This occured to me earlier while I was out on my bike and I thought "what we really need is yet another thread about it"
Lots of answers have been suggested, most of which involve taxpayers subsidising people's energy, taxing oil companies or stuff which takes ages, like building a nuclar power station.
This could be done straight away, at no cost to the taxpayer, and would give everyone a basic level of heating.
It's so simple I must be mssing something, so what is it?
.
The figures below are just ballparks and could be adjusted to suit.
We work out an average power consumption (per person, per household, whatever we decide)
We then take a proportion of this amount, say halve it.
Every electricty/gas company (we'll work out a formula to divy it up for people who have both gas and electricity) is then obliged to give every customer this amount of energy for free.
This means that every person/household has a basic level of entitlement to power below which they cannot fall regardless of the ability to pay. It won't be comfortable but it will be doable.
The power companies can then charge whatever they like for power used above this level, presumably **** loads as they'll have to subsidise the free stuff they are obliged to provide.
(eg, if they double the price for power used above half the average consumption and the first half is free then only people who use more than average will be worse off, anyone who uses less will be better off)
People who use loads of power have a huge incentive to reduce consumption as it is now cripling expensive. If you use way more than average (big house, lots of power-hungry things, just being wasteful, which tends to be the wealthier people) then you will pay through the nose for it. This benefits everyone, the biggest users reduce consumption (and less demand should keep prices less high than they would otherwise be for everyone, we don't subsidise Putin's war and of course climate change benefits)
People who use between the free limit and the breakeven point (in my half the average and then double price example this is everyone who uses a bit less than average) will be incentivised to cut back a bit, if they can cut back loads and, in this example, halve their consumption, they'll be quids in.
People who use less than half the average aren't really the problem, they just carry on as before but don't pay. This could be those on low incomes who simply couldn't afford to use more even if they wanted to, a win for them, they are better off, they could even use a little more, but maybe also wealthier people who have for instance installed solar and loads of insulation, well done them, this benefits them too.
.
I really can't see a problem with this so I must be missing something.
The government could then divert all the taxpayer's money it's currently giving to people to pay their gas bills to help people reduce consumption, insulation, solar subsidies, whatever.
Maybe we recalculate the average every year? It should hepefully be getting lower. Different allowances for different groups, say 50% of the average for working age people, 60% for pensioners? We can play about with the numbers, it's the principle I like.
.
.
For commercial users consumption will vary wildly depending on what they do. We could use an average by sector/turnover/number of staff but these probably wouldn't work for various reasons.
Instead I suggest that for each business we work the average of, say, the last five years of their own consumption (shorter period, two, three years would probably be better but that was covid times so may not be representative) They then get half their average consumption for free and pay a lot more for anything above that. Businesses which reduce their consumption the most benefit the most.
.
Should I suggest this to Liz?
Too much, too late on a saturdsy evening.
Having said that, anything is better than the nothingness proferred by the 'governing' party.
My first critique would be that income is no guide to use... and I am pretty sure a rch person can afford/install energy saving bmeasures etter than a poor person in rented accomodation.
Also, how would you ever , in the future, manage to pay for network upgrades, new forms generation etc., tho' you can argue that's been a problem with a market based solution based around the cheapest short term cost for a long time.
Bear in mind the UK is not energy independent, it's just that other countries have effective government
Seems sensible, it'll never catch on.
From a workability perspective I think giving everyone a "winter fuel allowance" of say £2k per house paid monthly, and paid for by adding that onto the 20% tax rate.
My thinking being that helps the poorest without giving anything to anyone average or above.
And by giving everyone "cash" I'm hoping psycologically it feels like free money and they therefore spend it on one off things like insulating their house (could also do with a grant scheme that doubles or trebbled the value if used to towards insulation rather than spending on energy).
Daft as it seems, things like cavity wall insulation could be paying people back in a single winter at this rate, so we REALLY need to be pushing it hardest. Otherwise if this drags on for 2-3 years we're just throwing money away.
My first critique would be that income is no guide to use… and I am pretty sure a rch person can afford energy saving better than a poor person in rented accomodation.
.
Isn't it a good proxy? A poor person won't be sepnding £5k on power simply because they haven't got £5k, a wealthy person might be spending £10k and think nothing of it. Would they still think nothing of it if it went up to £20k for instance?
