Topic: Fuel & energy prices

[thejbs]

You know the world is broken when the powers that be are calling for wages not to increase in order to control inflation. No call to companies to hold prices and take a temporary hit on profits.

No, price increase = fine. Wage increases = bad.

[Red-Soldier]

You know the world is broken when the powers that be are calling for wages not to increase in order to control inflation. No call to companies to hold prices and take a temporary hit on profits.

No, price increase = fine. Wage increases = bad.

We don't want to embed inflation 

[Machae]

Because they were all going bust due to selling it for less than they bought it.

I know it's far too simplistic, but why is that the fault of the consumer. They employ economists and using that data, buy at a futures price then sell it back to us.

If the figures are right, they make a profit, if its not as profitable, then isn't that just business?

[thaddeus]

I know it's far too simplistic, but why is that the fault of the consumer. They employ economists and using that data, buy at a futures price then sell it back to us.

If the figures are right, they make a profit, if its not as profitable, then isn't that just business?

If too many went bust there wouldn't be enough left to supply the utilities across the nation.  As with the banking crisis in 2008 there were some sacrificial lambs (Northern Rock, People's Energy) but others were too big to fail.

It's a sorry reflection of successive governments that the good times mean booming profits for business and the bad times mean crippling costs for taxpayers - both directly through paying more and through, at some point, increased taxation to fund any government interventions.  That model has been accepted as best practice pretty much across the world.

[Machae]

If too many went bust there wouldn't be enough left to supply the utilities across the nation.  As with the banking crisis in 2008 there were some sacrificial lambs (Northern Rock, People's Energy) but others were too big to fail.

It's a sorry reflection of successive governments that the good times mean booming profits for business and the bad times mean crippling costs for taxpayers - both directly through paying more and through, at some point, increased taxation to fund any government interventions.  That model has been accepted as best practice pretty much across the world.

Well seeing as the big players are making an absolute killing and boasting record prices, I doubt they would go bust. Rather its thr smaller utility companies

How does the average figure of £4200 compare to the rest of the world. I know its high everywhere, but are we unique in terms of energy prices vs median salaries

[thaddeus]

Well seeing as the big players are making an absolute killing and boasting record prices, I doubt they would go bust. Rather its thr smaller utility companies

How does the average figure of £4200 compare to the rest of the world. I know its high everywhere, but are we unique in terms of energy prices vs median salaries

I'm not defending the government on this one as they made absolutely no provision for this happening.  If it's anything like the pandemic planning they probably did have a plan but shredded it as it was too much like hard work.

If every customer transferring from a smaller utility company represented a loss to the big players then they simply wouldn't have taken them on.  Those customers would have been left without utilities.  It was only by rising the fuel cap that the big players would take on (and, of course, fleece...) those additional customers.

It's very hard to compare that £4,200 figure as it's a speculative forecast and I'm not aware of other countries having done similar forecasts.  On a more general level inflation across the EU is about the same, maybe slightly lower, than the UK.  That is skewed though by the east of the EU bloc having wild inflation with many 20%+ due to proximity to Russia/Ukraine and reliance on trade with those two nations.

France has capped energy price rises at 4% until the end of 2022 (compared to around 300% for the UK) but they are in the unique position of having the state-owned EDF and having less reliance on gas due to investing in nuclear power.  I guess Germany would be a good comparison to the UK but that would need somebody more informed on German economics than me 

[Elmo!]

I'm not defending the government on this one as they made absolutely no provision for this happening.  If it's anything like the pandemic planning they probably did have a plan but shredded it as it was too much like hard work.

If every customer transferring from a smaller utility company represented a loss to the big players then they simply wouldn't have taken them on.  Those customers would have been left without utilities.  It was only by rising the fuel cap that the big players would take on (and, of course, fleece...) those additional customers.

It's myunderstanding that the price cap rising isn't in any way a political decision - it's been updated every 6 months since it was introduced based on a formula using energy prices over the preceding months. It's just it's obviously been in the news so much because of the massive rises.

The only change made by the government was to change the interval between changes from 6 months to 3.

