Rewarding high energy users sends the wrong message

Couldn’t agree more: this is one of my main bugbears with CFL’s being compulsory: shops, offices, pubs, etc., can all go on using incandescents and they use millions of times more than domestic users.

That’s just an example – all commercial users are able to be profligate and wasteful whilst we are penalised and dictated to.

Agree totally with all your other points too Sophie.

Offices and shops have used fluorescent lighting and CFLs for a long time, but halogen downlighters have become increasingly popular in recent years. The only way they save significant energy is to burn out fairly quickly. I’m surprised by pubs continuing to use incandescent lighting for so long when many are struggling or have closed because they cannot compete with cheap booze from Tesco et al.

I cannot see why we should differentiate between homes and commercial premises, etc. regarding phasing out of incandescent lamps. The householder who pays the bills is more likely to choose to save money than those working in a shop or office.

Absolutely agree William.

My heating has never been above 15 since it was first installed in 1979. That’s quite warm enough for me and if I feel chilly I put a jumper on (or, now they are trendy and I’ve got one, a “onesie”!!)

I have loft insulation which I had topped up only last year (by a professional, not by a “free” cowboy form an energy company) to almost 1.5 times the current requirement.

I have Everest secondary double glazing in all but one room (not having windows changed as they are the originals, 85 years old, and a major feature of the house).

I don’t have cavity wall insulation as various energy-company sponsored installers won’t touch it due to an extension and the builders all tell me that this house is not suitable.

I have solar hot water heating.

I can’t do much more to save energy really, and I do far more than almost everyone else I know, so why should I either feel guilty (especially now I find that my energy use is actually below national average) or be penalised in any way?

You can always use .. http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/domestic%20energy%20consump%20fig%20FS.pdf

or

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/rmr/smr/Pages/indicators.aspx

I’ve been struggling to find these figures too.

I have seen some average household figures but I’m living alone and I don’t think it would be useful to compare my energy use with that of the average family, though now that I’m retired and in most of the day the difference will be less. e.on have upped my monthly direct debit from £61 to £73.

I got mine from my supplier, Ecotricity – they show them via their website, but they in turn have clearly got them from OfGem as they are identical and set out identically to the ones in William’s first link above.

Thanks both. I was already aware of the Ofgem information but it’s so vague that it tells me that I use less gas and electricity than average. I have known that for a long time and would be interested to find out how my consumption compares with others living alone in a small house. Having had another look, my new direct debit will put me well in credit to e.on if their predictions for my gas and electricity usage are correct, unless they raise their prices. That might be what they have in mind.

Water companies like water meters because they discourage waste and that is important in parts of the country that suffer regular shortages. Most people who move to meters usually report savings.

Don’t forget that the energy supply companies are regulated. If they are told to offer lower prices to low consumers, they will have to do it. Those of us old enough to have lived through the time when many services were nationalised may remember how inefficiently these services were run. The lack of competition means that there is less incentive to run an organisation efficiently. I do feel we need much tighter regulation of companies that provide essential services, but even under strict regulation they are still competing with each other and to make a profit.

Yorkshire Water and USwitch both offer tools to calculate if you’d be better off on a water meter or keeping the water rate. Both tell me that I’d be paying at least 4 times as much on a meter, but I don’t know if you can trust the calculators as some friends of mine had a meter in and find that they are paying barely half what their water rate used to be, yet the on line calculators tell them they’d pay 3 times more with a meter …. clearly wrong.!!

I don’t think our government could afford to re-nationalise energy. If it could, we would probably all end up paying more. It’s like perpetual motion – it looks good but it does not work well.

Well wavechanger, I’d agree you’re probably right that the Government could not afford to re-nationalise. Afterall remember the utilities were privatised by Maggie to bale us out of a previous recession. Once the family silver is sold it’s sold, very hard to get it back.
However I disagree with those who argue nationalised industies simply don’t work. Because those industries were wanting before does not automatically mean they won’t work now. Granted Government needs to grow a few brain cells, employ the right people and use modern industrial methods but there is no fundamental reason it should not work.

Perhaps start small. The government buys up one small energy supply company and goes into competition with the big six cartel. If they get it right they’ll get all the customers and re-nationalise by stealth. Mind you that probably breaks no end of EU laws, but the EU is another issue.

@Chris, Government and brain cells in the same sentence, shame. We all know they have to have those removed and gold plated spoons inserted to be able to work for Government.

And don’t forget, they kind of own at least 2 banks, and neither is doing what the government want. So Mr Cable is proposing to set up another one rather then get the 2 we own to do it 🙁

I’m always amazed how the government claim we’re broke, yet in all this time they haven’t set up their own PPI claims company to cash in on all those fees that are been paid out. Not even the banks are start enough to have done that either.