Your second point is a good one. I'm not sure how we tackle this. Making the landlord responsible for energy bills would make them insulate better but wouldn't incentivise tennants not to be wasteful. State funding of better insulation in rental properties benefits tennants bt basically just gives free upgrades to landlords. Neither is ideal.
Different tax rates for landlords according to EPC ratings? That might work
.
Also, how would you ever , in the future, manage to pay for network upgrades, new forms generation etc., tho’ you can argue that’s been a problem with a market based solution based around the cheapest short term cost for a long time.
If the average is recalculated every year then people who are using more than this will be paying (a lot!) into the system and the amount given as free shold reduce too. It also incentivised micro-generation for those who wish to use more than average.
presumably **** loads as they’ll have to subsidise the free stuff they are obliged to provide.
Which won't guarantee that demand beyond the free limited won't collapse forcing supplier to go bust.
I guess what you are suggesting is a form of limited rationing which although your particular suggestion doesn't sound very workable is possibly an area which should be looked at.
At the moment consumers start paying before they even start using gas or electricity through standing charges.
Perhaps there should be a system where people who have low usage, or in the case of gas perhaps periods of no usage at all, aren't penalised with charges that add a significant percentage to their bills.
Edit: Isn't it time that the UK looked seriously at district heating? It must surely offer the possibility of low carbon more affordable heat than the multitude of individual, and presumably less economical, systems?
From a workability perspective I think giving everyone a “winter fuel allowance” of say £2k per house paid monthly, and paid for by adding that onto the 20% tax rate.
My thinking being that helps the poorest without giving anything to anyone average or above.
And by giving everyone “cash” I’m hoping psycologically it feels like free money and they therefore spend it on one off things like insulating their house (could also do with a grant scheme that doubles or trebbled the value if used to towards insulation rather than spending on energy).
Change that from 'cash' to 'vouchers for insulation, double glazing, solar, etc' to make sure it goes on the right stuff and I wholeheartedly agree, makes much more sense than just subsidising the fossil fuel bills.
But also raises WBO's point about rental properties again, maybe some rule changes allowing/compelling tennants to spend it on the house they occupy? Would improve their lot in life in the short term, but would benefit the landlord who ends up with a better house long term when they move out.
At the moment consumers start paying before they even start using gas or electricity through standing charges.
Perhaps there should be a system where people who have low usage, or in the case of gas perhaps periods of no usage at all, aren’t penalised with charges that add a significant percentage to their bills.
I presume the argument would follow that the standing charge reflects the costs of keeping you connected to the grid. Things like meters, people reading them, people fixing leaks, power lines, etc.
All that stuff would still need doing even if you closed the valve on your meter.
I guess what you are suggesting is a form of limited rationing which although your particular suggestion doesn’t sound very workable is possibly an area which should be looked at.
I did think of it by first thinking about rationing...
If I was a benevolent world dictator everyone would have a carbon ration, set at 1/7,000,000,000 of whatever the planet can cope with to spend how they wish. If you don't eat meat, you might be able to afford a flight, if you install a wind turbine maybe you could drive a car. At present our ability to do damaging things like fly, drive, eat what we like, etc, etc is rationed, but by money, wich is not evenly distributed and is also used to ration less-damaging things like getting a train or eating a vegan diet.
That really will never catch on!
Because govt management of the energy market has worked so well. It would become an administrative nightmare. Big arguments over the allowance to be given for each occupant of a house. Complainnts that anyone with two homes would get two lots of free energy.
Or if it was per person not per house how is that worked.
There would be numerous complaints, some justified, some not about how a family has some condition that means they need a warm house and are being discriminated against.
New nuclear, fracking,
Less of this sort of thing.
"New oil and gas licences for the North Sea are incompatible with the UK’s international climate commitments and the Paris climate agreement, analysts have said."
Perhaps have a vote on whether we want net zero or cheap energy? Anyone who values cheap energy and energ security has had no major party to vote for.
Change that from ‘cash’ to ‘vouchers for insulation, double glazing, solar, etc’ to make sure it goes on the right stuff and I wholeheartedly agree, makes much more sense than just subsidising the fossil fuel bills.
I agree, but I wonder what the lead time on cavity wall insulation is at the moment. We had ours done in the spring before all this kicked off and it was a fortnight between phoning the council and the contractor turning up to install it. I suspect if you phoned up now they're a bit busier. People will still need help in the short term.