[thaddeus]

It's myunderstanding that the price cap rising isn't in any way a political decision - it's been updated every 6 months since it was introduced based on a formula using energy prices over the preceding months. It's just it's obviously been in the news so much because of the massive rises.

The only change made by the government was to change the interval between changes from 6 months to 3.

My understanding also.  It's the Ofgem algorithm that dictates and it's based on that published algorithm, as I understand it, that people have been able to confidently predict the cap going to over £4k.

The government have had many opportunities to intervene although not on the price cap itself.  I'd have hoped they would have had a "worse case scenario" plan for the price spiking and demolishing the energy market but apparently not.  At its simplest they could have just positioned themselves as a buffer, paying anything over a certain threshold from taxpayer money up to the amount of the price cap.

[Machae]

France has capped energy price rises at 4% until the end of 2022 (compared to around 300% for the UK) but they are in the unique position of having the state-owned EDF and having less reliance on gas due to investing in nuclear power.  I guess Germany would be a good comparison to the UK but that would need somebody more informed on German economics than me 

That wouldn't be allowed to happen in the UK because that's commie/marxist ideology. Daily Mail would have everyone frothing at the mouth

[thaddeus]

That wouldn't be allowed to happen in the UK because that's commie/marxist ideology. Daily Mail would have everyone frothing at the mouth

The Daily Telegraph ran a big piece yesterday praising the French for it 

I'm sure the same newspaper would have torn to pieces any politician that suggested putting the building blocks in place for it to happen (nationalising utilities, investing in nuclear energy).

[fowlermagic]

Here in Ireland the government will probably give each household a one time payment to help with the bills around the same time the utility companies will increase their bills by the same amount. Might as well transfer any aid directly to the energy company bank account.

[So… Howard Philips]

The Daily Telegraph ran a big piece yesterday praising the French for it 

I'm sure the same newspaper would have torn to pieces any politician that suggested putting the building blocks in place for it to happen (nationalising utilities, investing in nuclear energy).

I’m sure a lot of hypocritical Telegraph readers have second homes in France, if not fully fledged dual nationality.

[Wabaloolah]

If too many went bust there wouldn't be enough left to supply the utilities across the nation.  As with the banking crisis in 2008 there were some sacrificial lambs (Northern Rock, People's Energy) but others were too big to fail.

It's a sorry reflection of successive governments that the good times mean booming profits for business and the bad times mean crippling costs for taxpayers - both directly through paying more and through, at some point, increased taxation to fund any government interventions.  That model has been accepted as best practice pretty much across the world.

the first paragraph is the reason why energy should never be in the hands of a company that needs to make a profit.

The supply of Gas, Water and Electricity should not be a way for executives to get rich at the expense of the consumer

[west_london_red]

the first paragraph is the reason why energy should never be in the hands of a company that needs to make a profit.

The supply of Gas, Water and Electricity should not be a way for executives to get rich at the expense of the consumer

Putting water aside as it’s a no brainer that it should be nationalised, energy is going to be very tricky until we move away from imports of fossil fuels to provide our energy because we don’t have end to end control of the whole market. When electricity was provided mostly by coal (nationalised) and there was plenty of oil and gas in the North Sea it would have been possible but if we nationalise the energy retailers we will still need to buy gas from Norway, the Middle East etc all that change is it’s the government doing the buying rather then a private company. The only way I can see it work is that the government starts to build and owns it’s own renewable and nuclear capacity to compete with the privatised companies.

[stewil007]

So i got an email from InstaVolt saying that they are increasing the price of all their EV charging points - now going up to 66p/kWh.

Another sizeable jump in the price out on the road.  If external chargers are peoples only option, then the price is starting to become comparable to petrol.

It will be interesting to see when electric prices drop if these suppliers drop the price in line with those decreases.

[Machae]

Was going to always happen and predictable. Petrol and Diesel become more expensive, so people ditch those cars and shift to electric. Now electric prices will increase

[Red-Soldier]

Was going to always happen and predictable. Petrol and Diesel become more expensive, so people ditch those cars and shift to electric. Now electric prices will increase

Yes, because our electricity is tied into the same bullshit racket/system.

