Energy thread
Comments
-
I think the idea is that you get a set amount of subsidised units then get charged more.
It works because broadly, the rich use more energy, to heat their bigger houses etc.0 -
It relies on a correlation between higher energy use and wealth. Seems generally reasonable to me, given that nothing's perfect.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?0 -
Seems flawed to me then. Poorer people are the least likely to have insulated their houses, and are possibly on pre-payment meters. Nothing is perfect but if I can find flaws in seconds then...kingstongraham said:
It relies on a correlation between higher energy use and wealth. Seems generally reasonable to me, given that nothing's perfect.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It would seem reasonably straight forward to implement it on a pre payment system. Plus I would hazzard a guess that the management of the energy supply companies know more about the profiles of their users than a forum poster.0
-
They know each customer's insulation status?Jezyboy said:It would seem reasonably straight forward to implement it on a pre payment system. Plus I would hazzard a guess that the management of the energy supply companies know more about the profiles of their users than a forum poster.
I'd bet the majority of customers are unaware.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I thought we could count the Russian further invasion of Ukrainesurrey_commuter said:
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables
All the warmth of normal clothing with added trip hazard.blazing_saddles said:Further to the electric blanket tip of a few days ago.
Get down to yer local Lidl's and snag today's bargain: a Silentnight snugsie (wearable blanket for the uninitiated) for just £12-99.
(The girl costs extra)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?0 -
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?0 -
Are we suggesting some kind of exponential scale where price increases per unit used ?surrey_commuter said:
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?
Would probably work quite well if there were just tiers.
0-5000kw at 10p per kwh
5001-10000kw at 20p
10001-15000kw at 30p0 -
That would be logical.mully79 said:
Are we suggesting some kind of exponential scale where price increases per unit used ?surrey_commuter said:
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?
Would probably work quite well if there were just tiers.
0-5000kw at 10p per kwh
5001-10000kw at 20p
10001-15000kw at 30p
Wasn't how it was presented though.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That's exactly how it was presented. From The Guardian:pblakeney said:
That would be logical.mully79 said:
Are we suggesting some kind of exponential scale where price increases per unit used ?surrey_commuter said:
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?
Would probably work quite well if there were just tiers.
0-5000kw at 10p per kwh
5001-10000kw at 20p
10001-15000kw at 30p
Wasn't how it was presented though.It would involve reducing the price of energy, but only for a limited amount of use per household, meaning that energy consumption beyond that level would be charged at a higher price. This would aim to prioritise support for poorer customers, since higher-income households typically use more energy, he said.
0 -
Just shows that your choice of media dictates what you "know".kingstongraham said:
That's exactly how it was presented. From The Guardian:pblakeney said:
That would be logical.mully79 said:
Are we suggesting some kind of exponential scale where price increases per unit used ?surrey_commuter said:
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?
Would probably work quite well if there were just tiers.
0-5000kw at 10p per kwh
5001-10000kw at 20p
10001-15000kw at 30p
Wasn't how it was presented though.It would involve reducing the price of energy, but only for a limited amount of use per household, meaning that energy consumption beyond that level would be charged at a higher price. This would aim to prioritise support for poorer customers, since higher-income households typically use more energy, he said.
I quoted the BBC up above and concede.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I realised one point of potential confusion in this. A lot of renewable generators also receive a subsidy based on production in addition to the price at which they sell the power. Obviously, I would expect you to think that is outrageous, but it only impacts the market price of power when it is negative because renewable generators continue to sell at negative prices rather than switching off.TheBigBean said:
The first bit is not true. There are negative pricing periods for example. Renewable generators that are selling at market price are exposed to the full variance. It is actually worse for wind though as pricing gets "cannibalised", because lots of wind means lots of supply, so lower pricing.surrey_commuter said:
maybe I don't understand it but that article seems to say that we have contracts to gtee a fixed price we buy electricity from renewable suppliers. No matter what they produce or how low the market price that is what we pay.TheBigBean said:
This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.surrey_commuter said:
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables
Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.
But in a bizarre heads they win, tails we lose agreement if the spot price of gas is above that gteed price then they get that instead.
20% of our electricity generation is from gas yet we have put in place a pricing mechanism which means that 100% (if this figure is only 80% the point still stands) of our electricity generation is priced on gas.
as I say that is my understanding of the problem and why I see it as a failure of state intervention in the free market.
It is true that gas pricing accounts for much of the pricing short term. You could blame the government for phasing out coal, so that no longer competes. Renewables are capital intensive things, so the cost of production is frontended, but based on 20 years of power price forecasts.
0 -
I think the idea is to cap (ie no rise) for the first chunk and then people pay rate card above that.mully79 said:
Are we suggesting some kind of exponential scale where price increases per unit used ?surrey_commuter said:
because for the majority of the population the wealthier you are the bigger your utility billspblakeney said:
I know. I'm just curious as to how the energy companies and/or government are going to measure who is "the poorest" and who is "a high earner".mully79 said:…
The problem with going off earnings is that it’s not representative of disposable income.pblakeney said:
"Ovo Energy founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said under the scheme the poorest households would get the most support.kingstongraham said:
There is nothing about declared income in the proposal. Or anything about income, directly.pblakeney said:
A good starting point for discussion but basing things on declared income is a bit wooly at both ends of the income scale.kingstongraham said:I quite like the idea from the OVO guy - subsidise energy for households up to a limit, then more expensive over that, with targeted support for special cases where needed on top of that.
As Pross says, it's a proposal to subsidise up to a certain amount of usage per household. More percentage benefit to those who already spend less on energy, and also encourages a reduction in energy use.
Higher earners would see the amount of help taper off as they used more energy."
