This is getting ridiculous (energy prices - Strictly NO referrals!)

Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
7,902
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
I don't quite understand why we had to foot the bill for it.

They were private business's, if a shop goes out of business, it doesn't cost us anything, if a bus station went out of business, it wouldn't cost us anything. Why should these privately run energy business's cost us.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
16,004
Location
Birmingham
It’s challenging to keep up with the price cap update in October - Ofgem have tweaked the calculation, which makes it more expensive !!

The latest is :
- Gas prices to rise 94%
- Electricity prices to rise 71%

Meaning the average bill is expected to be £3,687 in October, £4,400 from January and £4,700 from April

Jesus...

At this rate its going to be cheaper to heat your home with a BTC miner than conventional heating!

I don't quite understand why we had to foot the bill for it.

They were private business's, if a shop goes out of business, it doesn't cost us anything, if a bus station went out of business, it wouldn't cost us anything. Why should these privately run energy business's cost us.

The reason they failed is because the cap forced them to sell their product at a loss.

It's not so much us footing the bill for it, as trying to prevent more of them going under.

What's the better outcome, all energy suppliers go bust and no-one has any energy, or we have to pay more realistic prices?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2010
Posts
5,306
I had one of these and the novelty quickly wore off as cups of tea took longer to brew and were barely warm after adding milk. In summer you can just about get with it, but in colder weather I found myself preheating a cup by boiling two cups of water - which defeats the purpose, so I went back to a normal kettle.

It’s challenging to keep up with the price cap update in October - Ofgem have tweaked the calculation, which makes it more expensive !!

The latest is :
- Gas prices to rise 94%
- Electricity prices to rise 71%

Meaning the average bill is expected to be £3,687 in October, £4,400 from January and £4,700 from April
:eek:
People need to prepare for their bill to double, because that's exactly the direction it's going. :(
 
Associate
Joined
23 Nov 2018
Posts
188
I don't quite understand why we had to foot the bill for it.

They were private business's, if a shop goes out of business, it doesn't cost us anything, if a bus station went out of business, it wouldn't cost us anything. Why should these privately run energy business's cost us.

This was exactly may thoughts on it as well. My guess is part of that standing charge goes to grease the company taking on those new customers.

They can claim they're making a loss by taking them on, then release record results next year. Win win.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,688
Location
South West
What's the better outcome, all energy suppliers go bust and no-one has any energy, or we have to pay more realistic prices?
Not all energy companies have gone bust though. They would’ve owned money to the energy producers it shouldn’t have nothing to do with the tax payers.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Oct 2004
Posts
7,902
Location
Sunny Torbaydos
Jesus...

At this rate its going to be cheaper to heat your home with a BTC miner than conventional heating!



The reason they failed is because the cap forced them to sell their product at a loss.

It's not so much us footing the bill for it, as trying to prevent more of them going under.

What's the better outcome, all energy suppliers go bust and no-one has any energy, or we have to pay more realistic prices?

realistic for who, over a 3rd of the country won't be able to afford it come October, can completely forget about any form of heating for millions of people which will ultimately lead to thousands of unnecessary and completely avoidable deaths.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
16,004
Location
Birmingham
realistic for who, over a 3rd of the country won't be able to afford it come October, can completely forget about any form of heating for millions of people which will ultimately lead to thousands of unnecessary and completely avoidable deaths.

Realistic in terms of what the product actually costs.

Not sure why you're throwing the "avoidable deaths" line in there except as an unnecessary appeal to emotion - that energy has to be paid for somehow and by someone. So we could force suppliers to continue to sell at a substantial loss, they go bust, people lose their jobs and nobody can buy energy because there is nobody left to buy from, or, the government bails the suppliers out and we all pay for it through taxes, or, people get millions in handouts to pay for it and we all pay for it through taxes. There is no magic solution where we somehow get cheap energy without paying for it.

Not all energy companies have gone bust though. They would’ve owned money to the energy producers it shouldn’t have nothing to do with the tax payers.
No they haven't, the bigger companies who either had enough in cash reserves which allowed them to absorb the losses, or who bought enough energy far enough in advance that the rises didn't affect them YET have not gone bust YET, but it doesn't take a genius to understand what will happen to companies who are forced to sell their product at a loss long term - it's just not sustainable. Eventually either they'll run out of reserve money, or the energy bought in advance will run out and they'll be forced to buy more at current prices.

Curious if there is any legislation to prevent an energy company from just deciding to wind up? If the market is artificially untenable, then why would you want to keep operating in it?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,688
Location
South West
If a business buys stock from a supply chain, if they sell the stock at a loss and go bankrupt it has nothing to do with the government or us as consumers. It’s down to the supply chain to pursue the business for lack of payment and either recover costs or write it of as a loss.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2005
Posts
5,739
The reason they failed is because the cap forced them to sell their product at a loss.

It's not so much us footing the bill for it, as trying to prevent more of them going under.
I dont think this is quite correct.

The newer energy retailers operated very tight margins if any margins, so yes they are susceptible to price rises. However the reason we're all paying for these companies going bust is that the credit balances of customers are protected, and have to be transferred to the new provider. But the retailers who went bust didn't ringfence balances, weak regulation meant they didn't need to hold much if any capital at all. So when these companies went bust (likely paying dividends to themselves or shell companies using customer credit balances in the process), the rest of us had to stump up to refund the credit balances back to customers because that money had vanished.