[Machae]

Yeah, but I think the prices to charge your car would have increased anyway. Not that buying an electric car isn't good/bad but those thinking they would take advantage of low prices, wouldve been in for a shock (pardon the pun) when a few hundred thousand others move to electric too

[Elmo!]

Was going to always happen and predictable. Petrol and Diesel become more expensive, so people ditch those cars and shift to electric. Now electric prices will increase

The difference is in the longer term we have some semblance of national control over electricity prices and aren't at the mercy of OPEC.

[stewil007]

Yeah, but I think the prices to charge your car would have increased anyway. Not that buying an electric car isn't good/bad but those thinking they would take advantage of low prices, would've been in for a shock (pardon the pun) when a few hundred thousand others move to electric too

This in particular affects those that don't have the option of home charging and have access to off-peak rates.

[Nobby Reserve]

Yeah, but I think the prices to charge your car would have increased anyway. Not that buying an electric car isn't good/bad but those thinking they would take advantage of low prices, wouldve been in for a shock (pardon the pun) when a few hundred thousand others move to electric too

I ordered an EV in March, at a price that was already about £30-£40/month more than the optimum price the previous autumn. I was bloody annoyed. It's due for delivery Sept/Oct.

The cheapest monthly lease price for the same car now is over £70 more than I'll be paying.

I'm less annoyed now.


(Oh, and I'm also on a fixed leccy rate at home until Sept 23 [smug grin])

[Gettin better all da time]

Putting water aside as it’s a no brainer that it should be nationalised, energy is going to be very tricky until we move away from imports of fossil fuels to provide our energy because we don’t have end to end control of the whole market. When electricity was provided mostly by coal (nationalised) and there was plenty of oil and gas in the North Sea it would have been possible but if we nationalise the energy retailers we will still need to buy gas from Norway, the Middle East etc all that change is it’s the government doing the buying rather then a private company. The only way I can see it work is that the government starts to build and owns it’s own renewable and nuclear capacity to compete with the privatised companies.

I work as an economics consultant, advising utilities and regulators on setting prices.

The regulators have a primary duty to protect current and future consumers interests. Loose in description, but clear that this is a priority over and above profits. Ensuring these companies are financeable is also a primary duty, meaning that an efficient company should be able to raise debt at a reasonable rate as they have a reasonable credit rating.

The debate on privatisation vs nationalisation misses the need for major investment that has occurred ove the last 30 years. Billions that hasn’t come from tax-payers. At an expense of a “small” reasonable return (which is benchmarked by regulators). Without this investment, infrastructure would be worse. However, a byproduct of natural monopolies is “information asymmetry” (ie the companies trying to pull a fast one where the regulator doesn’t have sufficient information).

I acted both sides of the fence at the last water price control - at a major water company, numbers were predicted without much detail, but at Ofwat those numbers were heavily scrutinised and slashed without too much of a scooby. Whilst at the company I was thinking they’re taking the mick - it should be nationalised. At the regulator, I had exactly the opposite view.

For me, a privatised system is more efficient. Nobody is held to ransom as the price control provides an allowance that trade unions can’t argue with whilst providing the allowance for investment. More simply, in absence of the private investment, the water system would be severely underfunded. We’re heading into a dark period and water companies will undoubtedly get a lot of stick, some of it fairly - but the counter factual is significantly worse. In the UK we have one of the best water infrastructure and a price that whilst expensive is valuable. I’m in Greece today - I can’t drink tap water or flush toilet paper and I’m spending 4£ on bottled water. It’s about £1 a day at home. Water is an essential service,but  the cost of it is less under the current model than it would be under a public model. I know many may disagree. Happy to debate

[TepidT2O]

I work as an economics consultant, advising utilities and regulators on setting prices.

The regulators have a primary duty to protect current and future consumers interests. Loose in description, but clear that this is a priority over and above profits. Ensuring these companies are financeable is also a primary duty, meaning that an efficient company should be able to raise debt at a reasonable rate as they have a reasonable credit rating.