But your idea is a good one, they could even build a few nuclear reactors, to make their own money, kinda like the EDF model which uses around 60% nuclear from its own reactors.

Chris

You are right about what Maggie did, but if Harold Wilson had not got us into such a mess beforehand it might not have been necessary. I had no time for either of them and jointly they have given me a distrust of all politicians.

Your suggestion about the government running one of the ‘big six’ makes sense. They would have to compete effectively to succeed.

wavechanger,
Certainly agree with you regarding distrust of all politicians.
Idiots to a man (and the women). There is no one to vote for nowadays, they’re all basically useless. In Victorian days if you had an idiot child well to do parents directed them into the church. Nowadays assuming that child can talk a lot (but mostly rubbish) guess where they end up?
Glad you like my idea about buying up one of the energy supply companies, it would prove if a modern day nationalised operation could actually work or not. Providing of course at least a small section of capable Government could be found somewhere to run the exercise.
(Yes I know it’s a very very long shot)

Perhaps we need a “which” campaign to promote the idea?
But I won’t be holding my breath.

I’m glad to hear that we have something in common regarding our distrust of politicians. A government that could carry this off effectively might win my support, but they would have to offer lower prices to small consumers to demonstrate a commitment to reduce energy use.

Anyway, I’m wavechange, not wavechanger. In the interests of economy. 🙂

The discussion has drifted off topic but let’s go right back to the title: ‘Rewarding high energy users sends the wrong message’.

Clearly this is wrong. At the very least we should dispense with standing charges, so I disagree with everyone paying a distribution charge. That will do a bit to help low users. But I think we need to do more to cut down on waste.

I would agree with wavechange, at least get rid of the standing charges. But I’d go further and at least in addition make unit cost the same however much you use.
Not only more fair but how much easier would price comparison be?

As for Malcom’s comment that this conversation has “deteriorated into slagging off politicians”.
Deteriorated? If this currently unfair system of charging for energy is to change where do you think the change is going to have to come from?
Nothing wrong with a bit of politician bashing as “encouragement” if they’re dragging their heels when it come to doing the right thing.

Or do you expect those “fair and honest” people who run the private share holder owned energy supply companies to put things right all on their own?
If you do, dream on.

Malcolm

Read the introduction and the magazine and you will see that people are being rewarded for being high energy users.

If we are going to reward anyone it should be low users of electricity, gas, fuel, etc.

A single rate for all energy is the best way to go as I see it, the more you use the more you pay has to be the fairest way for any utility and anything else for that matter. I don’t pay standard charges for electricity or gas but due to me being a low user over 80% of my water charges are fixed charges which certainly is NOT fair.
As for car excise duty, don’t get me started !!!. That is currently one of the most unfair running cost as anything else discussed in this topic. Car ‘tax’ should also be charged on fuel usage NOT a fixed charge. My car covers 1500 miles a year and I pay £460 in tax yet someone with a lower emission vehicle who could be paying £35 or even ZERO tax can do 10’s of thousands of miles resulting in much higher emissions…..how’s that being more efficient than me?? Pffft!!

Hi b.martin,

You asked:
“In your opening statement you claim that high users are charged up to 30% less than low users.
Can you name one specific domestic tariff that reduces the standing charge and/or the charge per kWh consumed the more energy is used, ( please quote actual figures of standing charge and kWh consumed.)
I have always found that the more energy consumed the higher the total bill. ”

This is something that happens across a number of tariffs. If you have a tariff with no standing charge, customers are often charged one rate for the first batch of energy used (depending on the company and the tariff, this can be per month, per quarter, per year), then a lower amount for any units used on top of that. Hence if you use more units, averaged out over your bill you’re paying less per unit than someone who doesn’t use enough to be charged the cheaper ‘tier 2’ rates. If you have a daily standing charge, you pay a set amount per day then per unit on top of that. Because the standing charge is the same for everyone, again those who use fewer units will end up paying more per unit than those who use a lot more energy.

I understand your point that as you use more your bill goes up – of course that’s true (if it were the other way round we’d all be very warm through winter!) but the point that Jenny is making is that you pay proportionately less per unit. If you want any specific examples of this, just have a look on an energy company website – there are a few tariffs with a flat unit rate for everyone regardless of usage, but these tariffs are quite rare, and the most common tariffs work on a tier 1/2 or standing charge model, as explained above.

I hope this helps.

Hi b.martin – it’s not a few companies, but a few tariffs. Ebico offers these tariffs (there might be others like this available from other companies) and you can see details on their website.