Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

No it isnt, what utter drivel.
So you think wages have dragged up the cost of energy?

Energy been sold for the highest possible price on the market is shareholder driven, to maximise profits. What other reason would there be? Please at least explain your argument.

Also did you forget about the 200 billion of share buybacks since 2010 in energy companies?
 
Same, all paid for itself now, plan to use the FIT payment now to fund self build Batteries.

Slight hiccup this year....the inverter died, it will be 800 to replace .
Well I inherited mine so it’s pure profit for me but I chose to fund my battery using the fit payments.

Inevitably my inverter will die at some point so I’ll either get it repaired using a guy that does repairs for us in work, or upgrade it to something better.
 
Just switched over to Octopus but they wouldn't let me go onto the Octopus Go tariff without having an EV, he even went to go and triple check but came back an answer was no. Have swapped onto their variable (from bulb, currently also on variable) as I think they're a good company anyway. Bit miffed you are only allowed to go on amazing fixed tariff (40p day 7.5p night fixed for 12 months) if you're fortunate enough to own an EV already. Variable likely to be 54p day and 38p night come October :mad::mad::mad:
Yeah its discriminatory only offering that tariff to EV customers, that is a huge barrier to entry that benefits more wealthy people.
 
Yes includes. So move the variable bit onto unit costs and keep the fixed (although fixed is difficult to truly identify depending on time period, they are often stepped costs)
I'm not against that, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells will look at that (terrible attempt that looks like it was knocked up in 5 minutes in a brainstorming event, I mean why the random / after points, why the . between points 2 and 3) and say, all these points benefit OVO as opposed to anyone else.

If people want a supply then they should pay the fixed costs as a SC. So maybe we charge for a meter, in full upfront for example. Pay for the supply to be added, in full, up front.
If your meter breaks, that sux, how do you want to pay for your new one?

Simply the costs are socialised right now, most people will not pay really in effect for what they have consumed (of install costs etc). Especially low usage customers.
Its where this always breaks down when people start looking at "their" costs and fail utterly to understand its not just the bit they can see.
We can adopt what Spain or France do.

They have more progressive modern charges, use more pay more, Spain does it via SC, if you use less your SC is cheaper, France do it via unit price.

The issue with the SC is it leans more on households with less adults (singletons and single parents), and is a bigger proportion of light user's bills. Naturally bigger households will think its a great idea.

Maintenance costs are not fixed, if we have to push more energy through the system then it needs more and higher capacity infrastructure to work. However the UK seems against progressive systems. Hence we so backwards on taxation and energy charges.

But since we so against complexity here, at the very least SC could be discounted for flats vs houses. As a house converted to flats will be providing far more SC per building than a house would.

Also on gas there is people who dont want a supply, but they cant turn it off, so the SC is akin to a protection racket, if you ask for meter to be disconnected, then the infrastructure guys after turn up to forcefully disconnect you from the street and charge you 4 figures for it when the request was only to disconnect the supply at the meter.
 
We can adopt what Spain or France do.

They have more progressive modern charges, use more pay more, Spain does it via SC, if you use less your SC is cheaper, France do it via unit price.

The issue with the SC is it leans more on households with less adults (singletons and single parents), and is a bigger proportion of light user's bills. Naturally bigger households will think its a great idea.

Maintenance costs are not fixed, if we have to push more energy through the system then it needs more and higher capacity infrastructure to work. However the UK seems against progressive systems. Hence we so backwards on taxation and energy charges.

But since we so against complexity here, at the very least SC could be discounted for flats vs houses. As a house converted to flats will be providing far more SC per building than a house would.

Also on gas there is people who dont want a supply, but they cant turn it off, so the SC is akin to a protection racket, if you ask for meter to be disconnected, then the infrastructure guys after turn up to forcefully disconnect you from the street and charge you 4 figures for it when the request was only to disconnect the supply at the meter.

Like I said there are elements of fixed and variable and stepped costs.
Many are in reality stepped and we simply socialise the costs.
Eg when we build a new link from the east coast from offshore who should pick up the bill?

There are absolutely some "fixed" costs however, such as your meter, the wiring from your nearest substation to your house. Who should pay for that really other than you?
Much of the infrastructure was paid for previously its just the nature of these things.

When all the cables blew down when we had the last storms should we all pay a share, or just the people who live there?

Octopus will remove your gas meter for free btw.

When you or someone decided to have gas installed, or chose to buy a house with gas installed it was a conscious decision.

Do you think you should pay less for your phone/cable/fibre line because you use it less than the family next door?
 
Yeah its discriminatory only offering that tariff to EV customers, that is a huge barrier to entry that benefits more wealthy people.

It's a green initiative. The lower rate is being used to fuel green transport, and that's ensured by checking the validity of customers.

Was the Government grants on EVs discriminatory in that they didn't provide grants for petrol and diesel vehicles? Are the tax benefits of the Cyclescheme discriminatory against those who have to drive to work?

There's so many factors at play, and you don't know how much of that tariff is being subsidised because it assists a green economy.
 
Like I said there are elements of fixed and variable and stepped costs.
Many are in reality stepped and we simply socialise the costs.
Eg when we build a new link from the east coast from offshore who should pick up the bill?

There are absolutely some "fixed" costs however, such as your meter, the wiring from your nearest substation to your house. Who should pay for that really other than you?
Much of the infrastructure was paid for previously its just the nature of these things.

When all the cables blew down when we had the last storms should we all pay a share, or just the people who live there?

Octopus will remove your gas meter for free btw.

When you or someone decided to have gas installed, or chose to buy a house with gas installed it was a conscious decision.

Do you think you should pay less for your phone/cable/fibre line because you use it less than the family next door?
To your question thats already the cases on the suppliers I use.

