Properly run and in public ownership is oxymoronic, surely? 
As Eric said, the whole set up is false but you're daft not to go with it.
As Eric said, the whole set up is false but you're daft not to go with it.
Energy price saving 'con'
- Thread starter stuartpaul
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 74
phil.p":3lbo8p05 said:Properly run and in public ownership is oxymoronic, surely?
Not necessarily. No post-war government has really got to grips with public sectror poor management and inefficiency, but it could be done. Counter-intuitively, in its last decade, British Rail was the second most efficient network in Europe (after Sweden, I think), and ticket prices reflected that. And the CEGB was well run, even if the distribution regional companies weren't.
I'm a free-marketer at heart, but I recognise that some things, especially the traditional utilities and some aspects of the transport system, are simply too important and require too much of a long-term strategic approach to work well as simply commercial activities. The time horizon for most firms is way too short, and the present arrangements, where big money faces down a usually-toothless ombudsman, is a national embarrassment.
I did a walking tour of downtown Los Angeles last week. We had a knowledgeable guide, and the subject of LA's dreadful/non-existent public transport system came up. Although allegedly biased, this article sheds some light and perhaps suggests why it may be a good idea that big corporations are kept well away from public goods ownership, if at all possible.
Just sayin'
E.
I agree with Eric.
All the utilities and public transport should never have been privatised and put in the hands of profiteers/racketeers. :evil:
Especially the utilities.
I also support a free market, but not for these essential services.
Take care.
Chris R.
All the utilities and public transport should never have been privatised and put in the hands of profiteers/racketeers. :evil:
Especially the utilities.
I also support a free market, but not for these essential services.
Take care.
Chris R.
So the utilities shouldn't have been put in the hands of racketeers and you support a free market - but you're seemingly happy to pay more than you need to. I'm confused.
You don't change your tariff or supplier. Therefore you are paying more than you need to. I don't mind in the least - it's why mine is cheaper.
Sorry but I don’t follow your logic, you are assuming that I am paying more because I have not changed my supplier, have you thought that I maybe on the lowest tariff available.
If you are saying I cannot be on the lowest tariff because I have not changed my energy supplier.
That indicates that suppliers are charging new customers a lower tariff than existing customers.
Which brings us back to my original post, that the whole so called open energy market is one big government con trick.
Game set and match to me I think.
Take care and watch out for those fixed charges that you will certainly be hit with, remember if it looks too good to be true, it most certainly is.
Chris R.
If you are saying I cannot be on the lowest tariff because I have not changed my energy supplier.
That indicates that suppliers are charging new customers a lower tariff than existing customers.
Which brings us back to my original post, that the whole so called open energy market is one big government con trick.
Game set and match to me I think.
Take care and watch out for those fixed charges that you will certainly be hit with, remember if it looks too good to be true, it most certainly is.
Chris R.
The fixed charges were much lower as well. And they do charge new customers less than existing ones - which is why people like Martin Lewis advise you change supplier every year.
RogerS
Established Member
ChrisR":2pcbnrew said:
And they are still conning us on pensions...Viz George shafting many pensioners in the last Budget. Many, many years ago some pension schemes let you forego salary and other benefits in return for a better Protected Tax Free Lump Sum (ie more than the 25%...Please note - this was a legitimate swap - not a freebie or a swindle-for-the-rich, just in case a certain member starts getting all excited). And that extra Tax Free Lump Sum was what many of us planned our future on. Then at the last Budget, George gave us two-fingers and reneged on the deal. So plans down the swannie. No possibility of recouping the loss. Thank you, George.
Well, George, you can take my vote and shove it up where the sun doesn't shine. As I also told my Tory MP. :twisted:
wellywood
Established Member
I would have to go with Erik on this one. Our energy sector was privatized about 20 years ago with great trumpeting from the (Tory) gummint about the price savings that competition would bring the consumer. Having handed them the entire energy infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers), we have seen our energy bills increase threefold. When you consider that a high proportion of our energy is from renewable sources (mostly hydro), it's baffling.
Recently, one of our local councils announced they were considering a move to LED street lighting at a saving to the ratepayer of 40% p.a in energy consumption. Their power supplier immediately advised them that they would adjust their fixed charge to compensate for the loss of revenue which our Commerce Commission confirmed they were entitled to do. All this because our energy suppliers are in private hands and their shareholders must have their returns safeguarded.
The same energy suppliers have just cut the payback to customers, who have (predominantly) solar panels and who pump their excess energy into the grid, to 25% of the unit price they were paying (26c/unit to 7c/unit) while the same suppliers pay lip service to calls for energy saving. This means the payback period for domestic solar installations has ballooned-out from something like 10 - 15 years to more like 20 - 25 years.
I believe there is definitely a case for public ownership of energy supply.