And Victorian terraces with loft conversions that make up a lot of the housing stock won't be straightforward to insulate, there needs to be some coordination to externally clad whole streets.
A winter of bestiality for the plebs.
Why choose between heating and eating when you can have both and a Audemars Piguet watch to add to the collection!
So in summary the proposal is "universal basic energy allowance" a bit like the old "universal basic income" concept?
It's a fine idea but doesn't quite address the underlying problems we already have I think.
Those most in need will still be least able to use energy efficiently being less able to get hold of well insulated homes, more efficient (expensive) goods and devices and so on...
Plus it is going to need funding, whether we get that energy from russian gas or solar farms in rural Hampshire, someone has to pay some upfront costs, which will end up being the increasingly resentful working/middle classes, the poorest don't make enough the wealthiest are adept at tax dodging.
If you want to address energy prices long term, ultimately you need to drive down demand, longer term you do that by insulating low income housing and investing in "native" energy generation in the UK (wind/solar/tidal/Nuclear). Those are the things to fund from our national tax/borrowings and the benefits probably won't be felt during the term of any government implementing such a forward looking energy security policy... I wouldn't hold my breath.
Short term someone needs to carry private energy generation and distribution losses, and I bet it won't be shareholders...
HOLY SHIZZER FELLA!
SERIOUSLY THOUGH - this sounds and could work well if the powers that be would entertain the logical idea.
Good man that man 😉 👍
Nice idea but too many mitigating factors. There are lots of people in poorly insulated houses who can't afford to insulate them, or even big houses they inherited so you'd have to make sure they weren't bankrupted.
Then there are lots of houses heated by electricity, but you'd have to compensate for the fact it's colder in some places than others both on average and during any given winter.
And of course, some people have greater need than others for things like medical equipment. You'd probably lose a few people who use a knowingly decrepit gas boiler cos it's cheaper and they can't afford leccy and they get poisoned.
Then there are people who have to travel to work, they've got an electric car to save on fuel but now it's cripplingly expensive to run.
I mean, all these things will happen anyway, but by applying punitive tariffs to excess you'd make it far worse. You'd have to assess every household individually to obtain what the government thinks is a reasonable amount of leccy. I can see that being rather contentious and not very easy to implement either.
Why not WE THE PEOPLE have a referendum on this matter.
Every electricity/gas company (we’ll work out a formula to divy it up for people who have both gas and electricity) is then obliged to give every customer this amount of energy for free.
The flaw in the scheme came early. But nice to see you quickly skipped over it.
.
The energy companies would never give anything away for free. They have shareholders to answer to, most of these shareholders being large investment firms.
Namely BlackRock shhhhhhhh
It doesn’t need to go from free to 2x price but yeah a progressive pricing approach makes a lot of sense and is also perfectly fair given that a big chunk of our energy can be produced at well below the marginal market rate.
Will never catch on because ideology. Can’t have rich big consumers paying more, they might not be able to afford the donations to the tories.
I've just checked my bill and it's flat rate, but I'm sure last time I switched a lot of the tariffs would charge £xx for the first 2000kwh, and then after that the rate changed (I think it got cheaper?)
I wonder if that changed when they started getting squeezed by the price cap so wanted to charge the maximum amount for all your energy?
Anyway, assuming my memory is correct, they could just use this method of charging to provide 'the basic entitlement' at a low cost (not free otherwise someone in a super-insulated house would be able to waste their free energy)
In addition you could adjust the rates according to council tax band and postcode to make it as fair as possible, so a house in a dark Welsh valley or Oop North would get more basic allowance than a house in the South, to account for less daylight/colder climate.
The customer would be permitted to adjust the ratio of basic allowance between their electric and gas usage to suit their needs, this would mean all-electric customers could allocated all their basic allowance to electric, dual fuel customers could choose the ratio within set limits to suit, for example a dual fuel house with an EV may still want the full allowance against the electric, drafty big house may want maximum gas allowance.
Business, well I think that's just a cost of doing business so there is no need to give them a super cheap rate, but those on a non-green tariff that are particularly high users could have a higher rate to support the scheme.
Maybe you just need a communist party with capitalist leanings in charge of your services? Even that uneducated bearded berk who supports terrorists couldn't have managed to produce what I pay.
