Update: reforming the energy market

The energy you use – units of electricity, cubic metres of gas – form only around 45% of the cost shown on your bill. The rest are transmission and connection maintenance, government levies, admin and company costs. Not a formula but an assembly of different costs.

Would you really want to put so much power over your domestic expenditure in the hands of the government, Pete? Could you trust it not manipulate the prices for political purposes? At least if I don’t like the companies that supply my energy products I can switch and mix-&-match to my heart’s content. Your idea smacks of communism to me.

Most government departments are already sub contracting out to private companies who are benefiting from taxpayers money. Civil servants are turning up at their offices every day in the role as custodians, paying our money to others to carry out the work for them ……………..and they are being paid for the privilege!

Gordon – I cannot see how on earth you are going to replace all the non-renewable energy capacity between now and 2020. That’s something like 90% of our energy supply, or worse because demand is growing faster than capacity. So that’s no gas, anywhere, for anything – power stations, home heating, heating for schools, hospitals, shops, offices, and so on. And for electricity – no oil, or gas, or coal combustion, and no nuclear power. So we are left with some hydro-electric power, wind power and solar power plus, in the distant future, some wave and tidal power. Wind power is a useful augmenter of our energy requirements but is neither available nor programmable to suit demand. Solar power is even less efficient and reliable but we could have a rule that says that all air-conditioning plant must only be run on solar energy. Commerce and industry seems to be reluctant to harness solar energy so the major contribution is coming from households and a few solar panel arrays. Probably fewer than half the homes in the UK are suitable for solar energy production due to location or orientation or both, and nobody who lives in a flat or a listed building can participate, and since the lights and heating come on when the sun goes down there is an obvious mismatch between demand and availability.

Anyway, I don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm for renewable energy so I look forward to reading how you think this could be achieved – and you can extend the timeframe if you like because I think even you would agree that 2020 is likely to be a bit tight from a standing start.

Brian – You posted your thoughts at 21:36. I presume you had the lights on while you were doing so, or was the sun shining where you are? Where do you think the power that we all need will come from when there is no sunshine – we have very little effective and economical energy storage capacity that doesn’t involve a fossil fuel. By all means let householders install solar panels and feed any surplus power into the electricity grid, but let’s not kid ourselves that that will keep the shops going, and the factories and offices working, or keep the street lights on, or keep the electric trains running.

For the record, EDF is building and will be running the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station; China General Nuclear Power Group [CGN] and China National Nuclear Corporation [CNNC] will be part-financing the project alongside EDF. The government will not be paying the Chinese to build any nuclear power stations. The construction costs will be amortised into the unit prices for electricity delivered into the grid for which the UK government has, on our behalf, kindly allowed EDF to charge an attractive premium.

What a travesty the solar pv scheme is. That’s not to say that other energy schemes are being managed any better, but I’m mightily relieved that such appallingly inefficient use of resources in this scheme isn’t more widespread. From a green perspective, no politician or householder can hold their head high with this scheme, but it does appeal to financially well off individuals who know that 48p/unit is not affordable electricity generation. Solar farms would be far better, either in the UK for energy security, or perhaps Africa, where nations would welcome some economic stimulus, and we could feel better when it comes to thinking about the best return on the energy invested in making solar panels.
On the subject of other terrible schemes, we have just had a smart meter fitted. We learned too late that you can just say No, and you may want to. In our small, modern, house, the signal barely reaches the kitchen, and it cannot pick up the gas meter signals even held up by the meter cupboard door. If your gas boiler isn’t on a service contract, you may want to consider that the meter installers state it is your problem if the boiler doesn’t relight after the new meter is fitted. After less than a week, the meter is now ignored. An incredibly wasteful investment that the Germans managed to make an easy economic case for not doing themselves. I hope it turns out to be better than the folly it appears to be at present.

One of the disappointments of moving home was inheriting a smart meter because I was going to refuse, in principle. Perhaps the government might have had the courtesy to ask if consumers were happy to pay the vast cost of the roll out of these meters. I had no objection to people paying for them and maybe getting a small discount for the savings made by their energy supplier(s). I would not mind them going to those who are struggling to pay their bills, but I still question the wisdom of imposing them on us all unless we refuse.

My view on the feed-in tariff is that the payment should be the same as it costs to buy electricity. I would not object to modest grants for solar installations.

I wonder what other schemes the government will lend their support to.