It is really weak regulation that has caused this.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
16,004
Location
Birmingham
If a business buys stock from a supply chain, if they sell the stock at a loss and go bankrupt it has nothing to do with the government or us as consumers. It’s down to the supply chain to pursue the business for lack of payment and either recover costs or write it of as a loss.

Correct. And if a business is unable to procure stock because it doesn't have the necessary funds, then how can it sell that stock to its customers?

If a business goes bankrupt because it sold all its stock at a loss, then how can it sell stock to customers?

Where are you proposing to buy your energy when all the suppliers have gone bankrupt because they've been forced to sell at a loss?
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
15,176
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Not all energy companies have gone bust though. They would’ve owned money to the energy producers it shouldn’t have nothing to do with the tax payers.

Normally they pay for energy up front

And even if they owned the producers money, the price they were paying was higher than they were being forced to sell it for

It was totally dumb and the cap should have been canned pretty much immediately the problem was identified.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,688
Location
South West
Correct. And if a business is unable to procure stock because it doesn't have the necessary funds, then how can it sell that stock to its customers?

If a business goes bankrupt because it sold all its stock at a loss, then how can it sell stock to customers?

Where are you proposing to buy your energy when all the suppliers have gone bankrupt because they've been forced to sell at a loss?
Ok no problem they go bust and the customers move to the other suppliers and are supplied at current market rates. Still no need to increase the SC and effectively use it as a stealth tax.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,688
Location
South West
Normally they pay for energy up front

And even if they owned the producers money, the price they were paying was higher than they were being forced to sell it for

It was totally dumb and the cap should have been canned pretty much immediately the problem was identified.
Not denying this but why do we have to pay this bill? We the consumers have paid what we owe as usual. We aren’t the ones at any part of the supply chain, that are either mismanaging or reaping huge profits.
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
15,176
Location
Wilds of suffolk
I dont think this is quite correct.

The newer energy retailers operated very tight margins if any margins, so yes they are susceptible to price rises. However the reason we're all paying for these companies going bust is that the credit balances of customers are protected, and have to be transferred to the new provider. But the retailers who went bust didn't ringfence balances, weak regulation meant they didn't need to hold much if any capital at all. So when these companies went bust (likely paying dividends to themselves or shell companies using customer credit balances in the process), the rest of us had to stump up to refund the credit balances back to customers because that money had vanished.

It is really weak regulation that has caused this.

The regulation was weak in order to promote change and competition.
Simply, the new businesses were different models and some had the chance and "luck" to transition into decent companies, eg Octopus.
Businesses have always failed and always will, but the cap directly and significantly destroyed many of these businesses.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
16,004
Location
Birmingham
I dont think this is quite correct.

The newer energy retailers operated very tight margins if any margins, so yes they are susceptible to price rises. However the reason we're all paying for these companies going bust is that the credit balances of customers are protected, and have to be transferred to the new provider. But the retailers who went bust didn't ringfence balances, weak regulation meant they didn't need to hold much if any capital at all. So when these companies went bust (likely paying dividends to themselves or shell companies using customer credit balances in the process), the rest of us had to stump up to refund the credit balances back to customers because that money had vanished.

It is really weak regulation that has caused this.

Yes, its partially that, although I thought that was the reason for the high standing charge?

In terms of unit rate, as someone has posted above, the wholesale price of gas is 17p/kwh for December. Is anyone here paying 17p/kwh for gas? I'm certainly not, so every kwh of gas I use results in my supplier losing 10p, multiply that by thousands of customers using thousands of kwh and tell me if you think its viable to maintain that over an extended period?
 
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
15,176
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Not denying this but why do we have to pay this bill? We the consumers have paid what we owe as usual. We aren’t the ones at any part of the supply chain, that are either mismanaging or reaping huge profits.

The choice was frankly to either say to customers you lost your money or not.
The government rightly IMO say that customers should not lose money in those circumstances.

There were some other things that affected the SC, although I dont know how much.
The national grid for example had to spend a lot of money due to significant disruption, remember all those storms and people being cut off for days due to so much work needing to be undertaken to fix the infrastructure....

I also suspect that the SC was not maximised at its potential from many. Eg I had a tariff with silly low SC the other year, I suspect it was marketing and "worth it" to get my custom. I bet all the energy suppliers are putting every single thing they are allowed into SC now they are basically not allowed to charge market rate for the energy they provide.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,688
Location
South West
Yes, its partially that, although I thought that was the reason for the high standing charge?

In terms of unit rate, as someone has posted above, the wholesale price of gas is 17p/kwh for December. Is anyone here paying 17p/kwh for gas? I'm certainly not, so every kwh of gas I use results in my supplier losing 10p, multiply that by thousands of customers using thousands of kwh and tell me if you think its viable to maintain that over an extended period?
You’re not paying for today gas your paying for the gas brought 12 months ago. Don’t worry you will have to pay for the 17p/kWh at some point. You’re certainly not getting it cheap.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
16,004
Location
Birmingham
Not denying this but why do we have to pay this bill? We the consumers have paid what we owe as usual. We aren’t the ones at any part of the supply chain, that are either mismanaging or reaping huge profits.

You don't have to pay this bill, no one is forcing you to keep using energy :confused:

Seems apt to respond to a previous post of yours

They were private business's, if a shop goes out of business, it doesn't cost us anything, if a bus station went out of business, it wouldn't cost us anything. Why should these privately run energy business's cost us.

If a bus company was forced out of business because it cost more in fuel to run the buses than they were allowed to charge in ticket prices then you would have to walk everywhere. Is that preferable to having to pay a bit more for a bus ticket?
 
Top Bottom