Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)
- Thread starter DXP55
- Start date
Soldato
over 50% of my bills are standing charge, imo it would be fairer to include the standing charge with the unit price
there is nothing i can do to reduce my bills anymore than they are currently except not use anything at all
there is nothing i can do to reduce my bills anymore than they are currently except not use anything at all
LA was investigating charging people with solar+batteries more per unit because of the erratic demand they have, versus others whose use can be predicted & resourced.
ie winter arrives and the solar panels may not be filling batteries.
ie winter arrives and the solar panels may not be filling batteries.
as said, the solr cost is still minimal versus the green levy which seems must be distributed between sc&unit
| Green levies April - June 2024 | Electricity (£) | Gas (£) | Dual fuel (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renewables Obligation | 86 | - | 86 |
| Feed-in Tariff | 21 | - | 21 |
| Energy Company Obligation | 23 | 34 | 58 |
| Warm Homes Discount | 11 | 11 | 22 |
| AAHEDC (GB average) | 1 | - |
I disagree. The SC has gone up way too much. It was said it was to recoup the money from the companies that went bust. Surely that is done by now. Yet here we are at silly SC prices.
Soldato
It has to be paid somehow
Normally low users want to push it to unit prices so they pay less. Higher users say there should be a fixed charge that reflects the stuff like meters, meter reading, account administration thats fixed by end user.
Sure, but we had the option at least.
The fact is they can balance it better.
Last edited:
Soldato
We have been capped by the regulator, we wont get proper deals until this stops being the case.
We may never get back to that point.
Yeah a really dumb idea to stop people going green.
There is already erratic demand in regards consumption.
Stuff like demand reduction can get people to help in high demand periods. Like we have been doing the last few winters.
Soldato
Balance it better sounds just like a conversation of making tax fairer. Views will vary unfortunately.
Sure. But tax did not sky rocket like sc did. That is why people are annoyed with it.
I am just giving my opinion. Sc went up a lot and should come down a little. The rest charged via units used.
Soldato
Everyone has an opinion no worries.
The main issue is this is an unintended consequence of the regulation in regards the price cap.
The price cap in effect killed all competition.
Competition drove the companies to setup differing tariffs with things like low SC for example.
Have to remember these are socialised costs in many areas, so its very difficult, (the lack of actual data available really compounds this) to say what a fair SC is at an individual level.
Soldato
Its come up before and several people with solar systems are of course adverse to it.
But in my view a lot of the network upgrades that are happening are to allow more solar generation etc, because the grid was designed to move power from a high volume source (i.e a power station) through ever smaller capacity networks until it eventually gets to someone's house. It wasn't designed to do it the other way around.
Although I recognise that for carbon emission reasons we may not want to put increased barriers up to solar adoption, do also have to question the fairness of people paying for the grid improvements for solar when they can't afford to get it themselves, and in the meantime those who can afford it are earning megabucks from export and playing the system with their home batteries.
Soldato
You would be wrong when talking about residential.
Local generation goes into the local grid. So for example when I am generating some excess it will help power my neighbours.
This will reduce the net import to the local area, requiring less infrastructure in effect. Or at least certainly no increase.
Its different when you consider large schemes as regularly they are connected to the national grid as opposed to the local grid. But thats commercial and not domestic and they do make contributions to the network costs.
Like for example paying massive amounts to be connected.
I doubt there is a local grid in the UK that has domestic solar production providing net export yet. It would require a very high percentage of local renewables.
I never said I wanted a higher standing charge.
I was just pointing out that’s low standing charge would push far too much of the cost of maintaining the grid of users with big solar arrays and batteries onto those who don’t.
Like I said, I use loads of electricity, I’m heavily reliant on the grid but my bill is naff all.
50% of my bill is the same, some months it’s more than 50% but that doesn’t mean I agree lowering the charge is the right thing to do. See my other recent posts.
That was only part of the reason and the only part the media highlighted. As has already been stated, the regulator moved a large amount of fixed costs from the unit rate to the standing charge.
The standing charge covers things like the old FIT tariffs offered to early solar installs. Those tariffs are index linked and have ballooned in cost recently due to inflation.
and what OFGEM has done is target what makes sense for most typical users in the middle as they set out at the time.
Soldato
Maybe it hasn't happened yet then but isn't there a point at which local grids won't be able to take the degree of solar adoption from residential properties?
Soldato
Its certainly possible. At that point I expect the local DNOs would start to limit the export allowed from each property. They can do that now but it only tends to be where there is a local issue.
I'm not convinced we will ever get to that level of saturation to cause an issue in the UK, there will always be IMO a large chunk who won't do it.
If we properly mandate solar on all new rooves then mandating other things, such as batteries at individual level and other probably energy storage techs (hydrogen, flywheel, hot sand, compressed air etc) will gain more value.
We know they want our export as they increase the export rate. If they want to limit the export and encourage people to store their own excess (hot water tank / hot sand box) then they will just lower the rate.
I have a diverter and its unplugged, I get more to export than I benefit by sending my excess to my hot water tank. That can change based on export rate vs gas unit rate.
Soldato
This, which ofc wasn't an issue until the capping in effect created the market.
The capping has destroyed the competition in effect.
Because its nonsense. What you claim r.e grid upgrades locally is also not true.
Doubtful. DNOs can already limit in areas with limitation and iirc end users can pay if needed to upgrade aspects of their connection. The way its going is probably the opposite of what you suggest, tariffs like Intelligent flux will become more prevalent where the energy company controls your battery and discharges it when it needs to, to meet local demand.
Last edited:
Soldato
You can pay yes if you would be export limited. If you pay for an increase in capacity then anyone else within a certain area (same local substation I assume) will be charged an amount towards that upgrade you paid for and it is refunded to you.
By anyone else I mean anyone else who would have been export capped going above the statutory minimum they can restrict you to.
Last edited: