Topic: Fuel & energy prices

[Nobby Reserve]

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).

You've mentioned 'efficiency' several times, but I don't think pure cost saving - ie, operating an organisation on the barest bones of a workforce - should be the sole motivator in society. My own position is that there should be a trinity, all equally important, in any business activity: the customer, the workers, the shareholders.

If you do go for the 'lowest staff costs possible to still theoretically function', it creates problems in itself. We're at the stage with many privatised utilities that customer service is severely deteriorated - and mainly due to cost-cutting. This may take the form of eternal waiting times to get to speak with someone (understaffed call centres) or where you struggle to get one's issue resolved because the person you're speaking with doesn't have English as a first language (outsourced call centres)

I do want to take issue with your assertion that "the average jo pays a lower cost for their water as a result" [of privatisation and jobs cuts]. Water bills for the average household have risen by 40% above inflation since privatisation (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/09/england-water-system-last-privatised-monopolies-for-now-analysis).

The position we have is:

We're paying way over what we should, due to above-inflation bill increases
There's been tens of thousands of jobs cut
So customer service provision has declined
Water companies have gone from zero debt at the point of privatisation to £48bn
Dividends of £57bn have been paid, money that's lost to investment in the service provision and infrastructure
No new reservoirs have been built since privatisation, despite demand for water increasing (substantial increase in population)
Raw sewage was discharged into rivers 375,000 times last year alone (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/31/sewage-released-into-english-rivers-for-27m-hours-last-year-by-water-firms)

This article in the FT is from 2017, but just as pertient today. It explains how, following a detailed study, privatisation hypothetically costs households £2.3bn a year extra, then if they'd remained nationalised.

https://www.ft.com/content/91a2779a-4077-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

[Machae]

Also Thames water have sold off 25 reservoirs

Who do they sell reservoirs off to and for what purpose? Land for houses or to bottle water and sell?

It's scandalous that there isn't a law to protect against this, or regulated by Ofwat

[Nobby Reserve]

Who do they sell reservoirs off to and for what purpose? Land for houses or to bottle water and sell?

It's scandalous that there isn't a law to protect against this, or regulated by Ofwat

They're mainly smaller facilities (it's debateable they could actually be called 'reservoirs'). But most were drained & sold for housing development.

[wampa1]

Yeah, there was one round here from about 20 years ago that you could go and have a look round before they started building on it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-24579432

[Red-Soldier]

Calls to cut bonuses for UK water bosses until reservoirs built and leaks fixed

Multimillion-pound payouts should be shelved until investment put in to help country recover from drought

Water company bosses should be stripped of their multimillion pound bonuses until they fix leaks and build reservoirs, politicians and campaigners have said as the country is gripped by drought.

The current drought, in which parts of England are the driest they have been since records began after five consecutive months of below average rainfall, have led to homes running out of water, rivers turning dry and farmers facing crop failures, causing many to be outraged at the companies that have failed to invest in reservoirs, fix leaks and stop sewage pollution from their pipes.

The bosses of England’s water companies have been criticised for banking £58m in pay and benefits over the last five years. Since privatisation, shareholders have been paid £72bn in dividends. The cash came from big debts, with companies borrowing £56bn, and big bills, with prices rising 40%.

Stuart Singleton-White, head of campaigns at the Angling Trust, said: “The profits being made by water companies, who are in effect private monopolies, the dividend payments to shareholders, the inflated salaries and bonuses to the CEOs, and the debts that have been run up by these companies, mostly to support dividends and inflated salaries, rather than finance investment, is a clear sign this is a broken market.”

He pointed out that no new reservoirs have been built in England since water companies were privatised, and that years of underinvestment had led to “unacceptable levels of leaks”. Water companies currently leak around a quarter of their supply through old pipes, with 2,954m litres a day leaked last year.

“[W]hen the crisis hit, our water system was not ready”, Singleton-White said, blaming “the greed of the water companies, the weakness of the regulators and the complacency of the government.”

Even some Conservative MPs are saying that the money water company bosses make is “unacceptable”. Former environment minister Rebecca Pow, who had water in her remit, said that the regulator should be taking stricter action and giving companies hefty fines.

She told the Guardian: “These salaries are unacceptable if they can’t with a clear conscience provide clean, plentiful and sustainable water.

“But this is also up to the regulator.”

She added that “We also have the opportunity to charge the water companies 10% of their turnover in fines, so we should look into that.”

