SSE's justification for the 9% hike in electricity charges

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bugger. I'll have to build a new control panel. :-)

And add a new field to the database

[R. Giggs.]

Interesting that the prices in NI are cheaper despite the fact that energy in NI is far more expensive, it has to come through the UK for a start.

They have no reserves of coal gas or oil yet can still set a cheaper price!!!

Wonder why that is?

Perhaps someone from one of the terrrorist organisations put pressure on them to set a fair price?

[R. Giggs.]

Wonder how how long before the rest of the cartel put their price up by the same amount?

" We pride ourselves on the principles of our Building Trust campaign; fairness, transparency and simplicity."

If that was the case why don't they make public when they bought and for how much, it seems remarkable they always buy at the wrong time when it was more expensive.

Crooked bastards.

[R. Giggs.]

The Warm Home Discount Rebate, is only about 10% for les than 10% of the population abounting to 1% overall. Many who wilbe eligible will not claim it anyway, it is very restrictive on who can claim, probaly 5% of the population or less making a

0.5% increase. I do not see why distribribution costs shoud have gone up at all, at least not more than inflation. Why shoudl they? the network is already there!! You can be sure they are not paying their staff big pay risese (apart form the greedy directors)>

And distribution only forms a small part of a the price. So why have prices risen? Most staff will have had pay freezes and the cost of energy has not gone up

10%.

Just a cartel operating a rip off.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No it isn't. You need to treble the grid size or more for the same amount of intermittent generation (renewable) as conventional.

You cant downsize a cable just because the wind stops blowing.

Even though its now not doing anything.

One of the things the renewable lobby 'leaves out' when talking about the cost of wind power etc.

The reality of the situation is that gas prices in Europe are rocketing, gas power stations are now only worth running to handle peak demand, coal is the cheapest these days but that gets fined for being coal IIRC, and there isn't enough nuclear to make up the difference. Renewable energy is viciously expensive and has knock on costs in terms of reduced profits for gas power stations, increase grid capacity needed and increased maintenance bills on the conventional equipment it has to be co-operated with.

That is reneable energy all right. A government created cartel.

[dennis]

Unfortunately the network isn't already there. Every time someone adds generation you have to build a bit of network. This means that every time someone adds a windmill (not the tiny ones on houses) there is a new bit of network to maintain.

Its made worse because of the small output from the mills, they cost far more per mile per kWatt hr than a big power station does in installation and maintenance. Maintenance ~= co2 so they are not as green as claimed either.

[Mark]

Exactly. If there were true competition prices would be much lower and energy companies are using the cartel to boost profits.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The EU is the cartel.

[Mel Rowing]

There is quite a lot left out when it comes to talking about rewable energy.

The most scandalous is the Climate change initiative under which producers of alternative energy are not only guaranteed a market for their electricity (even if its run to earth) but a hefty premium on te spiot price paid to others. The cost is tacked onto your bill. I am vague regarding the aomout but works out at =A3100+ a year per household.

No matter waht is costs it rrepresents hidden taxation. If an industry is to be subsidised the it should be subsidised directly by government and not by edict of government. Then the true costs, the figures get onto the books and are transparent and accounted for.

It's not the only hidden taxation there is aan atem mentioned on MM's reply that refers to a "Warm Home Discount Scheme" This runs under various names like Sta-warm" and amounts to a scheme whereunder households suffering low incomes may enjoy discounts on their energy bills.

Nobody I hope would question the intent of the scheme. However, if there does exist a situation in this country where individuals, particulalrly during cold periods, are unable to afford sufficient energy to keep them warm, then surely is is a question of welfare. The cost of such schemes should not simply be transferred from a consumer in straitened circumstances to one more fortunate by government edict. Rather the cost should come from the social welfare budget which comes out of government renvenues. Then the figures are in the open are taken into account and we get to know what welfare really costs us.

There is an increasing tendancy for governments (note the plural) to engage in this surreptitious form of revenue collection and spending. It's dishonest!

[Man at B&Q]

Everyone should have a VAT free basic allowance of X kwh. Anything above that is a luxury and should be taxed at 20% VAT.

MBQ

[tim.....]

Everyone should have a VAT free basic allowance of X kwh. Anything above that is a luxury and should be taxed at 20% VAT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how's that going to work?

Does someone who uses the same energy source for lighting, heating and cooking get just a fraction of the VAT free allowance of those who use different energy sources for lighting, heating and cooking or do we have some complicated method of "equalisation"?

And what's a fair value for basic heating needs given the huge disparity between insulation standards of houses? And what about differences for local weather patterns?

And what about size of house? (or number of people in the house). It costs more to heat a 5 bedroom house than a 1 bed one, and whilst you could reasonably argue that if a single person chooses to live in a 5 bed (s)he doesn't deserve a higher allowance, this isn't true of a 7 person family living in the same.

tim

[The Other Mike]

Jan / Feb 2013 +/- 500MW

[The Other Mike]

The transmission and distribution networks in the UK needs replacing on a continuous basis as many assets are coming to the end of their service life and some are way beyond that and may even fail catastrophically potentially harming staff and members of the public, hence why there is now near continuous asset replacement, often with a significantly increased asset life. A set level of return on those assets is permitted by the regulator (they don't come 'free')

If that happens in NI I don't know but I would hazard a guess the asset life in NI is around the same as the UK and thus requiring a similar level of investment.