Gas + leccy + water/sewage for the month for a 3BR flat with two people (summer, so the fan has been running a bit) cost me £19.50 for the last month.
I really can’t see a problem with this so I must be missing something.
I worry for those who are on low income because they are disabled, but have disproportionately high energy requirements because of their disabilities. Essential medical machines used at home can have high energy usage, add to that possible energy required for mobility and the linked difficulty to tolerate cold. There would need to be a separate fund to support these people fully, which presumably could be fairly easy to target to them through their associated medical history.
I don't trust anyone associated with the current government to do the right thing.
Also, it's easy to forget that in many old towns in this country that there is still a proportion of the population that live in very old properties that are hard to insulate. I own one, built in 1880, solid (mostly) stone construction. Not easy to improve insulation, would barely be able to budge it's EPC rating, and couldn't afford to anyway. There are probably thousands of properties like it within in a miles radius. It feels like we need to rebuild half of the infrastructure...but now we have cashflow problems. Long term incredibly low interest loans may be a solution for the adaption that is required, may as well start sooner than later.
Interesting idea but the big problem is who owns the housing and ultimately how much it costs.
I have friends who rent houses that have naff all worthwhile insulation and most landlords don't care. It's very difficult to compel landlords to properly insulate house and rules to make all landlords rent decent housing apart from any rules being opposed the current government would result in a lot of landlords either ignoring leading to enforcement costs or relatively honest ones selling up causing a loss of available housing and a price crash both of which have any government quaking.
It is an impossible quandary but made worse by lack of investment in insulation, not improving new build standards (was due to happen in 2016 but Cameron government decided not to) and lack of affordable housing.
My solution is to tie the domestic gas producers (N. Sea gas has only outlet into the grid) to a maximum price so that we aren't paying the spot market prices for LNG shipped around the world for gas that has a tied market.
Long term though we need to switch the gas off to reduce CO2 emissions but this needs massive investment in low carbon (mainly renewable) power whether Truss likes solar farms or not.
Long story short: most tenants struggle to manage energy use as it is up to their landlord how efficient their house is.
What are you going to pay non domestic gas producers come the winter? You might not be using Russian gas, but you are using European gas.
Also, it's a variable market. At the moment >50% of UK gas is being exported and stored across Europe. The UK doesn't have any gas high volume storage anymore. It got killed as it wasn't considered cost efficient in the 'old' situation, but this all plays into an overall energy policy with actual details
Different tax rates for landlords according to EPC ratings? That might work
From 2025 all rental properties will have to be EPC C or above
The simplest thing which would make the biggest difference is remove the standing charge and roll it into the unit cost.
It reduces the bills of those at the lower end of the spectrum, and it would be easy to calculate and implement.
Sounds a bit like communism to me
Sounds a bit like communism to me
At least they get free central heating. We in the Capital west, far richer and better off than those poor Ruskies, are now faced with the stark choice for some of eating or heating.
Capitalism - Thats worked out well.
What are you going to pay non domestic gas producers come the winter?
The idea is that the higher rate energy usage above the basic allowance would cover all the free/cheap energy. So they should still get paid.
It would be a bit like going over your mobile phone data limit...extremely expensive...but your normal bill is cheap.
Item on the News this morning suggesting Government should subsidise the price of gas at the wholesale stage. That fixes the problem at source, and should cover industry as well as consumers, so the knock on effects on retail prices and lost jobs is avoided, stopping the inflation spiral. A good idea but Government will find a reason why it won't work.
You could pay for it by scrapping the existing 60p/kWh feed-in-tariffs.
Add in Universal Income and you've got something.
Problem I have at the moment is my house has an immersion heater and electric storage heaters, we also have no access to gas . Previously we were on a twin meter setup that was ok price wise as I had cheaper electric at set hours for my heating/water but now its all the same price (still limited to the hours I can use it too which is poo) but I cant afford to do anything to change it unfortunately so I just have to suck it up or be cold
Article here on how we got to where we are.
https://thecritic.co.uk/british-energy-planning-a-horror-story/
And this one from January, highlighting Putin, before the war.
We are shipping fracked gas from the United States while banning fracking here, and we have undermined investment in the North Sea, while allowing Putin to use Nord Stream 2 as a bargaining chip over the future sovereignty of the Ukraine. It is literally the case that we are using public money to import gas to manufacture CO2, while claiming to lead the world on tackling climate change. Unsurprisingly, no one is following.