My ISP andrews and arnold, give a discount if you a light user, and EE my mobile provider charges less for less data used per month.

Very light users on mobile can avoid fixed costs altogether albeit with an increase in costs for usage via PAYG or goody bag billing systems. My second phone which I use for inbound only, I havent paid a penny for about a year.

Paying a daily fee just to be "connected" to something doesnt sit right with me and it never will, its in affect a tax. A middle ground I could just about accept would be if no usage is registered for the day then SC is waived for the day but its charged if usage is registered. The exception to this is unmetered products.

That octopus page is just the meter disconnection, later on the gas infrastructure people will turn up and do a expensive street disconnection, that is the issue, for some reason they dont like having people connected to the gas system with a disconnected meter, there is a thread about it on MSE.

By the way some time ago I did a calculation of the amount of annual SC paid by the entire country, its in the billions (but cant remember the exact amount), if that isnt enough to make repairs then something is very wrong.
 
So you think wages have dragged up the cost of energy?

Energy been sold for the highest possible price on the market is shareholder driven, to maximise profits. What other reason would there be? Please at least explain your argument.

Also did you forget about the 200 billion of share buybacks since 2010 in energy companies?
Its nothing to do with shareholders, shareholders dont drive the price of anything. Its simple supply and demand. The price of gas has exploded because a huge supply has been cut out of the market so prices for what remains is going higher, nothing to do with shareholders.

When the price of oil went negative during Covid was that also driven by shareholders? Or was it supply and demand again. Demand fell which led to a surplus on the market and prices collapsed, this time the opposite is happening.
 
Its nothing to do with shareholders, shareholders dont drive the price of anything. Its simple supply and demand. The price of gas has exploded because a huge supply has been cut out of the market so prices for what remains is going higher, nothing to do with shareholders.

When the price of oil went negative during Covid was that also driven by shareholders? Or was it supply and demand again. Demand fell which led to a surplus on the market and prices collapsed, this time the opposite is happening.
Ok I will try to explain it kindergarten style.

If demand increases, then a supplier of a product is able to increase the price of their product and still sell it, you already get this part based on your reply.

However the bit you dont get is they do not have to increase the price of their product, it is a choice. However they typically will as CEO's have a duty to their shareholders to make as much money as possible.

Also in nearly every instance of increased profits, companies will send money to their shareholders, especially in the case of windfall profits.

There is examples of people selling something in high demand choosing not to increase prices, but usually those are not publicly owned entities or for some public relations reason.
 
Bit miffed you are only allowed to go on amazing fixed tariff (40p day 7.5p night fixed for 12 months) if you're fortunate enough to own an EV already. Variable likely to be 54p day and 38p night come October
Yeah its discriminatory only offering that tariff to EV customers, that is a huge barrier to entry that benefits more wealthy people.

Don't feel so bad - for those that do have ev's that nightime energy/cost (potentially negative cost to supplier - can't see latest data) is subsidising the reduced daily rate, so, everybody pays,
but even better if the consumer feels good on social (living my best energy rate) posts.
 
But it isn't shareholders. Its primarily because its a private company. Private companies sell their product at the best price regardless of having share holders
Ok I will try to explain it kindergarten style.

If demand increases, then a supplier of a product is able to increase the price of their product and still sell it, you already get this part based on your reply.

However the bit you dont get is they do not have to increase the price of their product, it is a choice. However they typically will as CEO's have a duty to their shareholders to make as much money as possible.

Also in nearly every instance of increased profits, companies will send money to their shareholders, especially in the case of windfall profits.
 
But it isn't shareholders. Its primarily because its a private company. Private companies sell their product at the best price regardless of having share holders
Well in that case I consider the owner of the company equivalent to a shareholder, maybe I should say owners. But I dont know why people are trying to claim this is a wage driven event rather than owners wanting to maximise the return on their product, ultimately its a choice that can be made at what to sell your product at. I suppose similar to the point I made in the other thread that corp tax liability can be reduced simply by reducing profit, which some companies will do deliberately to reduce their tax liability.

Shell
BP
Centrica

All have Shareholders.
 
To your question thats already the cases on the suppliers I use.

My ISP andrews and arnold, give a discount if you a light user, and EE my mobile provider charges less for less data used per month.

Very light users on mobile can avoid fixed costs altogether albeit with an increase in costs for usage via PAYG or goody bag billing systems. My second phone which I use for inbound only, I havent paid a penny for about a year.

Paying a daily fee just to be "connected" to something doesnt sit right with me and it never will, its in affect a tax. A middle ground I could just about accept would be if no usage is registered for the day then SC is waived for the day but its charged if usage is registered. The exception to this is unmetered products.

That octopus page is just the meter disconnection, later on the gas infrastructure people will turn up and do a expensive street disconnection, that is the issue, for some reason they dont like having people connected to the gas system with a disconnected meter, there is a thread about it on MSE.

By the way some time ago I did a calculation of the amount of annual SC paid by the entire country, its in the billions (but cant remember the exact amount), if that isnt enough to make repairs then something is very wrong.

Your not getting this.
Your taking about usage, I am talking about the fixed cost.
The ISP one is different since mainly you supply the hardware, but the phone for example, did you pay less for the PAYG phone than someone who is using it 10x more than you will.

For some reason? Its surely bloody obvious. You have your meter disconnected, so no one will ever come to read it, or check your supply or anything, but leave you a live gas pipe. What could possibly motivate them to want to remove that?
Oh I wonder if it could be someone just using the supply, or the fact it will never be looked at, that a significant fault could develop.

Its not just about repairs though is it. Its new lines, its replacing older out dated, worn out tech, its adding new meters and substations and all that stuff that happens all the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom