Electricity prices - Standing Charge, Standard Energy and Offpeak Energy

Feb 27, 2022 Last reply: 4 years ago 85 Replies

In message <svge48$imi$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 17:58:33 on Sun, 27 Feb

2022, David Wade snipped-for-privacy@dave.>> >>

And they've switched off most coal plants, and switched off Hunterston B last month, and will switch off Hinkley Point B in the summer.

formatting link

"Average price cap unit rates Customer with typical usage, paying by direct debit* Current price cap period (1 October 2021 - 31 March 2022)

Electricity £0.21 per kWh Daily standing charge: £0.25

Gas £0.04 per kWh Daily standing charge: £0.26

Next price cap period (1 April - 30 September 2022)

Electricity £0.28 per kWh Daily standing charge: £0.45

Gas £0.07 per kWh Daily standing charge: £0.27

*Rates are averages and will vary by region, payment method and meter type. Contact your supplier for personalised information."

In a word, yes.

Chris

The actual cap rates are here:

formatting link
Basically there are two points on the graph that are capped: zero units (ie standing charges only) and 'average' usage (12000kWh gas,

3100kWh standard elec, 4200kWh E7 elec). Energy companies are free to come up with a tariff as long as it fits between those two points. The unit rates are not directly capped, but you couldn't make a straight line between those two points without capping them. (I'm not clear if the line has to be straight by law)

In effect the standing charge caps for direct debit payment are: Gas £94.62 (pa I think) Elec £146.84 (North West) to £179.46 (Southern Western)

In comparison, the October 21 to March 22 standing charge cap was: Gas £90.81 Elec £84.76 to £89.21

If you look at the network cost methodology spreadsheet, it does appear to take into account transmission charges. In other words, this is not just a calculation of 'market rates gone up by X%, standing charges up X% too' but does appear to be based on network charges including the proportion of energy taken in the 4-7pm peak period (which is rising).

There is also deferral of COVID related costs from May 2020 by National Grid ESO to

21-22 (adding about £3/MWhr):
formatting link
I'm no expert but it does seem like network and stability costs are the driver, rather than price gouging.

Theo

Was talking to my brother yesterday. His large old house in the North of Scotland (not worth a large amount) is going to soak up near enough his entire state OAP.

He could rent out a few rooms to people doing bitcoin mining?

I'll pass that on. ;-) It's not very conveniently situated for more common types of rental.

Our nukes won't be coming back, but amused to see Germany about to do a U turn on nuclear and coal, thanks to Mr Putin.

Can you tell us how we'll get the required amount of electricity in the future without nukes?

There is room to extend the life of what we have, and install more

There is no without nukes, even you should have noticed a new one is being built.

Just had my first bill from EDF for previous 99 days

elec usage 161.10 elec standing 22.40 gas usage 247.34 gas standing 24.62 vat 22.77 ====== TOTAL 478.24

Plugging in the new EDF rates from 1st April, as though I would have the same usage, even though gas usage will be lower for Mar->May than it has been for Nov->Feb.

elec usage 230.16 elec standing 44.30 gas usage 474.35 gas standing 26.95 vat already included ====== TOTAL 775.76

Comparing on that basis, the new cap vs the current cap for me works out 62% higher over winter, but using my annual elec/gas figures plus 365 days of standing charges works out 56% higher, not far adrift from OFGEM's notional 54%

I bet they want the direct debit to rise more than the £85 -> £162 that I estimate, perhaps that's valid given the cap will be altered again before next winter.

Snipping is usually a good thing, but I was pointing out that we won't bring back our shut-down nukes, although Germany can defer their planned closures. I don't doubt that China and a few other countries will continue with nuclear. I still think HPC could be our last for some time. I think there is a good chance they have had their day in the West, rather like narrowboats. A combination of safety misinformation and climate paranoia. We'll live with high energy prices and low growth. There might be a chance for SMR globally but so far it is virtually all talk, and no construction. In the long term, who knows? There might be a fusion breakthrough. Towards the end of the century, China might be 70% nuclear like France is now. By then, other countries might realise that China can build them quickly, cheaply, and safely.

You think Sizewell C will fail due to lack of investor(s)?

Good chance, I'd say. Unless the Government gets its arse in gear, and how likely is that?

Completely wrong. What has had its day is windmills and solar panels.

Or civilisation.

There will be a crash program to build nuclear power within a year all across Europe.

Only if we let the politicians impose it.

There is no shortage of cheap energy in the world, just the willingness to use it.

It will if the government refuses to underwrite nuclear. I wouldn't invest in a power station where e.g. the chance of a liberal democrat coalition would see it shut down for ideological reasons or taxed out of profitability by a labour government.

If the only way to guarantee it is to have it state owned, so be it. It would be a far far better investment of taxpayers money than a bunch of fat cows sitting in NHS reception areas saying 'the computer says no' ...

Very likely if, and only if,. there is a massive demand that they do and the prospect of massive electoral defeat if they do not.

It would take just one party to promise it, and they would probably win the next election.

No idea to what extend this shares the risk?

formatting link

It seems to go a long way. Your link is legalistic gobbledygook - the actual principal is explained better here:

formatting link
Salient points are:

"a company receives a licence from an economic regulator to charge a regulated price to consumers in exchange for providing the infrastructure in question." I think what this means at least in part as explained later, is that there will be a small 'surcharge' on your bill that will go to the asset provider even before the asset is built.

This takes some of the sting out of project overruns as the interest on the capital loan is being paid by consumers.

One of the tow big uncertainties is in fact that project overruns will happen because of regulatory changes during construction that will affect the build time, by requiring re certification of all or part of the design, This shifts a lot of the cost of that to the consumer.

I do not believe it covers the issue of forced closure for political reasons.

I suspect that any large consortium looking to invest would in the event require a contract with the governement of some sort covering that contingency and the contingency of being forced to adhere to changed and deliberately impossible or uneconomic regulatory regimes such as e.g. 'perfect' cleanup and decommissioning or some such, in the same way that coal was given economic ultimata that essentially rendered it unprofitable to build or operate.

Talk about too little too late. We have known for ages when our gas was going to run out. And also know from bitter experience relying on imported energy is likely to result in tears at some point.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required