The debate on privatisation vs nationalisation misses the need for major investment that has occurred ove the last 30 years. Billions that hasn’t come from tax-payers. At an expense of a “small” reasonable return (which is benchmarked by regulators). Without this investment, infrastructure would be worse. However, a byproduct of natural monopolies is “information asymmetry” (ie the companies trying to pull a fast one where the regulator doesn’t have sufficient information).

I acted both sides of the fence at the last water price control - at a major water company, numbers were predicted without much detail, but at Ofwat those numbers were heavily scrutinised and slashed without too much of a scooby. Whilst at the company I was thinking they’re taking the mick - it should be nationalised. At the regulator, I had exactly the opposite view.

For me, a privatised system is more efficient. Nobody is held to ransom as the price control provides an allowance that trade unions can’t argue with whilst providing the allowance for investment. More simply, in absence of the private investment, the water system would be severely underfunded. We’re heading into a dark period and water companies will undoubtedly get a lot of stick, some of it fairly - but the counter factual is significantly worse. In the UK we have one of the best water infrastructure and a price that whilst expensive is valuable. I’m in Greece today - I can’t drink tap water or flush toilet paper and I’m spending 4£ on bottled water. It’s about £1 a day at home. Water is an essential service,but  the cost of it is less under the current model than it would be under a public model. I know many may disagree. Happy to debate

A thought provoking post. Thank you….

[Nobby Reserve]

I work as an economics consultant, advising utilities and regulators on setting prices.

The regulators have a primary duty to protect current and future consumers interests. Loose in description, but clear that this is a priority over and above profits. Ensuring these companies are financeable is also a primary duty, meaning that an efficient company should be able to raise debt at a reasonable rate as they have a reasonable credit rating.

The debate on privatisation vs nationalisation misses the need for major investment that has occurred ove the last 30 years. Billions that hasn’t come from tax-payers. At an expense of a “small” reasonable return (which is benchmarked by regulators). Without this investment, infrastructure would be worse. However, a byproduct of natural monopolies is “information asymmetry” (ie the companies trying to pull a fast one where the regulator doesn’t have sufficient information).

I acted both sides of the fence at the last water price control - at a major water company, numbers were predicted without much detail, but at Ofwat those numbers were heavily scrutinised and slashed without too much of a scooby. Whilst at the company I was thinking they’re taking the mick - it should be nationalised. At the regulator, I had exactly the opposite view.

For me, a privatised system is more efficient. Nobody is held to ransom as the price control provides an allowance that trade unions can’t argue with whilst providing the allowance for investment. More simply, in absence of the private investment, the water system would be severely underfunded. We’re heading into a dark period and water companies will undoubtedly get a lot of stick, some of it fairly - but the counter factual is significantly worse. In the UK we have one of the best water infrastructure and a price that whilst expensive is valuable. I’m in Greece today - I can’t drink tap water or flush toilet paper and I’m spending 4£ on bottled water. It’s about £1 a day at home. Water is an essential service,but  the cost of it is less under the current model than it would be under a public model. I know many may disagree. Happy to debate

A state-owned entity could borrow money from private sector sources if it wished, and with a guarantee from the government, at better rates than any commercial enterprise. To claim a utility needs to be in private ownership to have access to finance is disingenuous.

Borrowing to invest is a misnomer, though. Immediately prior to privatisation, water companies had their debts written off so they were privatised with no debt. As at 2020, their collective debt was £48bn. In that time they have collectively paid £57bn in dividends. They've effectively borrowed to pay their shareholders billions. And the collective interest charges on their borrowings is £1.3bn/year.

Private companies extract money in the form of dividends. Since privatisation, as previously said, water companies have paid over £57bn in dividends; National Grid over £30bn (£1.4bn in 2021 alone). That is money that could and should have been reinvested or used to reduce household bills.

The executives of private companies also pay themselves way higher salary packages than people in the public sector running similar sized organisations. How many executives in privatised utilities have total 'packages' worth at least £500k/year? £1m/year?

The number of people employed by utilities has been slashed since privatisation. That's tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of jobs lost. Workloads have increased markedly. Pension rights lost. T&Cs/perks cut back. Workers paying the price to line the pockets of senior execs and shareholders.