Feargal Sharkey, the former Undertones singer turned rivers campaigner, agrees that the companies should face hefty fines, but pointed out it’s within government control to do this.

He said: “What [environment secretary] George Eustice needs to do is something the government has had the power to do for 30 years – put in place an enforcement order where they can legally demand that water companies do things exactly at the government’s choosing and when the government wants.”

Sharkey added:“If water companies were losing 10% of their annual income, that would focus minds, wouldn’t it?”

Campaigners have argued that privatisation is not working, as England is an outlier on the world stage with fully privately owned and run water companies that are increasingly criticised for not investing in infrastructure.

The Green Party called for water companies to be nationalised. Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton, said: “Water company bosses are taking home gigantic pay packets and gifting themselves obscene bonuses, and shareholders are raking in huge dividends – meanwhile, what the rest of us are getting in return is widespread water leakage, chronic under-investment and raw sewage dumped in our rivers.

“The sooner we bring water companies back into public hands, the better. But that’s not enough – it’s now more urgent than ever to introduce legislation on pay ratios to enact the long-standing Green policy of ensuring bosses earn no more than 10 times the salary of the lowest paid in their companies, so that the grotesque inequalities in our society are finally tackled.”

Eight of the 14 areas of England are now classified as being in drought, with hosepipe bans being implemented across increasing areas of the country.

The Liberal Democrats first called for the ban on water company bonuses last week, and today Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson, Tim Farron MP told the Guardian: “Wealthy water company execs are profiteering off Britain’s rusting water infrastructure. They are handing themselves multimillion-pound bonuses whilst people this week had to queue up for bottled water in unbearable heat all because of a refusal to fix leaks. These are the very same execs who paid themselves massive salaries despite pumping poisonous sewage into our rivers.

“Ministers are just looking the other way whilst this scandal happens. You can’t trust this Conservative Government to stand up for people and the environment. Instead, all they care about is keeping water company CEOs rich.”

The Environment Agency recently called for water company bosses to be jailed for serious pollution, after finding the water firms’ performance on pollution had declined to the worst seen in years.

A spokesperson for Water UK, which represents the water companies, said:

“Private investment has brought more than £160 bn into an industry that was previously starved of cash while improving water company efficiency by over 70%. That efficiency means costs are lower, allowing bills to remain around the same for over a decade in real terms while still allowing new investment in resilience projects and reduced leakage.

“Dividends in the last couple of years have averaged around 3%, in line with Ofwat’s expectations. Most companies last year either lost money or failed to achieve their base return allowed by the regulator.

“We are hugely ambitious about the further projects needed to protect against climate change. We have proposed major, cross-country schemes – including reservoirs and grid connections - that will deliver enough new water for ten million people. It is vital regulators now allow these schemes to proceed.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/15/uk-water-boss-bonuses-reservoirs-built-leaks-fixed

[Nobby Reserve]

In a welcome display of common sense, Germany has announced a policy u-turn, and will keep its remaining 3 nuclear power stations running.

Wholesale gas prices, which had risen even further this morning, have slid back after the announcement.

Those 3 do only represent a small percentage of Germany's generating requirement, but it's at least something.

[Jiminy Cricket]

In a welcome display of common sense, Germany has announced a policy u-turn, and will keep its remaining 3 nuclear power stations running.

Wholesale gas prices, which had risen even further this morning, have slid back after the announcement.

Those 3 do only represent a small percentage of Germany's generating requirement, but it's at least something.

Any news about if they can recommission any of the reactors closed at the end of last year?

[Nobby Reserve]

Any news about if they can recommission any of the reactors closed at the end of last year?

They've not announced any plans, and there's been no speculation that they might.

[thaddeus]

I appreciate they have some different uses but it still strikes me as a bit odd that oil prices are continuing to drop (from $120/barrel down to $87 - not all that far above the longer term baseline of around $60) but gas continues to rise (over $9/MMBtu compared to the longer term baseline of around $3).  Coal, like gas, has also spiked at around $400/tonne compared to the longer term baseline of around $100.

There must be a lot of trader speculation in amongst the genuine reasons for that.

[Nobby Reserve]

I appreciate they have some different uses but it still strikes me as a bit odd that oil prices are continuing to drop (from $120/barrel down to $87 - not all that far above the longer term baseline of around $60) but gas continues to rise (over $9/MMBtu compared to the longer term baseline of around $3).  Coal, like gas, has also spiked at around $400/tonne compared to the longer term baseline of around $100.

