Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[Richie]

Yeah those SCs are getting big.

80p a day is over 20 pounds a month before you even use anything. That's more than my broadband!

I've been saying this for months on here only to to be met with the "it's not that much in the larger scale" or "you're just being silly" type rebuttals....

I guess it just needs to get to a certain price point where it starts getting noticed by these same people before it becomes seen as a legitimate issue


The 88p I mention is for combined gas/elec which is most households (74% of UK households have mains gas heating)

 

[200sols]

^You just never presented any alternative except dumping it all on 'high users'.

 

[darkgen]

Want it fair? Consolidate SC and UC to provide a single coherent UC price for customers for both energy types for each region. Use more energy, pay for it. How difficult is that?

 

[Vanquish-Storm]

Octopus tracker is full of warmings about spiking has anyone one on it found it to spike significantly? How do you avoid using energy if it does?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Want it fair? Consolidate SC and UC to provide a single coherent UC price for customers for both energy types for each region. Use more energy, pay for it. How difficult is that?

Not really no.

What should happen is that the fixed and stepped costs are collected by a SC since everyone benefits from them. Just being a low user doesn't stop the grid needing to install you meters, keep that safe, having high capacity available should you decide to use loads during the peak grid etc
When something fails, like in storms should high users have to pay for it? Why? If the people at the end of a long failed power cable are all low users should the high users be able to go meh, they are all low users they wont miss it, save everyone a fortune and don't bother reconnecting them.

The variable costs of production should be behind the UC part.

The big issue is the costs of the failed companies here. Whether that should be collected how it is is really the main issue.
High users are no more behind the costs than low users. Someone has to pick up the bill however.

 

[200sols]

Want it fair? Consolidate SC and UC to provide a single coherent UC price for customers for both energy types for each region. Use more energy, pay for it. How difficult is that?

Nope. Since the main driver of the SC going this high is failed companies why should that burden be placed unfairly on certain people?

 

[darkgen]

Not really no.

What should happen is that the fixed and stepped costs are collected by a SC since everyone benefits from them. Just being a low user doesn't stop the grid needing to install you meters, keep that safe, having high capacity available should you decide to use loads during the peak grid etc
When something fails, like in storms should high users have to pay for it? Why? If the people at the end of a long failed power cable are all low users should the high users be able to go meh, they are all low users they wont miss it, save everyone a fortune and don't bother reconnecting them.

The variable costs of production should be behind the UC part.

The big issue is the costs of the failed companies here. Whether that should be collected how it is is really the main issue.
High users are no more behind the costs than low users. Someone has to pick up the bill however.

Low users are still paying for the maintenance of the systems, just proportionally based on energy consumed.

Nope. Since the main driver of the SC going this high is failed companies why should that burden be placed unfairly on certain people?

I don't disagree with the premise here and using SC as a mechanism to recoup these costs, along with other "initiatives" is unfair for all concerned. OFGEM blew this entirely and any costs associated with failed companies should have have recouped through insurance or another mechanism which did not simply pass costs back on to the taxpayer.

 

[jpaul]

Nope. Since the main driver of the SC going this high is failed companies why should that burden be placed unfairly on certain people?

that's BS solr cost is 5.2p/day - read the thread

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Low users are still paying for the maintenance of the systems, just proportionally based on energy consumed.

I don't disagree with the premise here and using SC as a mechanism to recoup these costs, along with other "initiatives" is unfair for all concerned. OFGEM blew this entirely and any costs associated with failed companies should have have recouped through insurance or another mechanism which did not simply pass costs back on to the taxpayer.

Again, much of that stuff is not based on usage.
Why should you pay less for your meter, the connection to your street, the maintenance of local infrastructure, aged replacements etc, just because you use less.
Its a really dumb argument sorry.

I am assuming you use less, since I am yet to come across anyone who isn't a low user who argues for removal of SC.