I suspect that the government of the day, having jumped on the post-Rio bandwagon, wanted to show its progressive outlook and commitment by setting up an entire government department devoted to energy and climate change. The first thing it had to do, of course, was to work out where it could best interfere in order to show itself off in the most favourable light. So any passing hare-brained or crackpot scheme was seized upon to demonstrate that the government really cared about the future of the planet. Hence the wasteful, and ridiculously expensive, smart meter policy, plus the even more environmentally-damaging manufacture of [mainly imported] solar panels and the grossly profligate enrichment of a well-off element of the population with large south-facing roofs. I would add light bulbs to the list, but that was an EU initiative – although it was zealously implemented in the UK by the DECC as soon as the ink was dry on the directive. More by the enterprise of manufacturers developing better LED’s, rather than through any government determination, we have, at last, arrived at the right place with light bulbs, but at a considerable economic and environmental cost in the meantime.

I agree, John. I do hope that history records how badly these issues have been handled.

The introduction of low energy lighting was handled appallingly. It would have been better to have provided encouragement rather than banning the inefficient lamps, so that consumers would want to change. Some even stockpiled the old bulbs.

I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed and I am more concerned about the rate of use of fossil fuels and pollution of the environment. Negative population growth could solve a lot of problems, in time, but how do we sell that to the general public?

“I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed ” – me too! Having said that, I favour a precautionary approach, in case we are either causing or accelerating its effects.

Even before global warming was a big issue, I was well aware of the more general adverse affects of profligate energy use on our environment. Hence, I have always favoured the efficient use of energy.

As long as we are not burning organic waste that is compostable, I do agree that we should be moving towards green energy. Rather than relying on individuals to move to green energy, perhaps the answer is to make it a requirement to move in that direction. Diesel fuel now contains biodiesel and petrol contains ethanol, which is a renewable energy source.

No one has to buy their energy from a foreign-owned supplier. There are several UK-owned companies – British Gas and The Co-operative Energy to name but two. In the twenty-first century the British people seem to like to have a choice.

Steve – a long time ago-in the 70,s a man with a Morris Minor traveller , you know, the one with the lacquered wood on it ,fitted a device that ran on water ( actually separated hydrogen ) he called the RAC who came out to look at it . I stopped my BT van and went to look too and yes , he got in and drove it , so did the RAC man after he checked it out under the bonnet .It was in all the local newspapers at the time ,speculating on the demise of the big petroleum companies , after a couple of weeks —silence , no more was heard from him or his car. Now think, what does the US use to control the world ? –thats right the Petro-dollar . Too much BB riding on it Steve.

From what I know and what I’ve seen, the promise of cars using water as a fuel is usually the domain of crackpot inventors and/or snake oil salesmen.

In short, chemistry and combustion science teach us that water is a combustion product – not a fuel.

Obviously you can use another primary energy source to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen and then use the separated hydrogen as a fuel. Nonetheless the idea of running a car on water makes no technical sense; it is about as sensible as the claims that were made for cold fusion a few years ago.

Indeed. It’s the question schoolboys always ask: “If water is Hydrogen and Oxygen, why can’t you use it to run engines?” but water is, as you say, actually a sort of fire ‘ash’, which needs a lot of energy input to separate the component chemicals. So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.

It’s simple to use electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen, preferably using electricity from solar power rather than fossil fuels. The problem has always been safe storage of hydrogen. When I was a student there was much talk about use of palladium, which is effective at adsorbing hydrogen. Unfortunately, palladium is rather too expensive for use in vehicles.

Just part of a Wikipedia article on the matter

Forklifts
A fuel cell forklift (also called a fuel cell lift truck) is a fuel cell-powered industrial forklift truck used to lift and transport materials. In 2013 there were over 4,000 fuel cell forklifts used in material handling in the US,[125] of which only 500 received funding from DOE (2012).[126][127] The global market is 1 million fork lifts per year.[128] Fuel cell fleets are operated by various companies, including Sysco Foods, FedEx Freight, GENCO (at Wegmans, Coca-Cola, Kimberly Clark, and Whole Foods), and H-E-B Grocers.[129] Europe demonstrated 30 fuel cell forklifts with Hylift and extended it with HyLIFT-EUROPE to 200 units,[130] with other projects in France [131][132] and Austria.[133] Pike Research stated in 2011 that fuel cell-powered forklifts will be the largest driver of hydrogen fuel demand by 2020.[134]
Most companies in Europe and the US do not use petroleum-powered forklifts, as these vehicles work indoors where emissions must be controlled and instead use electric forklifts.[128][135] Fuel cell-powered forklifts can provide benefits over battery-powered forklifts as they can work for a full 8-hour shift on a single tank of hydrogen and can be refueled in 3 minutes. Fuel cell-powered forklifts can be used in refrigerated warehouses, as their performance is not degraded by lower temperatures. The FC units are often designed as drop-in replacements.[136][137]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

“So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.”

