The Lemon Fool

pje16 wrote:

staffordian wrote:But at least they only had one option as far as supplier was concerned

Having one supplier is a bad thing
those who shop around get better deals than those who don't

Yeah! That worked out well, didn't it?

it has for me

pje16 wrote:

staffordian wrote:But at least they only had one option as far as supplier was concerned

Having one supplier is a bad thing
those who shop around get better deals than those who don't

And of course all of us are helping to pay out for that all going wrong

Dod

I just moved house and the previous occupants seemed to like fancy light fittings, but didn't seem to care much about electricity consumption. I've just spend £65 replacing:

- 21 40W G9 halogens
- 6 46W E14 incandescents
- 6 50W GU10 halogens

House seems colder now

Scott.

swill453 wrote:I just moved house and the previous occupants seemed to like fancy light fittings, but didn't seem to care much about electricity consumption. I've just spend £65 replacing:

- 21 40W G9 halogens
- 6 46W E14 incandescents
- 6 50W GU10 halogens

House seems colder now

Scott.

You should I think recover your £65 off your first quarterly bill, or at least quite soon. As you know you will be using about 10% of the electricity. This is the sort of thing we all need to be doing. I am still guilty with some old style outside lighting which will be my next task before next winter.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

swill453 wrote:I just moved house and the previous occupants seemed to like fancy light fittings, but didn't seem to care much about electricity consumption. I've just spend £65 replacing:

- 21 40W G9 halogens
- 6 46W E14 incandescents
- 6 50W GU10 halogens

House seems colder now

Scott.

You should I think recover your £65 off your first quarterly bill, or at least quite soon. As you know you will be using about 10% of the electricity. This is the sort of thing we all need to be doing. I am still guilty with some old style outside lighting which will be my next task before next winter.

Dod

I replaced a lot of light bulbs here. All from 50W halogens, replacements ranging from 2.6W LEDs in the hallway and landing (where the 4W I first tried proved too bright - those turned out right for the home office in the attic) to 7W in the kitchen, where they're much brighter than the halogens and just about enough to cook with.

I've also still got a lot of the halogens. In the bedrooms and living room, where ceiling lights only ever get used for a couple of minutes in a day, so it really doesn't matter.

UncleEbenezer wrote:That was before bloomin' standing charges came to dominate the bill and actual usage became marginal to it.

Scandalous standing charges

CliffEdge wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:That was before bloomin' standing charges came to dominate the bill and actual usage became marginal to it.

Scandalous standing charges

Agree.

It's now increaingly another hidden tax rather than a charge to cover distribution and similar costs, which it started as.

staffordian wrote:It's now increaingly another hidden tax rather than a charge to cover distribution and similar costs, which it started as.

While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

pje16 wrote:While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

Yes, but what are they for ?

scotview wrote:

pje16 wrote:While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

Yes, but what are they for ?

As I understand it at least part is to cover the costs of energy companies taking on the customers of companies that have gone bust. In the current climate the new company makes a loss on those new customers due to the energy cap (this is why there are pratically no deals to switch supplier available at the moment, they just don't want new customers), so they have to be bribed to take them on.

Gersemi wrote:

scotview wrote:

pje16 wrote:While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

Yes, but what are they for ?

As I understand it at least part is to cover the costs of energy companies taking on the customers of companies that have gone bust. In the current climate the new company makes a loss on those new customers due to the energy cap (this is why there are pratically no deals to switch supplier available at the moment, they just don't want new customers), so they have to be bribed to take them on.

So they'll eventually be reduced? Is that a pig I just saw fly past. Just about everything we hear nowadays is a lie.

Who said anything about reduction?
I think you just launached your own flying pig

Gersemi wrote:

scotview wrote:

pje16 wrote:While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

Yes, but what are they for ?

As I understand it at least part is to cover the costs of energy companies taking on the customers of companies that have gone bust. In the current climate the new company makes a loss on those new customers due to the energy cap (this is why there are pratically no deals to switch supplier available at the moment, they just don't want new customers), so they have to be bribed to take them on.

And come to that, why the wide regional variation? Pretty regressive when poor rural oiks get charged 50% more than London and the affluent southeast!

UncleEbenezer wrote:And come to that, why the wide regional variation? Pretty regressive when poor rural oiks get charged 50% more than London and the affluent southeast!

I am in postcode NW London and get charged on the Eastern tariff, Why is that ?
7p a day different to the London tariff
well that's £25 a year that's better being in my pocket than theirs

pje16 wrote:

staffordian wrote:It's now increaingly another hidden tax rather than a charge to cover distribution and similar costs, which it started as.

While I agree thay have gone up a lot they are not in fact hidden, they are quite clearly stated on your bill

Agreed, but they are more a levy now rather than a standing charge to cover standing supply costs.

Would be far more honest to itemise the levy as green supplement, bankrupcy charges etc and show the far lower standing charge separately.

Agreed with that too
more clarity would help and explain why they have gone up so much (perhaps that is why they just call it daily rate)
and that may have been what you meant by hidden
cheers

pje16 wrote:Agreed with that too
more clarity would help and explain why they have gone up so much (perhaps that is why they just call it daily rate)
and that may have been what you meant by hidden
cheers

Do you think that should extend to cost & profit/margin?
It's been a messed up market for decades

servodude wrote:Do you think that should extend to cost & profit/margin?
It's been a messed up market for decades

What if it were still the CEGB and the regional Boards?
Worse?... unions, overmanning... or better?

If it were still govt-run the politicos would be in the firing line as regards prices; by privatising they offshored the responsibility.... but then couldn't resist interfering via the domestic price cap which has put the politicos back in the firing line.
What a shower.

V8

UncleEbenezer wrote:And come to that, why the wide regional variation?

A slightly old (and very lengthy) document that explains why - https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/ ... r_2015.pdf