Privatisation of utilities is nothing but a fat con to enrich investors and senior execs; a guaranteed, no-risk cash cow.

Saying all that, I've said recently that I don't actually object to the actual suppliers of gas & electricity (you E.ONs, EDFs, etc) being in the private sector in a competitive market place (but I'd also want to see a state-owned, not-for-profit entity also supplying in that marketplace to keep downward pressure on prices). But I definitely want to see National Grid nationalised, along with all the water companies. They all act in a totally monopolistic position and make huge profits which, as I've said, are removed through dividends. It's immoral.

[Gettin better all da time]

Nice response.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying, but it comes down to whether you believe that profit maximisation can drive behaviours that result in a more efficient overall outcome.

I think the value for money for consumers is the key objective - the price control effectively determines the cost allowances and outcomes companies need to deliver through to a process of benchmarking and determining stretching view of efficiency.. Profits are then driven by incentives to outperform cost allowances and performance targets as well as an allowed return on historical investment.

The current Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) in the water industry is roughly £85bn (£3200 per household) which is the amount of capital expenditure investors have made and have not yet recouped through bills. Utilities are typically valued with reference to their RCV - with multiples of 1.5-1.8x.

To nationalise the industry we would need to repay the investment - presumably at a rate of 1x. National debt is already fairly crippling (as it was around privatisation and hence a motivation for doing it) given the near perfect storm of Covid, Brexit, Ukraine and energy prices. This winter, I am sure the the level of national debt will increase further to record levels given the cost of living crisis. Put simply, I don’t think we can afford to nationalise the sector. And one of the main benefits of privatisation is that the debt does not sit on the public purse. (To not pay would undermine any future private investment in national infrastructure creating a large risk premium for future investments and we need private capital for future infrastructure investment on a big scale given energy transition).

The issue around exec pay and dividends isn’t particularly palatable - but it is the drive for profit maximisation that means this is a natural outcome. Profits result in dividends, the execs are incentivised to deliver profits. If you agree that profit maximisation drives efficiency, then dividends and appropriate incentives for execs in theory is ok. The level and scale of them however is what grabs the headlines - and of course they feel out of kilter with what we think is reasonable. And I am not going to try and justify them apart from highlight that annual dividends of <£2bn on a total investment of £84bn equates to c3% annual return - investors make more money through the equity value rising than through dividends.  It is also important to acknowledge that the stable nature of the sector and predicable dividends is what attracts investment - ie pension funds invest in such companies to help them manage future pension obligations.

Now I imagine you don’t believe that profit maximisation is the right incentive for the sector. I have sympathy with this view, but ultimately I believe that there would be more misallocation of resources, with greater overall costs (including more jobs at higher pay rates) and worse service (as was the case prior to privatisation). But we then enter a more theological debate about capitalism vs centralisation. I personally believe the current system in water has the checks and balances to ensure that as consumers we don’t pay too much whilst striking the balance on risk and reward for investors.

You’re right that jobs have reduced and salaries set at a level based on benchmarking. But then the average jo pays a lower cost for their water as a result. I realise that I’m on a hiding for nothing on here for talking about trade union rights and protections: so let’s leave that one there!

The model of ex-ante regulation protects consumers and investors by seeking to strike a balance on risk allocation between consumers and investors. A few examples:
- The eye-watering expensive energy cost of pumping water are currently significantly higher than companies have been allowed. This will have a serious impact on company profitability and we as consumer are partially shielded from 50% of those cost.
- Likewise current chemical cost are very high compared to what companies forecasted and we’re allowed.
- It is also likely that more people won’t pay their bills than companies forecast.
So there are a bunch of risks which investors face that provide protection to consumers (or in the nationalised counterfactual, the public purse).

[Red-Soldier]

From an ecological and social point of view, generally, privatisation has been a disaster.
The most important issue, for me, is governance, and this is where there has been catastrophic failure.  Self-regulation doesn’t work and the regulators (EA and Ofwat) have been somewhat toothless.