Recently, one of our local councils announced they were considering a move to LED street lighting at a saving to the ratepayer of 40% p.a in energy consumption. Their power supplier immediately advised them that they would adjust their fixed charge to compensate for the loss of revenue which our Commerce Commission confirmed they were entitled to do. All this because our energy suppliers are in private hands and their shareholders must have their returns safeguarded.
The same energy suppliers have just cut the payback to customers, who have (predominantly) solar panels and who pump their excess energy into the grid, to 25% of the unit price they were paying (26c/unit to 7c/unit) while the same suppliers pay lip service to calls for energy saving. This means the payback period for domestic solar installations has ballooned-out from something like 10 - 15 years to more like 20 - 25 years.
I believe there is definitely a case for public ownership of energy supply.
Mark A
Established Member
I assumed NZ would be one of the last bastions of common sense. Seems I was wrong...
Richard863
Established Member
Hi wellywood
We over here have another ripoff called the standing charge, quite often this is greater in cost than the energy we use (hammer)
Well at least you do have some great wood turning tools and timber on the north isle.
Richard
We over here have another ripoff called the standing charge, quite often this is greater in cost than the energy we use (hammer)
Well at least you do have some great wood turning tools and timber on the north isle.
Richard
wellywood
Established Member
Richard863":2mcjd9ly said:
Yes Richard, we have that too. SWMBO and I use on average $15 worth of gas per month and the standing or fixed charge for the gas connection is an additional $45 !!!
Richard863
Established Member
Hi Pete
Just one last set of figures. Just been digging through the bills and I find the heaviest rip off to date. Water my actual useage is £31.90 yet the standing charge is a wacking £224.26.
I still have to pay to have the cesspit serviced and emptied on top of that. So how many fat cats are profiteering. Having complained and had inspectors here we are on the cheapest rate :roll: ?
Richard
Just one last set of figures. Just been digging through the bills and I find the heaviest rip off to date. Water my actual useage is £31.90 yet the standing charge is a wacking £224.26.
I still have to pay to have the cesspit serviced and emptied on top of that. So how many fat cats are profiteering. Having complained and had inspectors here we are on the cheapest rate :roll: ?
Richard
I had a small shop years ago, and I could have mopped the floor and flushed the toilet with petrol cheaper than paying for water.
ChrisR - It's exactly like mortgages and savings accounts - there is an initial great offer to draw you in, and then a year or two later the fixed rate ends, and you get dumped onto their 'standard' (ie. rubbish) rate. If you never change, then, as with mortgages and savings, you probably aren't on the best rate. Same with sticking with the same car/house insurance provider.
Yes, the infrastructure (pipes, cables, etc.) is all the same, but different companies have different admin overheads, production capabilities/costs, shareholder payouts, etc. so they can and do charge different amounts for the same product. Also remember that a low-usage household will benefit from lower standing charges, whereas a high-usage household benefits from lower per-unit charges, so there isn't one tarriff that's best for everyone.
As to whether it's a good system or not, it currently benefits those who shop around, rather than those who are loyal.
I've found this quite useful: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclub
Fill in your usage and it finds the best tarriffs. It's good at spelling out all of the per-unit rates, standing charges, etc. and is independent. And it emails you if/when there's a cheaper tarriff available.
Yes, the infrastructure (pipes, cables, etc.) is all the same, but different companies have different admin overheads, production capabilities/costs, shareholder payouts, etc. so they can and do charge different amounts for the same product. Also remember that a low-usage household will benefit from lower standing charges, whereas a high-usage household benefits from lower per-unit charges, so there isn't one tarriff that's best for everyone.
As to whether it's a good system or not, it currently benefits those who shop around, rather than those who are loyal.
I've found this quite useful: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cheapenergyclub
Fill in your usage and it finds the best tarriffs. It's good at spelling out all of the per-unit rates, standing charges, etc. and is independent. And it emails you if/when there's a cheaper tarriff available.
Eric The Viking
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 6,599
- Reaction score
- 74
kdampney":1xaaqlpi said:
So have I. If you sign up, and give it the numbers, you can get emails when it thinks it's sensible to switch. That's not rubbish at all: all affiliations are declared, and you can set sensible limits, e.g. "don't bother me if I'd save less than 75 quid p.a."
The energy companies don't make it at all easy for you to do meaningful comparisons. Gas is about 4x cheaper than electricity, joule for joule, at least it was on my last contract (haven't checked this one yet). I'm going to get a whistling kettle for the stove, probably, but first I need to experiment to see if that really holds good for heating water. Does the considerable waste heat when using gas counteract the price difference, compared with a jug kettle (which is pretty efficient, considering)?
I went down that route - I got fed up with waiting for the thing to boil. I've just boiled one mug full of water (which I do if I'm on my tod) on an induction hob in a Le Creuset saucepan - 73 seconds.
