Soldato
Next you will be asking people to be taxed for growing their own fruit and veg in their gardens…
Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)
- Thread starter DXP55
- Start date
Soldato
IMO the customer balances should be ring fenced.
It would put the costs up for everyone (the companies not using our money to buy energy would need to fund that by another means) but at least everyone would be paying the same increased cost rather than some freeloaders paying in arrears when some pay in advance.*
* I am not serious in regards the freeloading bit, some prefer to pay in arrears, some in equal amounts. But should those who need to budget and pay equally end up subsidising those (via lower energy company costs) so well off they can just pay whatever bill lands that month?
Off grid don't, but very few people truly go offgrid. (usually more forced to rather than choose to)
One of the issues with solar is people can be very low users due to solar but rely on the grid for when they cannot generate enough.
It would put the costs up for everyone (the companies not using our money to buy energy would need to fund that by another means) but at least everyone would be paying the same increased cost rather than some freeloaders paying in arrears when some pay in advance.*
* I am not serious in regards the freeloading bit, some prefer to pay in arrears, some in equal amounts. But should those who need to budget and pay equally end up subsidising those (via lower energy company costs) so well off they can just pay whatever bill lands that month?
Off grid don't, but very few people truly go offgrid. (usually more forced to rather than choose to)
One of the issues with solar is people can be very low users due to solar but rely on the grid for when they cannot generate enough.
Soldato
I think the things that we are talking about are the societal things that are included in the standing charge though right? I don't think we are in any disagreement that the cost of the meter couldn't stay within the standing charge, that seems perfectly reasonable. If the standing charge just reflected the fixed costs of supplying a property then it would be relatively very small and we wouldn't be having this argument.
The issue as you say is that the standing charge is getting bigger and bigger and a lot of that is do to with failed suppliers (mostly this impact has fallen away now I believe), bad debt from current suppliers (increasing) and various green/environmental levies (increasing).
So if those are in the standing charge, its disproportionately falling on lower users, which tend to be lower earners and/or elderly and/or single people. Do we agree on that?
So naturally the allocation of the standing charge was the subject of a consultation. If Ofgem decide to put more of those societal costs on the unit rate instead of the standing charge, then a higher proportion of those types of costs would be paid by higher users right? Those would tend to be wealthier people with larger houses (but I agree not universally the case). Do we agree on that?
And this would more closely align with how other redistributive taxes work in our country (richer people tend to pay more), do we agree on that?
If more of the societal costs are on the unit rate, then someone with solar isn't paying as much towards them, relative to their energy consumption. It is a form of avoidance. Do you follow this logic, or not?
As these costs are really taxes in disguise, added onto energy instead of being funded from general taxation, is it right that they should be avoidable? Why should someone with solar be able to avoid contributing to helping vulnerable people with energy bill support? They are a citizen of this country, and we would all share in that type of welfare wouldn't we?
At the moment its a small problem, but as more and more people get solar, that potentially would start to leave a shortfall in those types of levies wouldn't it? The same argument as EV's really, taking away petrol taxes over time. How would that be corrected?
I disagree. The 'grid' is a national asset that benefits everyone directly OR indirectly. Everyone should share in its upkeep. Indeed isn't that part of the argument for nationalising these assets, which many here support?
Last edited:
Soldato
So you think off grid people should pay for the grid, even if not connected and cant use what they are paying towards.
Seriously???
Also, we all pay the same service charge, no matter what we use….so how are lower eaners, single people paying disproportionately?? If we all pay the same
Last edited:
Soldato
Of course! Why wouldn't they? They are part of this country and benefit indirectly from its infrastructure.
Do you think someone should be able to opt out of the NHS? What about someone who never drives, can they opt out of paying a share in road maintenance? How about if I promise never to need the police, can I opt out of that?
Last edited:
Soldato
How do off grid people benefit from the infrastructure??
Soldato
Find someone who has never used the nhs??? Find someone who goes to work, but never uses the road infrastructure for any part of the journey?? The police are here for all to use and you cannot make the promise to never need them. Because that would mean never leaving the house
Street lights.
Soldato
The same as your second post above. Its there for all of us just in case. Just because a farm is off grid, doesn't mean there isn't grid to the local village he supplies food to, where the local police service is, where the local fire station is, where the streetlights make everyone safer at night, where his customers are.
I acknowledge that said farmer would be contributing to the grid indirectly anyway, for example though his council tax or general taxation which finds its way back to fund the local streetlighting etc.
But, said farmer would be avoiding the current green levies and energy bill support that is within the energy bill.
Soldato
Which is paid for via general taxation, not through sc to energy companies.
If we have to have a standing charge, it should be based on consumption from the grid....
Use none, pay none. Use some, then pay maybe 5% of your consumption based on unit price.
Also, people who sell excess electricity back to the grid should be able to sell it back at the same rates they are forced to buy it for... that would make buying solar etc. a far more viable investment. and would boost micro generation a LOT.
Use none, pay none. Use some, then pay maybe 5% of your consumption based on unit price.
Also, people who sell excess electricity back to the grid should be able to sell it back at the same rates they are forced to buy it for... that would make buying solar etc. a far more viable investment. and would boost micro generation a LOT.
Soldato
As we have said the only way to make those with solar pay less is to move the costs that everyone pays an equal share of from that to one where higher users for whatever reason pay more.
Those on benefits, the old, yeah those old slackers at home all day trying to keep warm, they should certainly pay more than Dan, who could disagree?
Its not just the fixed costs, as I said there are plenty of costs in the admin type area, the call centres, the people buying the energy, the people doing the accounts, the meter readers. These are variable costs but they aren't related to the volume of energy consumed.