As an ecologist, I have visited water treatment plants a number of times (fantastic places, really interesting) and have a great interest in water bodies.  Companies are happy to talk about all the good things they are doing, but as soon as you ask searching questions about storm overflows and leakage, they are not so keen.

Water companies are fit for profit, not for purpose.

Ed Vaizey claimed on Good Morning Britain this week that “you get better run companies in the private sector”. Are these the same companies that dithered over hosepipe bans for fear of annoying customers, further intensifying our drought crisis? Companies that failed to meet their own targets on fixing leaks and faulty mains pipes? Companies whose incessant dumping of raw sewage has blighted our waterways?

Public ownership works, and is popular. Publicly owned Scottish Water is the most trusted public utility in the UK, while not-for-profit Welsh Water has helped 60,000 low-income customers to pay their bills. They invest more, too. Scottish Water has invested nearly 35% more per household in infrastructure since 2002 than privatised firms in England; it charges 14% less in water bills; and it doesn’t pay out costly dividends to shareholders.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/12/drought-uk-england-privatised-water-climate-emergency-government

[Gettin better all da time]

Good to have a ecological POV. That’s quite different to an economist, in the sense that you would potentially decide to fund activity if it made ecological sense even if it didn’t make economic sense. Perhaps you place more value on ecological outcomes than Ofwat do -  Ofwat seeks to represent the voice of the consumer incorporating certain environmental outcomes, but it’s not easy and no doubt makes mistakes.

Storm overflows is an interesting example… the truth is that the cost to fix the problem is many billions (requiring huge increase in sewerage capacity for those moment of heavy rainfall), and yet most people do not value clean waterways to that extent. Ask people this winter would they rather pay the cost of addressing the problem or keep bills as low as possible, and people would say keep bills low (only a small proportion of society use waterways). There needs to be a public debate in this - the social cost of addressing the problem is greater than the social benefit. Now, this is an externality, but it would also  be inefficient for us as taxpayers to address it under a nationalised model - we’d face a similar problem of deciding where to allocate funds, but rather than using financial incentives to address the problem we’d be hoping that the system would recognise it  and spend money on it in a more efficient way..

[alonsoisared]

Nothing to add than to say cheers for the interesting posts on this page. The best of RAWK imo when we get well informed people on all corners of a debate like we have here. Thought provoking stuff. Nice one.

[thejbs]

Aramco just posted profits of almost $50bn in the last quarter. This is fucking scandalous.

[So… Howard Philips]

Nothing to add than to say cheers for the interesting posts on this page. The best of RAWK imo when we get well informed people on all corners of a debate like we have here. Thought provoking stuff. Nice one.

Yes.

This is RAWK at its best when you can have different points of view fully argued with any personal abuse.

Now, where is the Labour thread?

[spen71]

Good to have a ecological POV. That’s quite different to an economist, in the sense that you would potentially decide to fund activity if it made ecological sense even if it didn’t make economic sense. Perhaps you place more value on ecological outcomes than Ofwat do -  Ofwat seeks to represent the voice of the consumer incorporating certain environmental outcomes, but it’s not easy and no doubt makes mistakes.

Storm overflows is an interesting example… the truth is that the cost to fix the problem is many billions (requiring huge increase in sewerage capacity for those moment of heavy rainfall), and yet most people do not value clean waterways to that extent. Ask people this winter would they rather pay the cost of addressing the problem or keep bills as low as possible, and people would say keep bills low (only a small proportion of society use waterways). There needs to be a public debate in this - the social cost of addressing the problem is greater than the social benefit. Now, this is an externality, but it would also  be inefficient for us as taxpayers to address it under a nationalised model - we’d face a similar problem of deciding where to allocate funds, but rather than using financial incentives to address the problem we’d be hoping that the system would recognise it  and spend money on it in a more efficient way..

The water companies make massive profits.    They don’t need to put the profits up.    A few years of no profit and investment!    This is why the country is fucked with infrastructure crumbling

[spen71]

Also Thames water have sold off 25 reservoirs

[west_london_red]

Aramco just posted profits of almost $50bn in the last quarter. This is fucking scandalous.