Personally I’d fancy one than could run off discarded househould items like food waste 😉

That was the idea used in Aardman’s Arthur Christmas animation, where the S1 futuristic ‘sleigh’ derived its fuel from milk and cookies.

Did you watch the YouTube video Derek , it wasnt by some “tinkerer ” it was built by a science degree guy in the US and showed you all the cylinders in the boot (trunk ) the production plant was in his garden ,it was small and ,as he lived in a sunny part of the US he used solar panels as, yes , it required electrical input to do the conversion so might not be so economical in the UK. You cannot buy a fusion generator in the US BUT you are allowed to build one and thats what he did , it also needed platinum but again he made it out of another metal that was corrosive resistant . Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ? I am sure those of my era can remember the photos /or seen the large containers that were used on top of cars in WW2 to power them when petrol was short , there were a lot of innovative guys then , if you pick up a file nowadays you could be in trouble.

I recall seeing pictures of vehicles with large gas tanks on the roof but I don’t know what gas was used. I think one episode of Dad’s Army featured something like that on top of their van. I can also remember pictures of a vehicle towing a trailer with some sort of plant mounted on it generating producer gas.

Where there are public tramways it surprises me that nobody has fitted up a van or lorry to collect the current in order to drive an electric motor to power the vehicle for a section of its route. I suppose getting held up by the tram in front while it sets down and picks up passengers is a drawback, but it could be useful for early morning deliveries to shops and businesses in city centres being both silent and non-polluting.

John – it was street gas -visit-lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html

A big bag of town gas on the roof of your car might have been a slight H&S hazard when you chucked your fag-end out of the window during a blackout. Bit like the Hindenburg. Was there any Health and Safety during the WW2 – seems a bit pointless.

I can’t believe such things were ever more than an experiment; some worked, others didn’t and were quietly withdrawn. The only specific health and safety provisions during the Second World War were probably the air raid warnings, the issue of a free gas mask, and a cheap stirrup pump for putting out incendiary bombs. And the prophetic messages from Herr Hitler and Dr Goebbels, of course.

Nowadays, manufacturers of small petrol generators offer conversion kits to allow them to run on gas (LPG) and there are several benefits of doing this. Of course they don’t have to go under low bridges.

The more you think about gas bags on vehicles the more stupid the whole idea seems. I would have thought basic stability was an immediate problem. To make the whole outfit safe would probably have increased the weight of the vehicle, therefore the power required to propel it, so a bigger gas bag would have been required, and a longer wheelbase [or a trailer] to keep it within the kinetic envelope for a moving vehicle and below bridge heights, and so on ad infinitum. Wind resistance would be an additional problem and when the bag was nearly empty it would be flapping about on the roof like a sail!

There are some gas powered single-deck buses in Norwich but the gas is stored in tanks enclosed by a fairing on the roof, the wheelbase being long enough to enable a sufficient supply to be carried for the day’s operations.

I have now gone so far off-topic I can’t find a way of getting back to domestic energy.

Malcolm , it wasnt pointless when you were rationed in the amount of petrol you could buy ,have a look at the amount you were allowed in WW2 . Edinburgh corporation used them, Harrogate and a whole lot more round Britain . And then we had the very inventive –methane gas with some quite “unusual ” ways of obtaining it ( if you know what I mean ) .

duncan, I was referring to H&S not the gas bag. In a tongue-in-cheek way.

Yes we should get back to the topic but some of the diversions certainly add colour to the discussion. My Convo Nav says that we can rejoin the main road soon.

Duncan

I’m not sure what youtube video you are referring to – so I cannot watch it.

“Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ?”

I’m sure fusion research and development is legal. If, however, your fusion project required – or would produce – radioactive substances (in higher than exempted quantities) you would need to comply with appropriate health and safety rules/legislation.

Most design concepts for large scale fusion power reactors use the deuterium/tritium fusion reaction. This releases energy and neutron radiation. Lithium is then fed in the reactors radiation shielding, where it can capture neutrons; this produces more tritium (radioactive hydrogen) and alpha radiation (which is much easier to contain than neutron radiation). Deuterium can, of course, be obtained from the distillation of water, e.g. by hydro plants as featured in “the heroes of Telemark” ww2 drama.