There must be a lot of trader speculation in amongst the genuine reasons for that.

It's the respective sources of the oil and gas. OPEC agreed to slightly increase oil output from next month to pick-up the slack from Russia, so that has led to a downward trend on prices (Russia is supplying directly to China and, to a lesser extent, India, so their demand for oil on the global market has reduced)

Gas isn't as easy to transport without pipelines (it costs to liquify gas), and Russia is the biggest exporter of gas in the world. Nord Stream 1 is already running at just 20% capacity, due to a major turbine needing replacement. It's ready and waiting to be shipped, but Russia have been procrastinating by bullshitting about needing documentation to prove it passes sanctions (Germany insists it doesn't need such paperwork because it's not subject to sanctions). There's no prospect of Nord Stream 2 coming online in the foreseeable, either.

[thaddeus]

It's the respective sources of the oil and gas. OPEC agreed to slightly increase oil output from next month to pick-up the slack from Russia, so that has led to a downward trend on prices (Russia is supplying directly to China and, to a lesser extent, India, so their demand for oil on the global market has reduced)

Gas isn't as easy to transport without pipelines (it costs to liquify gas), and Russia is the biggest exporter of gas in the world. Nord Stream 1 is already running at just 20% capacity, due to a major turbine needing replacement. It's ready and waiting to be shipped, but Russia have been procrastinating by bullshitting about needing documentation to prove it passes sanctions (Germany insists it doesn't need such paperwork because it's not subject to sanctions). There's no prospect of Nord Stream 2 coming online in the foreseeable, either.

Thanks.

I guess coal has spiked as it's being viewed as a more readily transportable alternative to gas.  That's the one I still find the strangest though as the two biggest coal importers (China and India) are, as you say, getting more oil so presumably need less coal.  Much of the west doesn't have the infrastructure anymore to burn coal so it's difficult to know what's driving that 400% increase, beyond traders speculating.

[Nobby Reserve]

Thanks.

I guess coal has spiked as it's being viewed as a more readily transportable alternative to gas.  That's the one I still find the strangest though as the two biggest coal importers (China and India) are, as you say, getting more oil so presumably need less coal.  Much of the west doesn't have the infrastructure anymore to burn coal so it's difficult to know what's driving that 400% increase, beyond traders speculating.

One problem with coal is that, in Germany (Europe's biggest consumer of coal), most of it is transported by barge on the Rhine. But the drought in Europe means the Rhine isn't deep enough in some stretches, so transportation is much reduced (road is much more expensive, too)

[Red-Soldier]

England’s highly paid water bosses rake it in from lucrative second jobs

As sewage is discharged into the UK’s seas and targets are missed, company chiefs use their time on other roles

Some of the highly paid bosses of England’s water companies are earning tens of thousands of pounds in second boardroom jobs, advising on the pay deals of other top executives.

Five of the chief executives of England’s nine water and sewerage companies are also working as non-executive directors in other firms, sitting on remuneration committees.

Campaigners say it is inappropriate for water bosses to be helping to fix the pay and bonuses of senior executives in other companies.

Nicola Shaw, who was appointed head of Yorkshire Water in May, is also on the board of International Airlines Group (IAG), which owns British Airways. She sits on its remuneration and safety committees, earning €123,000 (£115,000) last year.

Yorkshire Water said this weekend that Shaw’s second boardroom role did not affect her commitment to improving water services.

Susan Davy, boss of Pennon Group, owner of South West Water, which was spilling sewage and stormwater into seas around Devon and Cornwall last week, is on the board of data management firm Restore plc. She was paid £53,000 by the firm last year, sitting on a remuneration committee.

An analysis by the Liberal Democrats revealed last week that the average water company boss’s total pay rose by 20% in 2021, despite most firms failing to meet sewage pollution targets. The party said the pay packages were a “national scandal”.

Andy Prendergast, national secretary of the GMB union, which has criticised the level of pay and bonuses given to water bosses, said: “This country is facing a water crisis and the fact that those paid fortunes to deal with it have enough time to moonlight in second jobs beggars belief.

“At a time of hosepipe bans and sewage discharges, we deserve that those paid high salaries devote their time to putting it right. The fact their second roles largely involve green-lighting massive salary increases for other bosses is scandalous.”

