Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[Deleted member 651465]

Thing is though time and time again on here i see people complaining about standing charges when their monthly energy bills are £250-300.. £15 of standing charge (5-6% of the bill) should be the least of someones worries if their bills are that high!

As i keep saying, all that cheap gas and elec folks had during the good times is now being paid for in Standing charges as we're all paying for the failed companies that gave everyone the super cheap deals with no reserves of hedging

My bills are £104 a month (gas and elec), which is why I’m cheesed off paying 50p a day.

That’s a doubling of the standing charge simply because they can. Per unit costs I understand as the cost of gas is higher but don’t rinse people for having a meter.

 

[dlockers]

My bills are £104 a month (gas and elec), which is why I’m cheesed off paying 50p a day.

That’s a doubling of the standing charge simply because they can. Per unit costs I understand as the cost of gas is higher but don’t rinse people for having a meter.

Apparently it is covering all of the credit balances lost when the energy firms went bust.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Thing is can i now justify getting rid of the old plasma TV which is absolutely fine by on the electric cost of running it, Mind you I could just leave it on all the time we all sleep in the living room due to the amount of heat it gives out.

Same. I’ve been known to use my plasma as the only means to heat the living room (obviously watching the TV) but the energy draw from the wall for that one device is lol.

 

[Zenduri]

My bills are £104 a month (gas and elec), which is why I’m cheesed off paying 50p a day.

That’s a doubling of the standing charge simply because they can. Per unit costs I understand as the cost of gas is higher but don’t rinse people for having a meter.

Yeah lower end users it hurts more as its a higher percentage of the overall bill but i still think you're missing the point as to why the SC increased. Its not because "they can" it's because we are all paying for the failed suppliers.

 

[SPG]

Thing is though time and time again on here i see people complaining about standing charges when their monthly energy bills are £250-300.. £15 of standing charge (5-6% of the bill) should be the least of someones worries if their bills are that high!

As i keep saying, all that cheap gas and elec folks had during the good times is now being paid for in Standing charges as we're all paying for the failed companies that gave everyone the super cheap deals with no reserves of hedging

Yet that is the consumers fault ? Not at all its a failure of government to actually step in and slap the regulator. Standing charges are simply a stealth tax to buffer government spending nothing more or less.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Yeah lower end users it hurts more as its a higher percentage of the overall bill but i still think you're missing the point as to why the SC increased. Its not because "they can" it's because we are all paying for the failed suppliers.

You’re missing my point… why not add that to the per unit charge?

It basically punishes people for wanting to use less because they still get you in the back end (oo err)

 

[SPG]

Absolutely this, the cynic in me makes me think come the budget before the election it will be a Tory (failed pledge in the end) to lower the charge.

50p a day just to have supply is profiteering.

 

[Curlyriff]

My BT deal has just gone up by £4.60 a month. It's now started for me.

I love this below average income talk - it's as though only a few are on it. - In all my life I have never earned anywhere near average which I think is around £30k (or more)

My pension is way below that -In fact it's below the year 2000 national average. (look it up)

My BT was going to rise by £6.04 so I called up and although I am only half way through contract I said not a chance I can afford that and they renewed me for an additional £1.70 per month instead and gave me 12 months Xbox gold ultimate with it so that actually saves £11 a month of that cost then for 12 months at least or £5.5 a month over the 24 month contract if you look at it like that. Worth a call up.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You’re missing my point… why not add that to the per unit charge?

It basically punishes people for wanting to use less because they still get you in the back end (oo err)

Because you're then unfairly punishing those who use more energy. Poor practice to add fixed costs to variable use.

 

[Zenduri]

You’re missing my point… why not add that to the per unit charge?

It basically punishes people for wanting to use less because they still get you in the back end (oo err)

Then what happens to those who have no choice but to use more energy like poor old betty who is on an oxygen machine and has her heating cranked on high so her usage is higher than the norm? She would get right royally screwed. Spreading the cost out over the SC is the "fairest" way to do it in an unfair way

 

[Haggisman]

Ofgem gave themselves new powers at the start of the year to adjust the price cap earlier if needs be.

Does make you question what's the point of having a cap if they just adjust whenever...

 

[Zenduri]

Does make you question what's the point of having a cap if they just adjust whenever...

Given how volatile the energy markets are at the moment, it makes sense though. No point having a price cap fixed for 6 months if every energy supplier goes under before the next cap

 

[gpuerrilla]

Absolutely this, the cynic in me makes me think come the budget before the election it will be a Tory (failed pledge in the end) to lower the charge.

50p a day just to have supply is profiteering.