How else do they know who is poor and who is a high earner?
Would probably work quite well if there were just tiers.
0-5000kw at 10p per kwh
5001-10000kw at 20p
10001-15000kw at 30p0 -
CheersTheBigBean said:
I realised one point of potential confusion in this. A lot of renewable generators also receive a subsidy based on production in addition to the price at which they sell the power. Obviously, I would expect you to think that is outrageous, but it only impacts the market price of power when it is negative because renewable generators continue to sell at negative prices rather than switching off.TheBigBean said:
The first bit is not true. There are negative pricing periods for example. Renewable generators that are selling at market price are exposed to the full variance. It is actually worse for wind though as pricing gets "cannibalised", because lots of wind means lots of supply, so lower pricing.surrey_commuter said:
maybe I don't understand it but that article seems to say that we have contracts to gtee a fixed price we buy electricity from renewable suppliers. No matter what they produce or how low the market price that is what we pay.TheBigBean said:
This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.surrey_commuter said:
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables
Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.
But in a bizarre heads they win, tails we lose agreement if the spot price of gas is above that gteed price then they get that instead.
20% of our electricity generation is from gas yet we have put in place a pricing mechanism which means that 100% (if this figure is only 80% the point still stands) of our electricity generation is priced on gas.
as I say that is my understanding of the problem and why I see it as a failure of state intervention in the free market.
It is true that gas pricing accounts for much of the pricing short term. You could blame the government for phasing out coal, so that no longer competes. Renewables are capital intensive things, so the cost of production is frontended, but based on 20 years of power price forecasts.
Do you not think there is a deal to be done to remove the link with gas?
Yes it would cost money but would seem to be cheaper and easier than reimbursing 30 million retail customers0 -
Long term - more renewables, more nuclear and more storage will break the link.surrey_commuter said:
CheersTheBigBean said:
I realised one point of potential confusion in this. A lot of renewable generators also receive a subsidy based on production in addition to the price at which they sell the power. Obviously, I would expect you to think that is outrageous, but it only impacts the market price of power when it is negative because renewable generators continue to sell at negative prices rather than switching off.TheBigBean said:
The first bit is not true. There are negative pricing periods for example. Renewable generators that are selling at market price are exposed to the full variance. It is actually worse for wind though as pricing gets "cannibalised", because lots of wind means lots of supply, so lower pricing.surrey_commuter said:
maybe I don't understand it but that article seems to say that we have contracts to gtee a fixed price we buy electricity from renewable suppliers. No matter what they produce or how low the market price that is what we pay.TheBigBean said:
This is like finding out the pope doesn't believe in god.surrey_commuter said:
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables
Supply and demand set a market price. This is not set by the marginal cost of production for every participant in the market. This isn't specific to the energy industry.
But in a bizarre heads they win, tails we lose agreement if the spot price of gas is above that gteed price then they get that instead.
20% of our electricity generation is from gas yet we have put in place a pricing mechanism which means that 100% (if this figure is only 80% the point still stands) of our electricity generation is priced on gas.
as I say that is my understanding of the problem and why I see it as a failure of state intervention in the free market.
It is true that gas pricing accounts for much of the pricing short term. You could blame the government for phasing out coal, so that no longer competes. Renewables are capital intensive things, so the cost of production is frontended, but based on 20 years of power price forecasts.
Do you not think there is a deal to be done to remove the link with gas?
Yes it would cost money but would seem to be cheaper and easier than reimbursing 30 million retail customers
In the short term, any scheme that seeks to reduce power prices now in exchange for higher prices later is just off balance sheet borrowing, so fairly pointless.
Any scheme that seeks to penalise companies for doing well seems unfair, but will no doubt receive public backing. Also worth noting that the government is trying to encourage more renewables and discriminatory legislation isn't the best way to do that.
LCCC is the government counterparty to CFD contracts. It is currently making a killing. I think it could pitch in.
0 -
Dispatches from the the latest gas analysts on the European situation:
0 -
If it's a cold winter, there isn't enough energy to go around, and if governments intervene with price caps or just paying the bills on behalf of people and businesses, that incentivises more energy usage, which will ultimately then lead to a higher risk of energy rationing.
It's not just as straightforward as paying for the energy. It's so expensive because there isn't enough to go around.0 -
Edit: I see Rick posted about this on Putin’s thread.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
why is literally nobody capable of correctly using the word literallyrick_chasey said:0 -
Glad you got there before me. I mean, the usage in that tweet is literally metaphorical.surrey_commuter said:
why is literally nobody capable of correctly using the word literallyrick_chasey said:0 -
Suprised that one bothers you. Language changes etc.briantrumpet said:
Glad you got there before me. I mean, the usage in that tweet is literally metaphorical.surrey_commuter said:
why is literally nobody capable of correctly using the word literallyrick_chasey said:0 -
TheBigBean said:
Suprised that one bothers you. Language changes etc.briantrumpet said:
Glad you got there before me. I mean, the usage in that tweet is literally metaphorical.surrey_commuter said:
why is literally nobody capable of correctly using the word literallyrick_chasey said:
That one does bother me as it has a very specific and useful meaning when used correctly. It's worth trying to defend.0 -
You know that thing I said about people missing the point for the details? Anyway,
Italy’s lame duck govt has imposed a 19 C high limit on domestic and work thermostats.0 -
Christmas is going to be a bit cold turkey.
0 -
My experience of Italian hotel thermostats is that they are there for display purposes only. That practice may well be extended. 😉rick_chasey said:You know that thing I said about people missing the point for the details? Anyway,
Italy’s lame duck govt has imposed a 19 C high limit on domestic and work thermostats.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
