Energy Saving

[servodude]

People are being very careful with their energy. Which isn't a bad thing.
Maybe some good will come of all this.

Yes.
Although it will cost me, I welcome the increase in energy prices.
It will deter the profligacy with which many people heat their homes, use tumble dryers etc.

Tough for those who are skint. But on the whole a 'good thing'.

V8

Couldn't have written it better myself.

[Dod101]

People are being very careful with their energy. Which isn't a bad thing.
Maybe some good will come of all this.

Yes.
Although it will cost me, I welcome the increase in energy prices.
It will deter the profligacy with which many people heat their homes, use tumble dryers etc.

Tough for those who are skint. But on the whole a 'good thing'.

V8

Couldn't have written it better myself.

Up to a point it is a good thing, but you need to be careful of the obvious repost 'It is all right for you.........' People need to be aware of the real cost of any form of energy and the government giving any sort of blanket guarantee of protection is surely not sensible

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

[servodude]

People are being very careful with their energy. Which isn't a bad thing.
Maybe some good will come of all this.

Yes.
Although it will cost me, I welcome the increase in energy prices.
It will deter the profligacy with which many people heat their homes, use tumble dryers etc.

Tough for those who are skint. But on the whole a 'good thing'.

V8

Couldn't have written it better myself.

Up to a point it is a good thing, but you need to be careful of the obvious repost 'It is all right for you.........' People need to be aware of the real cost of any form of energy and the government giving any sort of blanket guarantee of protection is surely not sensible

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

I've mumbled what I think the right model of energy pricing is in the past. It was to do with promoting a reduction in usage and an increase in efficiency while making funds available for other sectors.

Presently the opposite happens in most places
Even in those that actually have large reserves of natural resources
- it's like watching a shitty metaphor choking your kids' future

[UncleEbenezer]

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

I'd tend to resent that as penalising the already-low user (likely to include a high proportion of poorer people) and rewarding the hitherto-profligate.

A pattern of that looks like perverse incentives: right now, why should I insulate my house, when a future government might pay?

Germany, like Blighty and most of the rest of the world, has been living in a fool's paradise of underpriced energy.

[staffordian]

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

I'd tend to resent that as penalising the already-low user (likely to include a high proportion of poorer people) and rewarding the hitherto-profligate.

A pattern of that looks like perverse incentives: right now, why should I insulate my house, when a future government might pay?

Germany, like Blighty and most of the rest of the world, has been living in a fool's paradise of underpriced energy.

I agree.

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

[Dod101]

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

I'd tend to resent that as penalising the already-low user (likely to include a high proportion of poorer people) and rewarding the hitherto-profligate.

A pattern of that looks like perverse incentives: right now, why should I insulate my house, when a future government might pay?

Germany, like Blighty and most of the rest of the world, has been living in a fool's paradise of underpriced energy.

I agree.

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

I thought that is what I said. Obviously it reads differently but they is the sort of thing that I
was trying to propose.

Dod

[AF62]

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

But then there will be campaigns to (rightly) allow a greater usage for the elderly at the cheaper rate, and then the disabled (some rightly, some not), and then those with children (seems reasonable if they are at home and not out at work), and then those who are in poorly insulated rented property because the landlord is too mean to pay for that work to be done (seems fair).

And then you have those who winter abroad so they won’t go over the cheap limit, and those who can afford highly insulated houses not going over the limit.

Plus you have GP’s overrun with people claiming they meet these new disability rules for extra cheap fuel.

[staffordian]

I see the German model of subsidy discussed in my newspaper this morning. They are offering a fixed subsidised price on the first 70% I think of the amount of gas used in the previous year and then the market rate will apply for any usage over that figure. That seems sensible as it will encourage people to reduce their usage I expect. The trouble is that Germany is a comparatively well off country compared to us but even so something like that would seem to be something we should be looking at.

Dod

I'd tend to resent that as penalising the already-low user (likely to include a high proportion of poorer people) and rewarding the hitherto-profligate.

A pattern of that looks like perverse incentives: right now, why should I insulate my house, when a future government might pay?

Germany, like Blighty and most of the rest of the world, has been living in a fool's paradise of underpriced energy.

I agree.

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

I thought that is what I said. Obviously it reads differently but they is the sort of thing that I
was trying to propose.

Dod

Sorry Dod, I misread your post and thought you meant the German scheme gave users individual discounts amounting to 70% of their usage, so high users gained most.

[scrumpyjack]

I see the wholesale price of electricity is now down to 6p per kwh as the gas price continues to collapse
https://www.energy-stats.uk/wholesale-energy-pricing/

At this rate it is hard to see how the retail price can stay at 36p per kwh for long or that the cost to HMG of the support scheme will be anywhere near the estimates?

[staffordian]

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

But then there will be campaigns to (rightly) allow a greater usage for the elderly at the cheaper rate, and then the disabled (some rightly, some not), and then those with children (seems reasonable if they are at home and not out at work), and then those who are in poorly insulated rented property because the landlord is too mean to pay for that work to be done (seems fair).

And then you have those who winter abroad so they won’t go over the cheap limit, and those who can afford highly insulated houses not going over the limit.

Plus you have GP’s overrun with people claiming they meet these new disability rules for extra cheap fuel.

I did say it wasn't perfect, and I agree with your concerns. But how can any scheme realistically target only those who need it?

[Dod101]

I see the wholesale price of electricity is now down to 6p per kwh as the gas price continues to collapse
https://www.energy-stats.uk/wholesale-energy-pricing/

At this rate it is hard to see how the retail price can stay at 36p per kwh for long or that the cost to HMG of the support scheme will be anywhere near the estimates?

Let’s hope that the gas price stays low but we’ll see how it goes in January! But that surely has to be good news. Presumably there is nothing to stop a supplier breaking ranks and lowering their price independently.

