single biggest source of customer confusion on energy bills, and causes the greatest resentment. If we ever want to make a meaningful impact on energy efficiency, consumers must be able to make a clear link between the number of energy units they use, and the amount they pay. Doing away with standing charges is the simplest way to make energy easy to understand. It will also benefit low income households more than wealthy households, and further reward energy efficiency. It is a compromise, but definitely one worth making. We must make household energy bills simpler and fairer by removing the standing charge for all domestic tariffs.
  4. Insulate everything: mobilise a national energy efficiency effort.\ The UK’s homes are some of the least energy efficient in Europe. The more inefficient our homes are, the more dependent we are on expensive gas imports. During the Second World War, the nation helped lower dependence on food imports by growing fruits and vegetables on any spare bit of land they could find. In the same way, we need a national effort to insulate. To lower bills further, regressive social policy costs need to be removed and shifted into the more progressive general taxation regime.
In the long-term:
  1. Ensure the Future System Operator has a mandate for securing long term energy demand\ Energy retailers like OVO buy energy in advance to hedge their customers’ consumption. The mechanics of the price cap mean we are now buying just three months in advance, exposing UK consumers and the economy to extreme price volatility. This is not good for anyone. Bills would be lower and more stable if our future energy needs were hedged further in advance. Over the past 10 years, the free market approach has worked to deliver affordable energy for the UK but we should accept that the next ten years are going to look very different. We are entering into an era of global competition to secure energy supplies and we need to think strategically, long term and at a national level. The remit of the publicly owned Future System Operator already includes short term balancing of the gas and electricity market. It should be expanded to allow for the long term procurement of the nation’s primary energy needs guaranteeing physical supply and providing price stability.
  2. Bring back the Department of Energy and Climate Change\ For seven years, there has been no Government department solely focussed on energy and the fight against climate change. There have been some very effective leaders at BEIS but it is such a broad mandate that it is hard to see that energy could get the focus that it needs. These are two incredibly important and complex areas. We need to bring a dedicated department of energy and climate change back to ensure there is a Secretary of State solely focussed on building a low-cost, low-carbon energy system.
  3. Introduce a carbon tax\ Putting an effective price on carbon is the most effective way to reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and catalyse the decarbonisation of all sectors of our economy. It will tax the profits of big oil and gas companies on an ongoing basis, rather than the one off gain we would get from a windfall tax. The revenue collected from a carbon tax should be used to protect the public from adverse cost impacts, and invested in decarbonisation. A ‘carbon dividend’ should be redistributed to low-income and fuel poor households to support them through the Net Zero transition. With the introduction of a carbon tax, regressive environmental levies on bills which fund the ROCs and FiT schemes can be removed and shifted into general expenditure, and VAT should be removed.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I only have one concern, apart from nothing about axeing VAT on fuel, if standing charges are abolished then those on dual fuel will benefit as if (say) gas use reaches the end of the cheaper threshold, one can start to use electricity for heating. To get over that dual-fuel users could be given a lower threshold for each?

Those with two houses (ie a holiday home) would benefit the most by removing standing charges.

At the end of the day, I don't think scrapping Standing Charges will help a great deal. Households with both fuels will save about £270 per year. Assuming the unit price goes up to recover the shortfall, even low users will pay more so there won't be a huge saving for them. And those who use a lot of energy due to being elderly, having medical conditions or small children will end up worse off.

I would prefer to leave things as they are for now - any changes to the billing structure are likely to result in unintended consequences and create new types of unfairness.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,930
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Scrapping standing charges would probably actually be regressive. The per-unit charge would need to increase, and the people who are consuming more aren't actually richer people, they're people who either can't afford to insulate their house/replace single glazed windows etc or are stuck in rental with no influence over that at all. Secondarily to that a higher unit price also means people who need extra electricity or gas for medical reasons, e.g. they need a warmer house due to circulatory or respiratory problems, or they need to run a CPAP device overnight, or they need to refrigerate life or death medication like insulin, would be disadvantaged.

I agree prepayment shouldn't cost more - it should be strongly encouraged as it makes people think about consumption - there's some argument that it should actually be mandatory for everyone for that reason. But OVO could themselves do that commercially rather than whining about a need for someone else to do it. Most of that statement is a whine about things they could do commercially now if they wanted.
 