Many people who don't understand costing fail to see that you need a high user base and socialised costs or you get poor service.
Imagine the electricity network with all low users, unable to cope with peaks, no new free meters, sorry its old now its £300 for a new one, oh your cable is old you need a new one, £1500 mate etc etc

 

[darkgen]

Again, much of that stuff is not based on usage.
Why should you pay less for your meter, the connection to your street, the maintenance of local infrastructure, aged replacements etc, just because you use less.
Its a really dumb argument sorry.

I am assuming you use less, since I am yet to come across anyone who isn't a low user who argues for removal of SC.

Many people who don't understand costing fail to see that you need a high user base and socialised costs or you get poor service.
Imagine the electricity network with all low users, unable to cope with peaks, no new free meters, sorry its old now its £300 for a new one, oh your cable is old you need a new one, £1500 mate etc etc

I'm not arguing for it to be removed per se, but consolidated. As to the rest of your argument; there is nothing stopping energy companies fluctuating (whether aggressively or quarterly / annually) the consolidated UC cost based on annual usage, trends, patterns and maintenance of the system in order to support the changes within energy sector.

I'm within the medium household bracket

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

that's BS solr cost is 5.2p/day - read the thread

Source?

I've seen numerous numbers quoted but none that low.

I've seen almost £100 per year in one source.
The early low numbers were from the start of the problem I believe, talk of £30 a year for consumers.

Eg https://watt-logic.com/2021/12/22/solr-cost-recovery/

"It expects the total costs of the SOLRs this year to be around £2.4 billion, excluding Bulb, which equates to around £90 per household per year."

I think its worse than above now even

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I'm not arguing for it to be removed per se, but consolidated. As to the rest of your argument; there is nothing stopping energy companies fluctuating (whether aggressively or quarterly / annually) the consolidated UC cost based on annual usage, trends, patterns and maintenance of the system in order to support the changes within energy sector.

I'm within the medium household bracket

Consolidated with what?

 

[darkgen]

Consolidated with what?

The UC. Evaluate what is generated through SC charges for the period (month / quarter / year) and the supposed target it needs to meet. Apply a formula, whether simply by household usage or as a percent based across the entire customer base consumption, for the period, which meets that target and roll that into a consolidated UC. If this was based purely on usage and support of the infrastructure, this would seem a fairer way for all concerned.

I acknowledge, this may introduce another form of unfairness for high-end consumers due to the government using SC for unintended purposes.

e: clarity.

 

[Uther]

I just don't see the SC coming down much if at all now, easy money for energy companies. 'Failed suppliers' lol.

 

[jpaul]

source -

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Default%20Tariff%20Cap%20Letter%20for%201%20April%202023.pdf

• Network costs – Network costs have increased from £372 to £388 (increase of £16 or 4%). Whilst supplier of Last Resort (SoLR) costs have reduced by £42 from £61 to £19, this reduction has been offset by cost increases elsewhere, as non-SoLR costs have increased by £58. This has been primarily driven by two factors; An increase of £24 in the costs associated with maintaining and upgrading the gas and electricity networks, which are linked to inflation, and in the costs of balancing the electricity system of £34 because of changes in the way these charges are recovered and the scale of interventions made by the Electricity System Operator this winter.

• Policy Costs – Policy cost allowance has increased from £152 to £165 (an increase of £14 or 9%) This is largely due to inflation. Uprating for inflation is
responsible for increases in Warm Home Discount (WHD), Renewable Obligations (RO) and Assistance for Areas with High Electricity Distriubtion Costs (AAHEDC). The increase in Feed In Tariffs(FiT) is due to a combination of an increase in the Levelisation Fund, a reduction in the total electricity supplied and an uplift for inflation. Energy Company Obligation costs increased from £36 to £44 (an increase of £8 or 22%). This was due to a combination of inflation and the introduction of the ECO+ scheme. The reduction to the Green Gas Levy costs is due to an overestimation of costs for the previous period, coupled with a more conservative estimate for the current period.

read the earlier discussion in this thread for calculations of how the £19 achieves the countrywide total repayment amounts/schedule itemised in watt logic link(linked too)

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The UC. Evaluate what is generated through SC charges for the period (month / quarter / year) and the supposed target it needs to meet. Apply a formula, whether simply by household usage or as a percent based across the entire customer base consumption, for the period, which meets that target and roll that into a consolidated UC. If this was based purely on usage and support of the infrastructure, this would seem a fairer way for all concerned.

