Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[The Angry Welshman]

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?

I dont agree with you…..you cant put a tax on the sun, just because you want too.

You also dont need to be rich to have solar…..i see solar panels all over the social housing around were i live. You gonna tax the sun used by the lowest earners in society living in social housing??

 

[danlightbulb]

I dont agree with you…..you cant put a tax on the sun, just because you want too.

You also dont need to be rich to have solar…..i see solar panels all over the social housing around were i live. You gonna tax the sun used by the lowest earners in society living in social housing??

Its nothing to do with the sun! Its not the energy itself that is the purpose of the tax. The purpose is to replace the tax you would have paid via the levies had you still been paying for energy, so that you, as a citizen of this country, are still contributing to those societal factors that just happen to be included in energy bills.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

BTW what exactly is your proposal for the extra tax us with solar need to pay.
How are you calculating it?

Asking again.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Also the green taxes should be on fossil fuels not elec

 

[The Angry Welshman]

Its nothing to do with the sun! Its not the energy itself that is the purpose of the tax. The purpose is to replace the tax you would have paid via the levies had you still been paying for energy, so that you, as a citizen of this country, are still contributing to those societal factors that just happen to be included in energy bills.

I still pay for energy, so why do i need another tax to pay??? Why should i pay twice??

And again, how are the people in social housing who got solar going to pay the additional tax, especially if they didnt put the solar on their roofs in the first place??

 

[danlightbulb]

BTW what exactly is your proposal for the extra tax us with solar need to pay.
How are you calculating it?

Asking again.

You'd pay a fee on each kWh of energy you consume, regardless of source. That would pay for the various levies and social tariff schemes.

So if person A uses 12000 kWh a year from the grid, and person B uses 12000 kWh a year from their solar, both users pay the same per kWh rate which goes towards the various levies.


*Putting it in general taxation would be a far better and simpler option.

 

[The Angry Welshman]

You'd pay a fee on each kWh of energy you consume, regardless of source. That would pay for the various levies and social tariff schemes.

So if person A uses 12000 kWh a year from the grid, and person B uses 12000 kWh a year from their solar, both users pay the same per kWh rate which goes towards the various levies.

How would you know how much energy is consumed??? And again as much as you dont like it, your still taxing the use of the sun, that no one pays to produce

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

How would you know how much energy is consumed??? And again as much as you dont like it, your still taxing the use of the sun, that no one pays to produce

damn it that was my next question!

So @danlightbulb how exactly are you going to work out what I have consumed from my own generation?

 

[The Angry Welshman]

Whichever way you spin it…you still want to raise taxes. Are you rishi sunak??

 

[danlightbulb]

damn it that was my next question!

So @danlightbulb how exactly are you going to work out what I have consumed from my own generation?

Isn't it recorded what you generate and consume, by your grid interface/battery/inverter electronics?

Whichever way you spin it…you still want to raise taxes. Are you rushi sunak??

It isn't raising taxes. You already pay the taxes and will avoid them by going solar (potentially). All its doing is making sure you still contribute when the standing charge changes occur.

 

[The Angry Welshman]

Isn't it recorded what you generate and consume, by your grid interface electronics?



It isn't raising taxes. You already pay the taxes and will avoid them by going solar (potentially). All its doing is making sure you still contribute when the standing charge changes occur.

Nope, your raising taxes…….on the sun

As for the first part, nope…..they know how much i import and export and thats it.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Isn't it recorded what you generate and consume, by your grid interface/battery electronics?



It isn't raising taxes. You already pay the taxes and will avoid them by going solar (potentially). All its doing is making sure you still contribute when the standing charge changes occur.

Its not recorded that way no.
Domestic solar is connected after the meter.
So the utility companies meter sees incoming and outgoing, thats all.

 

[HungryHippos]

Isn't it recorded what you generate and consume, by your grid interface/battery/inverter electronics?

My inverter records something but it's not accurate.

If the inverter goes offline it will stop recording anything. It can do this if the wifi module goes down.

I agree with MKW this is genuinely one of the silliest ideas I've seen in a while. How are you going to enforce this? check it?

May as well try and tax the people who have sold their houses and moved back into the parents houses whilst we're at it? they're avoiding paying towards their societal bill.