Incidently, those familiar with the real history of those events, may recall the episode in which the Norwegian commandos commander a wood-gas powered car in order to reach the local ferry, which they then sabotage.

Yes, hydrogen has been an effective motor fuel for many years. Just tricky to decant and store 🙂 But it’s the whole “making cars run on water” thing that the snake oil folk have been doing for decades. Surprisingly, it still crops up and takes even educated people in.

There are thousands of sites and hundreds of YouTube videos purporting to show how it works, and some of these sites talk about the ‘Illuminati’ and how inventors of these technologies are murdered if they don’t accept huge sums of money to stop production. What I always find rather amusing is how those who go on about conspiracies and state agencies fail to spot the logical fallacies inherent in what they’re saying. If there are hugely expressive governmental agencies following every move and every communication made then how is it possible that there are, quite literally, billions of words about these ‘secret’ organisations freely available and claiming all this?

I was watching a James Bond documentary a few years ago and I’m sure he was trying to recover a revolutionary energy device from some criminal gang who had stolen it. It was lost again. But surely someone must know how it was made?

Ian – The best Snake Oil is only available on the internet now and there is an infinite supply it would seem. It is no longer hawked or peddled door-to-door, but it is sometimes promoted in publications, home exhibitions and car shows, and is commonly seen at open air markets and car boot sales. It is no longer the exclusive province of salesmen and many women are now involved in pushing such concepts [alongside fancy goods and novelties in most cases], even using on-line auction sites for customer reassurance. I hope this helps.

You wont find out how it was made if its a nuke -GCHQ has blocked the websites on how to build one.

Let’s just hope there aren’t any books on the subject then… 😉

Whats installed in a “smart meter ” is a network computing device which links it with the Internet and therefore control over it is remote , shutting down your electricity , changing your price paid for per unit use , etc , it also means its hackable . A woman sued in the US because ( she said ) it made her ill -she lost, It radiates RF at wi-fi frequencies . Whats the “problems ” Linda ?

Our smart meter display mostly just reports the electricity. It once showed a gas display, but that was 5 minutes in two weeks. We were told we would be getting a new display unit soon, because the current ones they supply aren’t any good. No further news, and no messages offering promotional low price energy either. If we had read up more before, we wouldn’t have had it fitted. The display will shortly be unplugged to save electricity, and forgotten about.

I like the last sentence HUD.

Trevor, the last time I looked a number of the “big 6” offered very competitive fixed price fixed term tariffs. The new small entrants also can (some of them) offer competitive prices because they buy energy at current prices, while wholesale prices are low. The bigger companies buy several years forward to even out sudden changes. When wholesale prices rise the small companies, who can’t easily buy forward, are likely to become uncompetitive. Cash in while you can.

Malcolm that doesn’t guarantee the consumer receiving the benefit of any advanced wholesale price purchases.

Shareholders, not consumers are more likely to be the overall winners in any extra profits made by private companies. Smaller companies, on the other hand, may offer a superior and more efficient service as well as competitive prices, which counts for a lot when you consider some of the energy pricing problems experienced with the ‘Big 6’ by contributors to Which?Convo.

The introduction of smaller companies, generated more competition in the energy market and prompted the ‘Big Six’ to reconsider their monopolistic pricing strategies with more people switching to alternate suppliers offering better service and deals.

The U.K government should now be focusing on updating and improving the country’s antiquated rail system with a view to reducing the congestion and emissions on the roads. Building more motorways will just encourage more vehicles to use them creating more toxic pollution. Any available money should now be invested in creating a more efficient and affordable rail system so that people will be encouraged to use their cars less, which would in turn, also help to reduce the ever increasing obesity and diabetes problem by cutting down on NHS expenditure.

Totally agree about the railways, Beryl.

Forward buying helps to even out the ups and downs in prices. Many people want relative stability which is, I suppose, why fixed term fixed price deals have become popular. Personally I would do away with them as they are subsidised by those who don’t move off variable tariffs.

Railways should certainly be improved for freight. For passenger journeys you still need transport each end to get you to a from your final destination, and many, particularly families, find it cheaper to travel in a car than to buy multiple tickets. Less “routine” travelling has to come at some point by reducing the need to commute.