The wholesale price of electricity is based on the least efficient/mostly costly source (gas) plus a 'normal' profit and that is the price for the whole industry, including renewables and nuclear with minimal marginal costs (and currently super-normal profits). Nationalise the industry then determine price by an average of all sources' marginal costs and the price will come down.
The wholesale price of electricity is based on the least efficient/mostly costly source (gas) plus a ‘normal’ profit and that is the price for the whole industry, including renewables and nuclear with minimal marginal costs (and currently super-normal profits). Nationalise the industry then determine price by an average of all sources’ marginal costs and the price will come down.
It works in theory, but the reality is while the spot price is determined by the most expensive source at that point, lots of other sources are either bought on long term contracts (e.g. nuclear) which is around about average.
Or are sold at whatever the spot price is when they're generating (solar, wind).
Or are bought when they're in demand (gas turbines).
So your supplier is buying all those things to try and pay the minimum ammount they can. Guessing what their need will be, without ending up with a surplus or having to pay through the nose for it at the last minute. So averageing would have no impact as it's already averaged/optimised as well as it can be.
And it removes the mechanism by which large industrial users balance the grid, e.g. aluminium smelters can make use of cheep energy, and reduce to a trickle when demand (and the price) goes up.
Article in the Guardian today…
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/05/free-basic-energy-plan-price-cap-help-poorest-households-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
To irc: - the economics for fracking shale gas in the UK are horrible.... actually they're horrible in the US as well, and a lot of those companies go bust, but they're even worse in the UK - more expense and lower rates - what are you going to do with the holes and such when they're kaput? Or do you think current prices are a new normal?
OK the main issue with all of this and the area a lot of people seem to misunderstand is that your supplier, the company that actually send you the bill, doesn't make much money if any at all.
British Gas only makes money because Centrica has a production arm, ditto EDF, Shell etc however, for competition reasons, they are not allow to sell their own gas and leccy to their customers on the cheap as that would put them in an unfairly advantageous position over the likes of Ovo and Octopus who do not have a production side.
The likes of Ovo, Octopus, Utility Warehouse etc - the true supply only companies - barely make any money at all.
So, the actual suppliers are having to buy the energy in at the international wholesale prices and Ofgem's price cap is set so they cannot then pass on that cost at an unfair profit.
Consequently, any solution that involves consumers paying less than the wholesale price means that the difference is going to have to be paid for by someone. So Octopus have to buy gas in at say 500p a therm and the government syas 'right, to save households you, the supplier can only charge 250p/therm' - well someone is going to have to pay the other 250p/therm. The suppliers cannot possibly cover that size of shortfall, which may get larger, so some form of government help is needed.
So to take the OPs idea - yes, it sounds pretty good and sounds pretty fair. But, how is it going to be funded? Ditto any other scheme that has been suggested. The most viable to me seems to be the government backed commercial loans to energy cos to freeze the cap where it currently is
The bigger issue is how broken the global commodity markets are and how wholesale prices are set internationally. Given the current system, even if we massively increased North Sea gas production it wouldn't bring bills down if the global wholesale price stayed high. It would just mean more profit for the producers. This is what needs fixing in the longer term.
In summary - not a bad idea but how will it be funded?
The idea was, to use your example Danny, that the companies buy it in at 500p/therm. They have to give X free to their customers, but instead of it all being capped at say 250p they can charge whatever they like for anything above that 'free' bit, 800p, 900p, 5,000p, whatever, they'll be able to set that high enough to make money, so they benefit too over having everything capped.
They sell less (good for the environment, not buying Russian gas, etc) but at more money (good for them) but everyone gets enough energy free to manage (just about if they are really careful with it) which benefits those who are struggling most at present.
The people who lose out are those who use way more than average who end up paying for this.
The idea was, to use your example Danny, that the companies buy it in at 500p/therm. They have to give X free to their customers, but instead of it all being capped at say 250p they can charge whatever they like for anything above that ‘free’ bit, 800p, 900p, 5,000p, whatever, they’ll be able to set that high enough to make money, so they benefit too over having everything capped.
OK - yes that works for me. However given a) Radon Liz looks set to be next PM and b) she seems pretty happy letting the rich become richer, sadly I don't think this will be a goer...
but everyone gets enough energy free to manage (just about if they are really careful with it) which benefits those who are struggling most at present.