The performance of water companies is under mounting scrutiny as drought has been declared across large swaths of the country. The Environment Agency reported in July that “the environmental performance of England’s nine water and sewerage companies was the worst we have seen for years”.

Swimmers were warned of sewage and stormwater flowing on to beaches last week, mainly on the south coast. A Labour party analysis has found that water companies have spent more than 9 million hours discharging raw sewage and stormwater into the country’s rivers and seas since 2016.

Other water bosses with non-executive roles include Sarah Bentley, boss of Thames Water, who was paid more than £2m last year. She is a non-executive director of Lloyds Bank, sitting on the remuneration committee. Thames Water and Lloyds Bank declined a request from the Observer last week to disclose any fees paid to her.

Heidi Mottram, who earns £648,000 a year as boss of Northumbrian Water, is a non-executive director of the energy firm Centrica, where she was paid £93,000 last year. She sits on three committees, including the remuneration committee.

Steve Mogford, who was paid £3.2m last year as boss of north-west water firm United Utilities, started as non-executive director of the defence firm Qinetiq this month. Mogford, a former senior executive at the defence giant BAE Systems, sits on four committees, including the remuneration committee.

Luke Hildyard, executive director of the High Pay Centre, a thinktank that researches on issues around the pay of senior executives and corporate governance, said: “Most people would be astounded if they realised that pay levels for chief executives are set by committees made up of other chief executives and people in similar roles.

“The justification for paying such large salary packages to company chief executives is that they are doing such important and demanding work. This is undermined if they have time to sit on the boards of other major companies.”

On Monday the High Pay Centre will launch its annual review of executive pay in the country’s top companies. It is calling for more representation from a company’s workforce on remuneration committees.

It is not unusual for company heads to accept non-executive roles and employers say it can provide fresh insights for senior bosses. There can, however, be concerns about the level of commitment required.

In February 2015 Liv Garfield, the chief executive of Severn Trent, announced she was standing down as non-executive director of Tesco. She said she wanted to “concentrate fully” on her chief executive role at the water company.

Water companies said last week that the other jobs performed by their CEOs are properly disclosed.

A Thames Water spokesperson said: “Sarah Bentley’s role as a non-executive director is in the public domain. The insight and perspective that she gets from her role at Lloyds, given their turnaround, is valuable to her role at Thames Water and was approved by our board when she joined in 2020.”

Yorkshire Water said Nicola Shaw’s work at IAG did not “impact on her role” at the water firm. A spokesperson said: “In fact, as for many other executive directors who hold similar positions, the role brings back knowledge and experience from other industries that we can take learnings from.”

None of the water companies responded to a request to provide the hours their chief executives worked each month on their other boardroom roles.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/21/englands-highly-paid-water-bosses-rake-it-in-from-lucrative-second-jobs

[Wabaloolah]

Upped my monthly direct debit to £150 a month back in April, it's left me £800 in credit so will hopefully temper the rise a tad in October but EDF in their wisdom have now reduced my direct debit to £74 a month based on an energy review!

Tried to put it back to £150 but it won't let me so it probably means a couple of hours trying to get through to them tomorrow!


I actually think they have me on an incorrect tarrif for electricity as it says it's a fixed rate until November 2020 and details the price breakdown at the rate of 13p per JW rather than 27p for the standard variable so i'm a bit reluctant to contact them in case they put me on the correct tarrif.


Gas is on Standard Variable

[west_london_red]

Upped my monthly direct debit to £150 a month back in April, it's left me £800 in credit so will hopefully temper the rise a tad in October but EDF in their wisdom have now reduced my direct debit to £74 a month based on an energy review!

Tried to put it back to £150 but it won't let me so it probably means a couple of hours trying to get through to them tomorrow!


I actually think they have me on an incorrect tarrif for electricity as it says it's a fixed rate until November 2020 and details the price breakdown at the rate of 13p per JW rather than 27p for the standard variable so i'm a bit reluctant to contact them in case they put me on the correct tarrif.


Gas is on Standard Variable

I’m not an EDF customer but ever provider I have had over the last few years has allowed me to change my direct debit either through their app or their website.