Malcolm what is required in the world is long term affordable energy not just Cash in while you can that is no answer to the huge rip off prices rising all the time
Energy ought to be run by the State and FAIRLY PRICED
There is no room for PRIVATE GREED re Energy costs

“Energy is far too highly priced”

I really don’t agree.

Personally, my energy costs are quite small relative to the amount I spend on food.

If the government’s levies and obligations are stripped out of the energy bills I believe it is the case that energy prices are lower in real terms than they were before privatisation. Given that many homes now have superior insulation and energy-saving measures installed consumers’ energy costs are even lower in real terms. That’s not to say that further waste and inefficiencies should not continue to be eliminated but profits are not particularly high at around the 3-4% mark; the numbers are big because turnover is so high for the Big Six.

Malcolm what the UK actually requires is long term Low sustainable energy for many reasons
1 Lots of folk are on Fixed Income ie Pensioners who cannot afford hikes in prices at no notice
2 Many are unemployed therefore cant afford Heating when it is required
3 Energy is Not just for Profiteering it is a necessity for all
4 If Nuclear is sooooo great why is it sooooo dear
5 UK energy ought to be nationalised to determine fair prices
6 Folk in poverty must choose to Heat or Eat grossly unfair
7 UK must learn a lesson in compassion life is NOT about making profit only
8 Energy is part of good health and must be afforded by all in the country
9 Many in energy positions are getting far too huge wages that others pay for
10 Time for fairness in all utility pricing
in the 5th wealthiest land in the world

Derek for you it might be great for many others it is not take a look at Fuel Poverty In The UK online toget some of the facts gathered in from all over the UK it is not at all funny that many toil to heat their houses while the Fatcats lap up ever growing profit and those “Shareholders” creaming of OPM are among the lowest in the UK

Trevor – I am well aware of the term fuel poverty and of the problems faced by many in affording their living costs in the UK. I’m no stranger to “lending” money so folk I know can have leccy and gas.

But I see the problem as a social and political one, in which the term “fuel poverty” is used by those in power to distract well meaning but ill-informed do-gooders away from the root causes of these issues.

By setting up the “greedy energy companies and their fat cat bosses” as the villains in this fairy tale version of reality, I think we distract attention from the politicians and civil servants who set the levels of state welfare and pension benefits and the selfish, self-centered electorate, who are in favour of welfare services, but only so long as they don’t actually have to pay the level of taxes required to fund improved benefits.

We have often debated energy company profits on these pages. So far as I can recall, no-one has managed to produce any evidence that there are growing and excessive levels of profit in the UK domestic energy sector.

Derek – These are fair comments but what concerns me is that people who are not coping for one reason or other are being allowed to remain on expensive tariffs. In our ageing population there are many in the early stages of mental decline but still capable of independent living. I doubt many of them periodically log into Which? Switch, even if it could save them money. Many can afford to pay over the odds. I don’t think that’s right but obviously those who are struggling are the priority. They are not necessarily in the ‘vulnerable’ class, though could join it. I want our society run with the needs of citizens in mind, not just companies and shareholders. I agree with your point about the level of taxes and it’s clear to me that we need some redistribution of wealth in this country.

Would you support scrapping fixed price fixed term tariffs that seem to be subsidised, and thus enabling standard variable tariffs to be reduced in price and to become the norm for all? I would like Which? to look at this and if the facts support it, lobby accordingly. I do not see why an individual supplier should offer one tariff 25% less than their svt for the same products.

malcolm, I think we need to be careful about identifying our objectives here.

I think most of us are in favour of fairer systems, in which folk pay fair prices for their energy.

For example, if I can be bothered to shop around, it is fair that I should end up paying less than

(a) someone who is “stupidly wealthy” and has so much money that they just cannot be bothered to shop around?

and/or

(b) someone who, though no fault of their own, is struggling to pay their bills and who lacks the ability, either on their own or with help from any friends and family that they may have, to shop around and thus save precious money?

For (a) I’d say definitely yes but for (b) maybe not so much.

If – as I suspect – the cheaper short term fixed price tariffs are loss-leaders, what we really want to do is restrict the market so that only profitable tariffs are allowed, so that the profits are gathered reasonably uniformly from all customers.

This might be attempted by only allowing each retailer to offer a single SVT to all their customers. However, it remains to be seen how competitive the market would be if run on that basis.

Many of us will opt for choosing a fixed price contract in case prices go up. The problem is that the standard variable tariffs are typically substantially more expensive, and that’s where customers land up if they fail to take action.