What were you expecting? Those nice Saudis to say we’re making way too much money selling the only thing we have to sell other then pilgrimage tour packages and dates, those poor Europeans are really struggling, let’s make less money.

[Red-Soldier]

Also Thames water have sold off 25 reservoirs

There hasn't been any new reservoirs built in the past 30 years, by any water company - all that new investment their employees keep talking about 

Meanwhile:

Thames Water accused of ignoring warnings after hundreds in Surrey endure days without water

Lib Dem councillor calls for company to be fined over the incident

Thames Water has been accused of repeatedly ignoring warnings about cuts to supplies and burst pipes in Surrey where hundreds of households had to endure three days without tap water at the height of this weekend’s heatwave.

Residents, including some that were vulnerable, had to queue for bottled water on Saturday in temperatures of well over 30C (86F) after a pump failure at Netley Mill treatment works.

By Sunday morning up to 1,000 homes began a third day without water. Supplies were restored to up to 9,000 homes, but many households still complained about low water pressure.

Thames Water apologised and confirmed it handed out bottled water to residents in Guildford, Surrey Hills, Dorking and Horsham while engineers worked to restore the supply.

Liz Townsend, a Liberal Democrat county councillor for Cranleigh and Ewhurst, called for Thames Water to be fined over the incident and said the company had failed to respond to numerous complaints about previous cuts in supplies.

“We’re completely exasperated,” she said. “We had a period last summer when there was just bottled water. We had no water in February during the storm, we had no water in the previous hot period at the beginning of July. And now another hot spell and we have no water.

“Our water infrastructure is not resilient enough to cope with all the new housing and the ageing pipes. Whenever they increase the pressure in the system, we get more and more bursts. I’ve been having talks with Thames Water for 10 years, and I’ve been up Westminster several times to raise it, but nobody takes any notice.”

Townsend wrote to Sarah Bentley, the chief executive of Thames Water, in July after a previous interruption in supply. The letter, seen by the Guardian, accused the company of taking months, and in some cases years, to repair burst pipes and said it reneged on a public commitment to provide residents with updates on water supplies.

Bentley has yet to respond.

A statement from Thames Water said: “Netley Mill water treatment works is now back in service and supply is gradually being restored to the local network. This will continue over the remainder of the day. We are very sorry that customers have been impacted especially at a time of high temperatures.

“When supplies do begin to return, we are asking customers to try to use this just for essential use initially. This will help us return supplies to everyone quicker. We are supplying bottled water to customers who we know need additional help. If anyone is unable to travel to a bottled water site they should contact us on 0800 316 9800 and we will provide assistance.”

Cranleigh is the latest village to run out of water after an official drought was declared in eight areas of England. Dozens of households in Northend, Oxfordshire have been reliant on just bottled water for the last five days.

Townsend said: “There was no water on Saturday for [between] 8,000 and 9,000 homes. We have got a trickle this morning. But between 500 and 1,000 households are still without water.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/14/thames-water-ignoring-warnings-surrey-without-water

[spen71]

None built and 25 sold off.   It’s bonkers

[cdav]

We are at a crossroads in how we tackle multiple issues

Surely building both renewables and linked resevoirs so we can pump water to higher resevoirs when there is a surplus of clean energy and get cheap hydro when there is a deficit is a  common sense approach?

[Adeemo]

Just received a letter from my energy provider asking me to allow them to switch me over from monthly smart meter readings to daily. If I don’t reply, asking them not to within 7 days, they will go ahead with the switch. Any advice would be welcome.

[Red-Soldier]

Just received a letter from my energy provider asking me to allow them to switch me over from monthly smart meter readings to daily. If I don’t reply, asking them not to within 7 days, they will go ahead with the switch. Any advice would be welcome.

I switched over to daily.  Apparently, it gives a more accurate reading of energy usage.

[Adeemo]

I switched over to daily.  Apparently, it gives a more accurate reading of energy usage.

I just get suspicious when I receive a letter like this, saying I’ve 7 days to decline or they’ll go ahead and change it!

[Nobby Reserve]

None built and 25 sold off.   It’s bonkers

And the UK population up by about 18% since privatisation