It is exactly this. Much similar to the shafting we received from BT et al when we were forced to pay for 'line rental' when the infrastructure had been in place for 40+ years and milked to kingdom come, yet they still got away with it under regulatory noses until recent when line rental was deemed unnecessary.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Then what happens to those who have no choice but to use more energy like poor old betty who is on an oxygen machine and has her heating cranked on high so her usage is higher than the norm? She would get right royally screwed. Spreading the cost out over the SC is the "fairest" way to do it in an unfair way

At least it would punish the heavy users and not everyone. How is it fair to punish light users for the bust businesses that failed to keep costs in line?

 

[Curlyriff]

Just be clever with the subs
I'm certain if u use a VPN set to India when you sign up its <50p a month

Spotify - free on me mates Family thing
NowTV - 6 a month for entertainment n boost
Netflix - Average of 4.61 a month (VPN for setup)
Disney - 60/70 pa (50/50 with me mate)

Think I can save a quid a month on me NowTV if I take it thru the BT Package haha

Sadly none of this will suck up the huge leccy increases were seeing.

Are any of them still offering the half decent off peak rates for lecccy car chargers?

The only thnig I pay for is Internet and Netflix. I have Spotify, Disney and Prime with help from friends and others. Not strictly legal. I got rid of all general TV, Sky, TV licence and loosing all that wont even match the increase in Electric/Gas. My only other bills are mortgage, council tax, water, car tax, insurance and fuel. I have sorned the motorcycle for now etc. Limit gaming to no more than 4h a week to keep bill down and even reduced the GPU to use half power max and keep it at 60fps rather than 90-100fps to help. It mental how far need to go just to live and not even on a bad wage and yet feel like stuck not affording anything but basic living costs.

 

[Haggisman]

Given how volatile the energy markets are at the moment, it makes sense though. No point having a price cap fixed for 6 months if every energy supplier goes under before the next cap

There's also no point in having a price cap at all if it can be increased at any point. Many people (myself included) will have budgeted and made decisions (e.g. whether to fix or not) based on the fact that their prices are now essentially fixed until the cap is reviewed in October. If they can just change it whenever, then might as well scrap the whole thing and let people make a decision based on accurate information.

 

[Curlyriff]

It is exactly this. Much similar to the shafting we received from BT et al when we were forced to pay for 'line rental' when the infrastructure had been in place for 40+ years and milked to kingdom come, yet they still got away with it under regulatory noses until recent when line rental was deemed unnecessary.

Indeed especially when I don't have a house phone at all, isn't installed, never used in 6 years and yet have to pay for line rental even on FTTP.

 

[martin363]

I am not a socialist person by nature, but I used to live in south east Asia for 10 years and they had a very good system for the proportional payment for use of their nationalised electricity (no gas there).

Quiet simply, the more you use, the higher the rate you pay per unit.

It was a very fair system, those who could afford to use more, subsidised those who could not, quite considerably.
It also had the added benefit of encouraging you to be efficient and challenge your use, to significantly reduce your bill, half use would literally result in a 75% saving on the bill.

It may not address the current energy price crisis, but I do believe that there is a proportion of the population better able to absorb the price increases than others, and as things will become more challenging it seems to me the one unit price fits all should be abandoned and become a tiered structure, rather like the tax bands.

This will benefit those who need it most, and for Betty, on her oxygen machine, there can be specific bands created too.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

At least it would punish the heavy users and not everyone. How is it fair to punish light users for the bust businesses that failed to keep costs in line?

That wasn't why they went bust. Wholesale price rose far above the price cap at the time and forced 30 suppliers into bankruptcy. The high standing charge we're currently seeing is because of the cap itself.

 

[413x]

I am not a socialist person by nature, but I used to live in south east Asia for 10 years and they had a very good system for the proportional payment for use of their nationalised electricity (no gas there).

Quiet simply, the more you use, the higher the rate you pay per unit.

It was a very fair system, those who could afford to use more, subsidised those who could not, quite considerably.
It also had the added benefit of encouraging you to be efficient and challenge your use, to significantly reduce your bill, half use would literally result in a 75% saving on the bill.

It may not address the current energy price crisis, but I do believe that there is a proportion of the population better able to absorb the price increases than others, and as things will become more challenging it seems to me the one unit price fits all should be abandoned and become a tiered structure, rather like the tax bands.

This will benefit those who need it most, and for Betty, on her oxygen machine, there can be specific bands created too.

I agree.
There will (as always has been) people who fall through the cracks. And it is a little more complex than income tax as you can do it

Per house - benefits rich single people in apartments vs poorwr people in bigger families in badly insulated houses.
Per person - benefits big houses, harder to keep track of.

But in general. As a principle, I do agree that individuals running expensive hot tubs or crypto rigs should pay more.

Especially if we are near rationing (seen this mentioned this week)


But I expect they'd be waaay too many people who are already worse off who would fall foul of this. Seems to be this group who are in badly insulated homes. Or with poor heating systems or even electric heating.

Not sure how you'd make it fair.