The people who lose out are those who use way more than average who end up paying for this.
Isn't the problem always going to be efficiency?
The poorest, with lower incomes, thermally leakier housing and cheaper less efficient appliances are always going to find it much harder to stick within the "free energy cap" or afford measures that help them to do so (like new Kettles or extra insulation), and so the most likely scenario is that those most lacking in financial means still end drifting into using un-capped premium energy consumption which becomes an exponential ramp up in costs.
Conversely the middle class consumers who can afford energy efficient appliances and to stuff more kingspan in their lofts will benefit from a consumption cap.
Efficient use of energy in itself carries an up-front cost.
More subsidised insulation campaigns would probably have a bigger impact in the long term.
As for this coming winter?
A coordinated (actually affordable for those on low incomes) price cap, and the treasury bankrolling shortfalls for the leccy (billing) companies so they at least break even might be the simplest short term fix.
The likes of Ovo, Octopus, Utility Warehouse etc – the true supply only companies – barely make any money at all.
Why do these people exist, then?
Why do these people exist, then?
Because they make about enough to make it worth it but not megabucks. So for eg, looking at UWs accounts in 2021 they made £48k profit. They are on the small side as true suppliers go.
Octopus made £25m 2021 compared to a £45m loss 2020. But that is on 3.9m accounts so only £6.41 profit per customer per year so very small margins.
There really is not much money in pure supply.
Why do these people exist, then?
because they previously could undercut the established suppliers, trading on wholesale energy price variances, using data from smartmeters and other means to best exploit varying prices for (still a small percentage) profit.
Now everyone does that, and the price cap is crippling them.
I think what would work better than the OP is a £1,000 energy grant to every household.
Then they can decide how it is used - the individual knows more about their own circumstances than the state, those that can afford can then put towards energy saving, those that need can pay the bill.
But the problem is far worse than that £1,000 wont touch the sides come January when average bills hit 6 or 7,000
molgrips
Why do these people exist, then?
Umm... who is being blamed for the current energy bill crisis?
https://assets.amuniversal.com/779318b09eb3012f2fe500163e41dd5b
British Gas lost money more years than it made ANY profit... meanwhile Centrica trading and E&P were making money and getting concessions based on their "other job" being blame consultants.
At one point a few years ago Centrica had 33,000 employees and their entire profit and most of the money used to prop up British Gas came from <<300 of them in total.
The poorest, with lower incomes, thermally leakier housing and cheaper less efficient appliances are always going to find it much harder to stick within the “free energy cap” or afford measures that help them to do so (like new Kettles or extra insulation), and so the most likely scenario is that those most lacking in financial means still end drifting into using un-capped premium energy consumption which becomes an exponential ramp up in costs.
Conversely the middle class consumers who can afford energy efficient appliances and to stuff more kingspan in their lofts will benefit from a consumption cap.
I'm not sure where the idea of in-efficent kettles even comes from? Even the less efficient electrical ones (that are more expensive than more efficient ) are still a very efficient way to boil water and cost under £10
You don't need to heat a whole house... however the present way energy is billed is designed to push up consumption and lower people's ability to control their bills.
The most expensive electricity is PAYG which gives the consumer the most direct control over their bills
The cheapest is by monthly DD where the customers control is all but removed... to the point most consumers feel helpless and see no change to their bills by reducing consumption.
The narrative is that "poor people" are poor because they are too stupid to budget whereas the reality is poor people are mostly poor because their ability to budget has been removed.
I’m not sure where the idea of in-efficent kettles even comes from?
It was a half joke, based on Boris's disjointed mutterings on the COL crisis the other day, apparently a new kettle will save you a whole tenner a year, He definitely 'gets it'...
The narrative is that “poor people” are poor because they are too stupid to budget whereas the reality is poor people are mostly poor because their ability to budget has been removed.
That's not even vaguely what I said, my point was that energy efficient measures cost Money in themselves, giving people a "free" energy allowance without the means to make efficient use of it is only really doing half a job, and the benefits would ultimately not accrue for those most in need...
I wondered where the kettle comments were coming from! Unless your existing kettle is styled on a computer heatsink I was confused how it would be more efficient!
Seeing as the cup markings on kettles are generally invisible once there is some condensation or scale in the kettle (ours has got movable red tabs inside but even those are not that easy to see) we'd all be better just using a mug to fill the kettle!