Last edited:

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,383
Location
belfast
Scrapping standing charges would probably actually be regressive. The per-unit charge would need to increase, and the people who are consuming more aren't actually richer people, they're people who either can't afford to insulate their house/replace single glazed windows etc or are stuck in rental with no influence over that at all.

I agree prepayment shouldn't cost more - it should be strongly encouraged as it makes people think about consumption - there's some argument that it should actually be mandatory for everyone for that reason. But OVO could themselves do that commercially rather than whining about a need for someone else to do it. Most of that statement is a whine about things they could do commercially now if they wanted.
It feels very unfair that people on prepayment meters, who are frequently less well off, can be charged more under the energy price cap currently. I think that rule should change, but I agree OVO should lower the unit rates and standing charge for their prepayment meter customers to a level that matches direct debit customers now (or like, from october 1st)
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,802
At the end of the day, I don't think scrapping Standing Charges will help a great deal. Households with both fuels will save about £270 per year. Assuming the unit price goes up to recover the shortfall, even low users will pay more so there won't be a huge saving for them. And those who use a lot of energy due to being elderly, having medical conditions or small children will end up worse off.

I would prefer to leave things as they are for now - any changes to the billing structure are likely to result in unintended consequences and create new types of unfairness.
I suppose consumers could be asked which tariff suite them;
example-

a. No s/c; first xx units/day "cheap" rest "expensive"
b. S/c + "moderate"
c. No s/c + first xx units "expensive" rest "cheap"

and so on; and people would have to work out their likely use, whether they could cut doan anf find a preferred tariff. Has happened before, as I have alluded to some companies gave you the choice of no s/c but a higher cost per unit, or s/c and lower cost etc.

It's complex and involves consumers understanding the maths - which is not a given, and some could find themselves on an inappropiate tariff. Example, if there was a daily tariff of "cheap xx units to start...then expensive for the rest of the day, that could help workers away for the bulk of the day (but not at weekends) but not the elderly pensioners finding the rate becomes more expensive in the evening when they need it most.

But with smart metering anything is possible, even selecting which tariff you want that particular day using apps/websites (eg if you decide to go out for the day, you can stretch the low-priced units) but I'll admit it would be a total headache!!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,930
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It feels very unfair that people on prepayment meters, who are frequently less well off, can be charged more under the energy price cap currently. I think that rule should change, but I agree OVO should lower the unit rates and standing charge for their prepayment meter customers to a level that matches direct debit customers now (or like, from october 1st)

Agreed... "it's expensive being poor" is the old adage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I suppose consumers could be asked which tariff suite them;
example-

a. No s/c; first xx units/day "cheap" rest "expensive"
b. S/c + "moderate"
c. No s/c + first xx units "expensive" rest "cheap"

Interestingly suppliers used to offer a choice like that, just as e.g. mobile phone companies do, but they were banned from doing so by the Government under the guise of simplification - they are only allowed a single model based on standing charge+unit charge (give or take Economy 7 and 10 which are standard products across the industry).

It's a bit "be careful what you wish for" when referring to fares simplification I suppose... :)
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,752
Location
Scotland
I suppose consumers could be asked which tariff suite them;
example-

a. No s/c; first xx units/day "cheap" rest "expensive"
b. S/c + "moderate"
c. No s/c + first xx units "expensive" rest "cheap"
A menu of tariffs used to be quite common - some with standing charges, some without - not sure how many suppliers do that these days though.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I suppose consumers could be asked which tariff suite them;
example-

a. No s/c; first xx units/day "cheap" rest "expensive"
b. S/c + "moderate"
c. No s/c + first xx units "expensive" rest "cheap"