I would prefer both options to offer the same or very similar prices and those who opt for a contract will either win or lose depending on whether prices go up or down during the contract.

That does not prevent companies competing with each other over prices.

Derek’s group (b) are the ones that concern me.

DerekP, exactly. We have 40 energy suppliers who have different cost bases, buy their energy in different ways from different sources, so there will still be price competition. I have, through my MP, written to BEIS asking again about the apparent subsidy given by energy suppliers to their fixed price tariffs. So far BEIS have denied this is happening, but I think figures presented show that this is untrue; the difference in price cannot be accounted for by administrative savings, as is claimed. Whether I get a proper answer remains to be seen. I’ll maybe then copy the information to Which? and perhaps they will either point out the flaws in the argument, or consider adding it to the fairer prices campaign.

I agree that we could fix our prices for more certainty of our likely spend (which also depends upon cold weather for example). But are we in a better place to judge how prices might change in the future, or is our energy supplier? So all things being equal my guess is if the deal stood on its own feet we would likely lose – a bit like online gambling.

If fixed term tariffs were costed on the same basis as svts – making the same profit margin but reflecting genuine saving in administration (as the Government claim according to BEIS) then I would support having the option to fix my price. But, as you say, the svt and fixed tariffs should, in practice, be much closer – not differ by up to 25%.

I agree, but guess that the companies are more than happy for customers to be moved onto SVTs because it is a ‘nice little earner’. There are various solutions that could make prices fairer but I wonder how much longer we will have to wait for one to be implemented.

Exactly the situation as I see it. I would like to see a formal examination of the justification for the often substantially lower prices offered for fixed price tariffs so we know whether an “attack” is valid. This is something Which? could do.

I have posted these examples before for an Ofgem average domestic user:
SSE – fixed price £873, SVT £1122 – saving £249 / 22%
nPower – £874 / £1171 – saving £297 / 25%
Scottish Power – £922 / £1145 – saving £223 / 19%
E.ON – £1021 / £1135 – saving £114 / 10%
EDF – £1037 / £1170 – saving £133 / 11%

As total admin costs are, on average, around 15%, can any of the above savings be justified on that basis? Or on any basis?

Not on any basis, Malcolm. I believe that in essential and universal markets like energy even ‘loss-leaders’ should have a moral and ethical basis and that they must be accompanied by a demonstration that they are making a contribution to profits.

The real test is to ask an energy company whether, if everyone of their customers on a standard variable tariff switched to a fixed-price fixed-term contract, they would still be making a profit. If the answer is NO then chicanery is in action.

There is published information that the major energy companies’ profits are around £800m a year. There is also a claim that consumers are overcharged by £1.4 billion. This does not add up. I suspect, and have said before, the “overcharge” is calculated on the basis of those on svts when they could be on a fixed price. But, as you say, if all migrated to fixed price contracts and “saved” £1.4 billion, that would wipe out profits and produce a £600m loss. That will not happen of course.

In practice, the more people who move to fixed price contracts, the higher must be their price to maintain profits at an acceptable level. The savings claimed rapidly reduce, or evaporate totally So yes, I think these figures are misleading. They give a false impression of what consumers could achieve.

Apologies for typo! ……….Not Passing on Price Cuts sounds better.
I am surprised the moderator didn’t pick up on this occasion 🙂

I have also lost the ‘edit’ facility as well as my original avatar and my password is blocked. Woe is me 🙁

Beryl have you any blockers on your browser ?

More likely Beryl’s log on didn’t work properly. Happened to me today.

I did wonder about the spelling Beryl! Out of interest I’ve just changed two family houses to new energy suppliers who were almost the cheapest (the cheapest were two new little known companies). Both were among the “big 6”.

A lot of people don’t live near a railway station so trains need a blend of transport types. But why do we need to travel so much? My concern is that commuting by road or rail either causes excessive pollution or requires huge resources for only two parts of the day.

That shouldnt effect her avatar nor the indicator that she is a regular by hovering over her name

Oooooops message Beryl- it cant be ? — no it woudnt be —– that you are using the dreaded Windows 10 -are you Beryl ? If so this is the biggest bit of NON-informational “advice ” you get from -tell the customer nothing MS . IF -it is the case then Which/your browser etc has nothing to do with it but MS has everything to do with it . Hope you are going to say the oooooops ! is not a Microsoft dumb notice ??

One little issue in here is that you might appear to be logged in but in fact you’re not. If you try to log out, then log in again all might be well.