Dod

[AF62]

A better (but still not perfect) solution might be to subsidise a fixed number of kWhs per user, the actual number based on say 80% of the average use. In this way the wealthiest, generally with larger properties and higher usage, would see less benefit than those less well off with smaller properties*.

* Yes, I know the assumption that big house =wealthy is flawed, but no system is going to be perfect.

But then there will be campaigns to (rightly) allow a greater usage for the elderly at the cheaper rate, and then the disabled (some rightly, some not), and then those with children (seems reasonable if they are at home and not out at work), and then those who are in poorly insulated rented property because the landlord is too mean to pay for that work to be done (seems fair).

And then you have those who winter abroad so they won’t go over the cheap limit, and those who can afford highly insulated houses not going over the limit.

Plus you have GP’s overrun with people claiming they meet these new disability rules for extra cheap fuel.

I did say it wasn't perfect, and I agree with your concerns. But how can any scheme realistically target only those who need it?

Well the previous scheme started under Sunak was going to deliver pretty much what you propose - Give everyone £400, then add to that with additional subsidies for the elderly, the disabled, the poor (Universal Credit and Council Tax band).

The £400 subsidises some but not all fuel, but you are relying on people to make the connection that is what is happening.

However Truss got in the way of that with her ‘no more handouts’ to the Tory faithful who were unhappy at the undeserving benefitting, so everyone got a handout (at least until next April).

[scotview]

Well the previous scheme started under Sunak was going to deliver pretty much what you propose - Give everyone £400, then add to that with additional subsidies for the poor (Universal Credit and Council Tax band).

I'm sure I heard on the telly today re subsidies, that some folk in poorly paying jobs get universal credit/subsidies/housing benefit paid to "make up the difference".

As more and more subsidies are being paid out, are employers, who pay poorly, not getting the taxpayer to subsidise their business by allowing them (encouraging them) to pay small wages. Cannot quite figure this out.

[AF62]

Well the previous scheme started under Sunak was going to deliver pretty much what you propose - Give everyone £400, then add to that with additional subsidies for the poor (Universal Credit and Council Tax band).

I'm sure I heard on the telly today re subsidies, that some folk in poorly paying jobs get universal credit/subsidies/housing benefit paid to "make up the difference".

As more and more subsidies are being paid out, are employers, who pay poorly, not getting the taxpayer to subsidise their business by allowing them (encouraging them) to pay small wages. Cannot quite figure this out.

It isn’t that the employer just pays low wages, as the minimum wage deals with some of that, but that employers don’t employ people full time any more.

Virtually every job in the retail and hospitality sector is now a part time variable hours job with no certainty of hours.

Now whether this is driven by the employer or the employee is a questionable point - some employees will only want to work the minimum of 16 hours (childcare, students, disability, or they just don’t want to work much) and some employers want the flexibility to just have people when they need them.

But what it means is there are an awful lot of people who are working but are not working full time so fall into the benefits net.

[Mike4]

I see the wholesale price of electricity is now down to 6p per kwh as the gas price continues to collapse
https://www.energy-stats.uk/wholesale-energy-pricing/

At this rate it is hard to see how the retail price can stay at 36p per kwh for long or that the cost to HMG of the support scheme will be anywhere near the estimates?

But don't the fuel companies buy their fuel by making fixed price future contracts?

If this is correct, only the fuel companies who had the balls not to have done so, will be benefiting from this low wholesale price (which I imagine is the price for fuel purchased wholesale 'on the day').

[pje16]

But don't the fuel companies buy their fuel by making fixed price future contracts?

Yes they do, that is why so many of the Mickey Mouse ones that sprang up a few years ago went bust, they were clueless about that

[88V8]

But don't the fuel companies buy their fuel by making fixed price future contracts?

Yes they do, that is why so many of the Mickey Mouse ones that sprang up a few years ago went bust, they were clueless about that

Do you think they were clueless, or was it a deliberate decision because hedging costs money and their usp was to be cheap....
Too many of the cartoon companies were little more than Ponzis, and it is rather shameful that OFWAT just stood by and watched.

V8

[XFool]

I'm sure I heard on the telly today re subsidies, that some folk in poorly paying jobs get universal credit/subsidies/housing benefit paid to "make up the difference".

As more and more subsidies are being paid out, are employers, who pay poorly, not getting the taxpayer to subsidise their business by allowing them (encouraging them) to pay small wages.

Well yes...

Or at least, allow their business model to continue to exist.

[pje16]

But don't the fuel companies buy their fuel by making fixed price future contracts?

Yes they do, that is why so many of the Mickey Mouse ones that sprang up a few years ago went bust, they were clueless about that

Do you think they were clueless, or was it a deliberate decision because hedging costs money and their usp was to be cheap....
Too many of the cartoon companies were little more than Ponzis, and it is rather shameful that OFWAT just stood by and watched.

V8

There was a good programme on BBC I think (forget what it as called) that said they all jumped on board as pretty much anyone could set themselves up as an energy provider, they knew next to nothing about hedging so when prices became volatile they all lost out

[didds]

I'm sure I heard on the telly today re subsidies, that some folk in poorly paying jobs get universal credit/subsidies/housing benefit paid to "make up the difference".

As more and more subsidies are being paid out, are employers, who pay poorly, not getting the taxpayer to subsidise their business by allowing them (encouraging them) to pay small wages. Cannot quite figure this out.

Well, that situation whereby those IN work are getting UC to top up their earnings QED their earnings are insufficient to live on under govt decided thresholds is somewhat confused then by the govt set level of NMW. So maybe employers are extracting the urine - but they are still paying (presumably) at least NMW.

That's a circle that potentially needs to be squared.

didds