We already have enough things trying to redistribute wealth via income. The people who end up getting screwed in these positions aren't the rich, the are the slightly better of/paid.
How are you going to balance those with alternate fuel sources. Remember all these things cost more money to implement, to control, to bill.
Do you compensate the person living in a flat who cannot have gas? Your benefitting vs them if you have GFCH.
As someone else said. A lot of things are being recovered via energy charges that really should come from general taxation. Just add 0.1% to everyones tax bill.
The backbone of the grid, ie the main cables etc are an asset, the connection to individual houses, that houses requirement for a meter is very much not a national asset.
Your idea of taxing solar would simply mean many more would not do it. Its hardly got a super payback now, its probably 6-8 years I would say on average. Although if energy costs drop then the payback moves out as your saving less.
If you charge them enough to make a difference then you would potentially stop people doing it, if you dont charge them enough to affect the decision then generally your only going to be charging peanuts and hence its basically pointless.
Soldato
I give up……there seems no way to educate you.
Except it's not paid for by general taxation is it? Street lights are still connected to the same grid as the rest of us, which is owned by privatised companies.
The electricity used by those street lights is paid for by taxation, but not the infrastructure they use.
Soldato
So people who pay council tax pay towards the cost of street lightingm that then goes to the energy supplier, via the local council who takes said money.
Therfore someone off grid, who pays council tax, would still be paying like everyone else, towards that part of the infrastructure they use….or benefit from. But still wont pay a SC as they dont directly use the grid for their personal energy needs.
Soldato
Just spotted your edit.
There are elements of the standing charge that are NOT related directly to the costs of providing energy. Green levies, and social tariff support to name two. These are SOCIETAL costs, the same kind of thing as other taxes and welfare costs.
Lower earners pay less, higher earners pay more. So 'all paying the same' as you put it, is unfair on lower earners. Its not done as a percentage, its a static value.
I said it.
You should be a politician with your ability to deflect. Im an average user so I'll probably be no worse off or no better off if they switch some costs onto the unit rate.
And as well you know, higher users with extra needs should be given extra support. That is what the support element of the standing charge is for! That is where the redistribution is meant to occur, to take more from those who can afford it and redistribute it to the poorer or more needy.
Its a good point. My house has gas, and I did nothing to earn that luxury, its a legacy factor. Perhaps the unit rate of electricity and gas should be aligned so as to improve fairness to those stuck only on electricity. A kWh is a kWh, whether you get from electricity, gas, solar or your own personal forest.
Are you reading what I am writing? We are not talking about those things, we are talking about the green levies and vulnerable customer support that are ALSO within the standing charge.
Well I think solar owners should be able to earn more for export, a similar rate to the wholesaler generators. So you would earn more for exporting, but also pay your fair share to the various levies.
Soldato
We pay our fair share through the standing charge……
Soldato
BTW what exactly is your proposal for the extra tax us with solar need to pay.
How are you calculating it?
Asking again.
How are you calculating it?
Asking again.
Last edited:
Soldato
Its like talking to a brick wall.
The standing charge is the same for every property, it is NOT proportionate to income/wealth/usage. So it isn't a 'fair share' of contribution to the societal elements of the standing charge. A 10 bedroom mansion occupied by Elon Musk will pay £5 (for example) towards green levies in their standing charge per month, and so will a 1 bed bedsit in Grimsby occupied by Jim and Doris on their pension. That isn't proportionate and that's the issue with the standing charge. Its not about the bit that pays for the meter for god sake.
Those levies should be put onto general taxation. Yes, think we all agree on that. It completely removes the issue with standing charge allocation and puts the standing charge back to what it should be collecting.
But if that doesn't happen (and it likely won't) and instead Ofgem decides to put those levies on the unit rate, then higher users will pay more of it. Mostly, those higher users will be more wealthy anyway, bigger houses, more tech, etc. But, some higher users will be caught because they will have medical needs etc and will end up paying more. Those need to be identified and supported through the social tariff schemes.
But lets say Elon now installs some solar panels on his mansion. Now he is using zero grid energy, so he's not paying anything towards those social levies. That isn't right and needs to be addressed. If the levies were funded from general taxation, there would be no issue, but that isn't how its going to work.
So to make sure Mr Musk pays his share of social levies, some other form of tax is needed, hence the need to tax his solar in some way.
Or do you think its right that he doesn't contribute any more, simply because he could avoid the levies by going solar?
The standing charge is the same for every property, it is NOT proportionate to income/wealth/usage. So it isn't a 'fair share' of contribution to the societal elements of the standing charge. A 10 bedroom mansion occupied by Elon Musk will pay £5 (for example) towards green levies in their standing charge per month, and so will a 1 bed bedsit in Grimsby occupied by Jim and Doris on their pension. That isn't proportionate and that's the issue with the standing charge. Its not about the bit that pays for the meter for god sake.
Those levies should be put onto general taxation. Yes, think we all agree on that. It completely removes the issue with standing charge allocation and puts the standing charge back to what it should be collecting.
But if that doesn't happen (and it likely won't) and instead Ofgem decides to put those levies on the unit rate, then higher users will pay more of it. Mostly, those higher users will be more wealthy anyway, bigger houses, more tech, etc. But, some higher users will be caught because they will have medical needs etc and will end up paying more. Those need to be identified and supported through the social tariff schemes.
But lets say Elon now installs some solar panels on his mansion. Now he is using zero grid energy, so he's not paying anything towards those social levies. That isn't right and needs to be addressed. If the levies were funded from general taxation, there would be no issue, but that isn't how its going to work.
So to make sure Mr Musk pays his share of social levies, some other form of tax is needed, hence the need to tax his solar in some way.
Or do you think its right that he doesn't contribute any more, simply because he could avoid the levies by going solar?