Tax the rich. Makes sense. And they have the capacity to invest and reduce bills which also saves the planet. Lovely!
Except you aren't taxing the rich, you're taxing circumstance too.
Let's look at Dave/Sue and Bob/Jane.
Both families have similar joint household income. Let's say £70k, as both adults are on a bit average income. £4500 a month give or take, before pension or other deductions.
Dave and his wife live in a modern 2 bed in the South West. Paid for as sadly the MIL passed away. No kids. Well insulated and relatively mild winters. The school and hospital they work in are well heated and they walk to work. Their energy bills are negligible. That beats clapping for Mrs Dave. Brilliant.
Bob and his wife and two kids live in a 3 bed end terrace in the North built in 1870, £1k a month mortgage. Impractical to insulate the walls (double brick, no cavity, rooms already small enough) and the cold winters bite hard. Bob drives to work in the factory and his wife is a child minder so heating on all day, leaking warmth out into the street. Energy company are not unrestricted, trying to recover costs from Dave, the loss leader, so charge 6x per unit over base. Bob gets a huge bill he can't afford, with no money spare to pay for diesel or kingspan. Or move. Poor Bob and Jane.
Of course that's fabricated to challenge the argument in the OP, which was the assignment. I don't know what the solution is and of course we should pay for usage and reduce consumption but uncapped pricing with no link to means scares me too.
Doh! Typo...
Energy company are now unrestricted...
I wondered where the kettle comments were coming from! Unless your existing kettle is styled on a computer heatsink I was confused how it would be more efficient!
Some posh kettles tend to have an false bottom isolated from the heating element so I can only imagine Boris is talking about his own designer kettle ??
Seems a grossly unfair proposal to me
Having seen some of the energy costs people have quoted on another thread, I’m going to assume that most of these folks don’t live in castles with the heating on 24/7. Rather they live in drafty old houses with families
My new build is energy efficient, has a new boiler, and despite having 4 bedrooms I live on my own. Under your proposal I’ll pay buttons, whilst the family of 4 down the road in the old house built in the 20s will be crippled
cookeaa
That’s not even vaguely what I said, my point was that energy efficient measures cost Money in themselves, giving people a “free” energy allowance without the means to make efficient use of it is only really doing half a job, and the benefits would ultimately not accrue for those most in need…
I'm not claiming it's YOUR narrative!
Perhaps I need to explain further ??
Firstly the over-riding issue is the existence of energy (billing) companies. They shouldn't exist at all but if they do (and short term that's the only option) then they should be allowed to be competitive not legislated to prevent them being competitive.
Legislation makes it impossible for energy companies to take what you use by DD (even if they wanted to)... and they have chosen (unless someone knows exceptions) to charge LESS by DD than paying for what you use quarterly.
To be fair to them that's the concession they get for participating in a crap low profit industry.
Anyhoo... they wil still be here this winter and ...
Most families energy usage is going to be significantly higher in winter regardless but the energy companies are legislated to take that money from your account when it's not being used
This has 2 detrimental effects ...
1) Moderately sensible people with a little left over would take that money to improve their energy efficiency in preparation for the winter but they can't as that money is being taken from them when they would be saving.
2) Reducing energy usage over summer is made to seem pointless in the short term anyway as the money is going to be taken from your account anyway thus dis-incentivising.
This hasn't "crept up" on us... and that adversely affects both 1 and 2 ... other than death and taxes most people on lower incomes can also be certain that
a) Their real world take home is going to decrease
b) Inflation is going to increase
c) Their energy bills will increase
and for many if not most their ability to control spending in general (outside of domestic energy use) is going to decrease in winter. To various degrees the ability to cycle or walk to work/schools/shops etc. is decreased and those lucky enough to have gardens their ability to eat from the garden is reduced, new winter clothes for kids ...not to mention demands from schools for money etc.
To sum that up life in general is just more expensive in winter...
This is just a "normal" year though... now looking at this year many families have just thrown up their hands and quite honestly see no way how they are going to make it through winter.. to quote or paraphrase Martin Lewis he's out of levers to pull ... and many families I know are now basically at the point of saying they are f*****d whatever... or as a mate said to me Sunday... she "feels like she's fallen overboard and the land is just so far away there is just no point trying to swim". Many families will just give in and fall into debt from which they are not going to recover...