I acknowledge, this may introduce another form of unfairness for high-end consumers due to the government using SC for unintended purposes.

e: clarity.

But why?

There are very different things at play here.

Costs for building and maintaining infrastructure and costs for actual energy.

It makes no sense to me to dumb it down into one charge.

What tends to happen in these situations is that you start to get splinters. So people with high usage demand they can pay for their supply and meters etc up front and extract themselves from having to pay for their share via a contribution added into UC

What is really included in the SC should be clearer.

As ever people don't want to pay their share.

Take people with solar. If its only based on usage how are they going to pay their share?
They will be heavily grid reliant in winter months, but not summer.
People who are high users for medical reasons
People in poor rented accommodation with no way to improve efficiency penalised and yet potentially high usage people can do more to lower their usage.

Its like when variable pricing is mentioned. Those who melt down the most are those who are causing most of the problem, those who use most at peak grid time.

I suppose if we had a low user tariffs where we made sure we collected enough to ensure they pay their way, (for meters etc) then I could go with it. £1 a unit for elec for anyone using less that 7kwh per day sound fair?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

source -



read the earlier discussion in this thread for calculations of how the £19 achieves the countrywide total repayment amounts/schedule itemised in watt logic link(linked too)

Thats interesting so they are deffo messing about with the collection rate
Assume some pressure to put it off until prices fall

Bulb not yet factored in from what i can tell?

 

[200sols]

source -



read the earlier discussion in this thread for calculations of how the £19 achieves the countrywide total repayment amounts/schedule itemised in watt logic link(linked too)

So it has decreased by 68%, hadn't seen that. Still even with a breakdown of costs we have people in here who think its all a ruse for energy companies to make money.

 

[darkgen]

But why?

There are very different things at play here.

Costs for building and maintaining infrastructure and costs for actual energy.

It makes no sense to me to dumb it down into one charge.

What tends to happen in these situations is that you start to get splinters. So people with high usage demand they can pay for their supply and meters etc up front and extract themselves from having to pay for their share via a contribution added into UC

What is really included in the SC should be clearer.

As ever people don't want to pay their share.

Take people with solar. If its only based on usage how are they going to pay their share?
They will be heavily grid reliant in winter months, but not summer.
People who are high users for medical reasons
People in poor rented accommodation with no way to improve efficiency penalised and yet potentially high usage people can do more to lower their usage.

Its like when variable pricing is mentioned. Those who melt down the most are those who are causing most of the problem, those who use most at peak grid time.

I suppose if we had a low user tariffs where we made sure we collected enough to ensure they pay their way, (for meters etc) then I could go with it. £1 a unit for elec for anyone using less that 7kwh per day sound fair?

Quite; this would not replace or be instead of available exceptions via social tariffs whether through medical needs / requirements, in receipt of Universal Credit or other forms of state benefit. With respect to individual households investing, usually thousands of pounds, in solar or other forms of renewables, is this not entirely the point. To reduce household energy consumption and being less reliant on the grid? During leaner months, these households would still pay based on consumption from the grid and one would have to presume the energy providers know these usage trends and supply demand based on previous years data.

I confess I'm disillusioned with the entire energy landscape. So much effort has been put in to deploying smart meters, highlighting methods to use less energy and save money, be more energy conscious etc yet against the backdrop of energy producers making bank, in these supposed dire times, and (sister) energy suppliers crying foul. I'm using a third of the energy I did 2 years ago but paying twice as much with more increases to come.

What the hell is the point.

*grumble*

 

[413x]

The SC is needed.
Otherwise someone with huge solar array would pay nothing. Despite benefiting from selling to the grid. The cabling, the running of the grid. Etc etc.