Anyway, in a few months the Island of Ireland will be getting even cheaper power 'from Wales'

[The Other Mike]

You cannot site generation in the arse end of nowhere and expect free transport of that electricity to the centres of the population. The cost of connection to the immediate network access point is borne entirely by the generators.

The return on capital on those assets, some of which may have a life up to 75 years is limited by the regulator OFGEM, currently under an RPI-X formula, but that will change next spring As they use modern equipment the cost of maintenance of those assets is minimal (circuit breaker inspection at five or even ten year intervals is not unusual) Maintenance costs are falling year on year.

The increased costs to the consumers come from use of system charges transporting that energy from the arse end of nowhere to the centres of population which repay the finance on those asset.

The very intermittent nature of many renewables and payment of subsidies to renewable operators also increase the costs to consumers.

Do away with s**te renewables like solar pv and wind turbines, stick two fingers up at Europe over emissions from coal and oil generation and your electricity should become significantly cheaper (but its more likely that it won't drop that much and someone will make a lot more profit)

[Mel Rowing]

Hardly the point though nobody would begrudge its existance.

Nonetheless it is a subsidy. if there is a need for it then the cost should not be deflected onto other consumers. Rather it's a welfare consideration and as such the cost should come from general taxation via the welfare budget. That way it gets onto the government books.

Otherwise it can be seen as hidden taxation.

There is another example of hidden taxation appears here in the Climate Change Initiative. Under this arrangment not only are producers of alternative energy guaranteed a market for their product but are also a price at a premium well above the spot price paid by conventional producers. These costs that amount to ~=A3100+ p.a. / household.

No matter what one's vew on alternative energy, this represents a subsidy on the AE industry that is simply deflected onto other consumers. If this industry is to be subsidised then surely such subsidy should come direct from taxation via government so that it appears on the books,

There would appear to be an increasing tendancy for governments (note the plural) to deflect their spending away from their books through deflecting it in this manner. It is dishonest.

[The Other Mike]

shoudl be "The return on capital for transmission and distribution assets owned by a network operator"

[Tired]

MM wrote: :: "Thank you for your recent email about our price increase. I am sorry :: you have had cause to contact us in these circumstances and I hope :: that my explanation will go some way to restoring your faith in SSE. :: :: It may help if I explain the background behind our price increase. :: There are 3 reasons why prices are changing. :: :: Firstly, the cost of using the networks to get gas and electricity to :: customers' homes is 9% more expensive than it was this time last :: year. There are a number of mandatory environmental and social :: initiatives that suppliers are required to fund. These include :: subsidising energy efficiency measures and payment of the Warm Home :: Discount Rebate. Unfortunately, these are 30% higher than they were :: a year ago. :: :: We also buy some of our energy up to several years in advance. This :: balanced and sensible approach has allowed us to protect our :: customers from the sharp peaks in wholesale prices over the last few :: years. The price we've paid is 14% higher than this time last year. :: :: Whilst I note your comments about other suppliers' prices, I must :: advise that it is not our normal policy to comment on the charges of :: our competitors. We pride ourselves on the principles of our Building :: Trust campaign; fairness, transparency and simplicity. :: :: We buy some of our energy requirement far in advance, some a few :: months ahead of delivery and the remainder is traded at the latest :: possible time. This technique ensures that we buy just the right :: amount of energy. :: :: This balanced approach allows us to avoid sharp spikes in the cost of :: energy but still allows us to take advantage of any sustained drops :: in the forward price. It also allowed us to reduce our gas price in :: March 2012 and if the market conditions allow we will offer a :: reduction in our prices. :: :: Although the short term price of energy may fluctuate over the coming :: months, our existing contracts enable us to promise no more increases :: until the second half of 2013 at the earliest. :: :: Naturally we are disappointed to announce this increase. Raising :: prices is never an easy decision, particularly when the group has :: posted a strong set of trading results. :: :: Nevertheless, we must be aware that our retail business saw a :: significant drop in profit last year and with rising costs set to :: impact our business we simply could not maintain our current prices. :: We have a responsibility to make a modest profit from energy supply." :: :: --------------------------- :: :: Note their normal policy to not comment on other suppliers' prices, :: yet the fact remains that Power NI are proposing a 14% *reduction* in :: electricity due to easement of gas and coal prices. ::

MM

Regulation increases costs, competition decreases them.

[The Natural Philosopher]

OK I have time to mod the site then :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wylfa?

[The Natural Philosopher]

You cant compete with a technology that gets anything from 7p-50p a unit guranteed income over and above the actual sale price and which is guaranteed a market whether its needed or not.