The point of standing charge isn't to tax the rich to save the poor money, it's an equal bill for connection. Does Musk pay more for his internet? his water supply?

As a reminder, a domestic solar install is expensive, it has a payback in the 10 year~ region for most not accounting for inflation, and you intend to make it less attractive to people by also taxing them for having it?

Having more solar on grid is good for the grid, it alleviates demand for fossil fuels.

 

[The Angry Welshman]

My inverter records something but it's not accurate.

If the inverter goes offline it will stop recording anything. It can do this if the wifi module goes down.

I agree with MKW this is genuinely one of the silliest ideas I've seen in a while. How are you going to enforce this? check it?

May as well try and tax the people who have sold their houses and moved back into the parents houses whilst we're at it? they're avoiding paying towards their societal bill.

The point of standing charge isn't to tax the rich to save the poor money, it's an equal bill for connection. Does Musk pay more for his internet? his water supply?

Only if he uses his starlink lol

 

[bigmike20vt]

Its nothing to do with the sun! Its not the energy itself that is the purpose of the tax. The purpose is to replace the tax you would have paid via the levies had you still been paying for energy, so that you, as a citizen of this country, are still contributing to those societal factors that just happen to be included in energy bills.

isn't that the point of the standing charge? your argument has merit if the state pays for the panels and battery but if you charge the same for self generated electricity as powerplant generated electricity then where is the incentive for private users to spend a considerable amount of their own money on getting solar (which however you slice it is a good thing)

 

[DBT85]

Did we ever get details about those fixed price contracts renewable providers were going to sign so that we weren't to pay stupid money for solar or wind just because the global price was high?
Or what about the decoupling of energy prices from the price of gas? Did that get anywhere or has it, like so much else, been swept under a rug?

Just fortunate we were able to put in 6.3kwp and a 9.5 battery in April.

Energy prices are crazy right now, our standing charges have increased again this month. Powerless to do anything about it, makes you want to live off grid

It's because we have to pay for the losses companies made when the energy prices spiked. You'll note though that British Gas profits increased tenfold and Centrica paid over £200m in dividends.

 

[danlightbulb]

The point of standing charge isn't to tax the rich to save the poor money, it's an equal bill for connection.

Then why are social tariff costs in it?

ts not recorded that way no.
Domestic solar is connected after the meter.
So the utility companies meter sees incoming and outgoing, thats all.

Ok, won't work anyway then.

Interesting though, as a water company business we have to report how much energy we consume each year to our regulator. That is to measure our energy efficiency. We wouldn't be able to get away with not knowing our own consumption, whether its grid, solar or whatever other source.

I appreciate that is business rather than domestic, but it means you can't monitor your own energy efficiency then.

 

[Richie]

In some ways yes i agree……as a non parent i also shouldnt pay for schools, but i do.

Think of it as paying back for the education and healthcare you received as a child.... And the likely healthcare you will need as you age. The bit in the middle (when you aren't using the services) is covering those costs


I may be wrong but I feel that people are arguing over the same opinion. I think people agree that the SC shouldn't be completely abolished and added to unit charge but things that are not charged for the supply of energy (green levies, SoLR fund etc) should be removed from the SC

 

[200sols]

The point of standing charge isn't to tax the rich to save the poor money, it's an equal bill for connection. Does Musk pay more for his internet? his water supply?

Actually here though the SC is filled with non connection things. Green levies, debt, social tariffs and subsidies, heat pump subsidies etc. This stuff doesn't belong in the SC so no wonder people are angry. Still the answer isn't taxing renewables.

 

[The Angry Welshman]

Think of it as paying back for the education and healthcare you received as a child.... And the likely healthcare you will need as you age. The bit in the middle (when you aren't using the services) is covering those costs


I may be wrong but I feel that people are arguing over the same opinion. I think people agree that the SC shouldn't be completely abolished and added to unit charge but things that are not charged for the supply of energy (green levies, SoLR fund etc) should be removed from the SC

Didnt my parents pay for that through their taxes??

As for part two, we are arguing over the absurdity of taxing solar use/production, as its stupid and ill thought out.