The problem is that they still need to collect the same amount of revenue overall. Assuming there's no change to Group B's standing charge or unit price, all you are doing is re-distributing costs between groups A and C. Within that there will be winners and losers but no overall benefit. Those whose bills do go down will be subsidies by those whose bills go up. And I don't think this tariff structure would protect those who need protecting.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,802
The problem is that they still need to collect the same amount of revenue overall. Assuming there's no change to Group B's standing charge or unit price, all you are doing is re-distributing costs between groups A and C. Within that there will be winners and losers but no overall benefit. Those whose bills do go down will be subsidies by those whose bills go up. And I don't think this tariff structure would protect those who need protecting.
Surely the greenest solution is to encourage people to "use less, pay less" but support those, such as the ill, who can't help but use a lot? One thought, if people cut down by half, pay half, the companies (and government via VAT) only take half, so they aren't collecting the same revenue aka profits and dividends. Quite a chunk of the bill isn't the wholesale price of gas/oil which still has to be paid for, so thoe companies and government would miss out if we all cut down. No tears though!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,752
Location
Scotland
IMF says that UK households will be the worst-hit in Western Europe, despite us supposedly being the least dependent on Russian gas supplies.
The energy crisis is hitting UK household budgets harder than any country in western Europe, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund. The difference between the cost burden on poor and rich households is also far more unequal in the UK compared with other countries.

The reason is the UK’s heavy reliance on gas to heat homes and produce electricity at a time when Russia’s war in Ukraine has sent gas prices soaring. In addition, the UK has the least energy efficient homes in western Europe.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,802
IMF says that UK households will be the worst-hit in Western Europe, despite us supposedly being the least dependent on Russian gas supplies.

It's odd because half of that gas is ours. Half of the rest comes from a "friendly" country, Norway, so we clearly have done something wrong!
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Surely the greenest solution is to encourage people to "use less, pay less" but support those, such as the ill, who can't help but use a lot? One thought, if people cut down by half, pay half, the companies (and government via VAT) only take half, so they aren't collecting the same revenue aka profits and dividends. Quite a chunk of the bill isn't the wholesale price of gas/oil which still has to be paid for, so thoe companies and government would miss out if we all cut down. No tears though!
The 'greenest' solution without causing lots of harm/hardship would be to shift demand away from periods of peak demand and minimum renewable production to reduce the amount of fossil fuels burnt. That's generally 1700-2000 in the winter.

Plans to charge smartmeter users less outside those hours have already been discussed in this thread I believe.

I'm surprised we've never had pleas from the Green lobby "switch off until 8 o'clock and save a gas-fired power station being run"
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
It's odd because half of that gas is ours. Half of the rest comes from a "friendly" country, Norway, so we clearly have done something wrong!
It isn't 'ours' any more. The state sold the extraction rights to private companies who sell it on to the highest bidder. That's the thing we did that was wrong (with the wonderful benefit of hindsight!)
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,476
Location
London
It's odd because half of that gas is ours. Half of the rest comes from a "friendly" country, Norway, so we clearly have done something wrong!

The UK gets tax revenue from North Sea oil and gas, but apart from that it is not "ours". Even Norwegians now pay something like market price for their gas. But their energy companies are state owned, so the money stays in the country.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,442
Location
Yorks
It isn't 'ours' any more. The state sold the extraction rights to private companies who sell it on to the highest bidder. That's the thing we did that was wrong (with the wonderful benefit of hindsight!)

There must be some sort of a review/ emergency powers clause in those licenses.
 

Deltic1961

Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
645
UK Government sold off Britoil and BP to pay for the falklands war, then years later privatised BG Group effectively ending any state ownership.

Again short term decisions that have come back many years later to bite us.

If you look at the profits BP make, those could have either been used to bolster the coffers or reduce energy prices for UK citizens.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
There must be some sort of a review/ emergency powers clause in those licenses.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I see our PM in waiting (Truss) has ruled out emergency rationing this winter. That fills me with confidence!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,139
Location
Redcar
I see our PM in waiting (Truss) has ruled out emergency rationing this winter. That fills me with confidence!
The moment I got worried was when some Government spokes person or something confidently told us "There will be no blackouts!". Stock up on candles I recommend!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,442
Location
Yorks
Hopefully this episode will drive a stake through the heart of laissez faire capitalism for a generation.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
UK Government sold off Britoil and BP to pay for the falklands war, then years later privatised BG Group effectively ending any state ownership.

Again short term decisions that have come back many years later to bite us.

If you look at the profits BP make, those could have either been used to bolster the coffers or reduce energy prices for UK citizens.
Though the money raised would have had to have been collected through taxation, saved through reduced public services or borrowed and eventually paid back. Swings and roundabouts.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,442
Location
Yorks
You'd think so, wouldn't you?

I see our PM in waiting (Truss) has ruled out emergency rationing this winter. That fills me with confidence!

That's one thing that's always on the statute book. I remember it being discussed years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top