[Wabaloolah]

I’m not an EDF customer but ever provider I have had over the last few years has allowed me to change my direct debit either through their app or their website.

yes tried their website but it didn't save, maybe technical issues, l'll try again tomorrow

[Wabaloolah]

Managed to sort out the Direct Debit today and I am definitely still being billed on the Fixed Rate that should have ended in November 2020!  I just hope they don't figure it out and try to claim any backdated amounts but it is their error so you would hope not 

[reddebs]

Managed to sort out the Direct Debit today and I am definitely still being billed on the Fixed Rate that should have ended in November 2020!  I just hope they don't figure it out and try to claim any backdated amounts but it is their error so you would hope not 

They will mate as soon as they realise as it's your responsibility to check your bills...... that's what they'll say anyway 🤷

[Wabaloolah]

They will mate as soon as they realise as it's your responsibility to check your bills...... that's what they'll say anyway 🤷

Yes, apparently they are only allowed to backdate for 12 months so not when the tarrif ran out but I've checked my account again and it clearly states the rate I am on is 19p per day standing charge and 14p KWH, so not even sure they have a leg to stand on with that either.  Think I'll tough it out and see if they change me to the new tariff in October when it's announced.  I have enough in credit to cover any backdate payments in any case.


edit - I have checked through my online account and I was notified of a change to the gas tariff a number of times dating back to April 2021 but nothing about electricity.  On my Home Display Unit for my smart meter my energy supplier is listed against Gas but not for electricity, I have tried to do a hard reset a number of times but to no avail.  I am paying the supplier for electricity but they seemingly don't know much about it!!

[reddebs]

Yes, apparently they are only allowed to backdate for 12 months so not when the tarrif ran out but I've checked my account again and it clearly states the rate I am on is 19p per day standing charge and 14p KWH, so not even sure they have a leg to stand on with that either.  Think I'll tough it out and see if they change me to the new tariff in October when it's announced.  I have enough in credit to cover any backdate payments in any case.


edit - I have checked through my online account and I was notified of a change to the gas tariff a number of times dating back to April 2021 but nothing about electricity.  On my Home Display Unit for my smart meter my energy supplier is listed against Gas but not for electricity, I have tried to do a hard reset a number of times but to no avail.  I am paying the supplier for electricity but they seemingly don't know much about it!!

Wow that's way out now mate.  We're paying about forty odd ppd standing charge and about twenty odd ppkwh for electric 😯

[Jiminy Cricket]

Yes, apparently they are only allowed to backdate for 12 months so not when the tarrif ran out but I've checked my account again and it clearly states the rate I am on is 19p per day standing charge and 14p KWH, so not even sure they have a leg to stand on with that either.  Think I'll tough it out and see if they change me to the new tariff in October when it's announced.  I have enough in credit to cover any backdate payments in any case.


edit - I have checked through my online account and I was notified of a change to the gas tariff a number of times dating back to April 2021 but nothing about electricity.  On my Home Display Unit for my smart meter my energy supplier is listed against Gas but not for electricity, I have tried to do a hard reset a number of times but to no avail.  I am paying the supplier for electricity but they seemingly don't know much about it!!

Maybe you could just money aside in case you are forced to pay it later. But in the meantime, just hope it does not come to that.

[Wabaloolah]

Wow that's way out now mate.  We're paying about forty odd ppd standing charge and about twenty odd ppkwh for electric 😯

yep Standing Charge is 47p and 27p KWH on the Standard Variable so a big difference, worked out that the bill on that rate was £250 more than what we got charged

[Wabaloolah]

Maybe you could just money aside in case you are forced to pay it later. But in the meantime, just hope it does not come to that.

yes I don't want to alert them to it in case they make us pay the difference, it's going to get more of a difference in October too if they don't notice it.

It only came to my attention as they decided to reduce my direct debit as I had upped it to £150 a month to cover the increases.

The account is well in credit and if they refund it in February I'll put the money aside in case they ask for it back!

[spen71]

OPEC hinting at cutting production.   Brent back over $100 a barrel.    That’s really going to help inflation!

[thaddeus]

OPEC hinting at cutting production.   Brent back over $100 a barrel.    That’s really going to help inflation!

Brent has been volatile since Russian invaded with much larger short-term spikes/troughs than usual.  The traders must be loving it!

Even with this current spike the trend since June is still downwards as the troughs are generally larger than the spikes.

The pre-pandemic baseline of around $60/barrel does feel a long way off though.

[Elmo!]

Nicola Sturgeon hosts energy summit amid cost of living crisis

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon met with energy bosses at Bute House in Edinburgh.

Energy companies have agreed to work with the Scottish Government on a package of support measures to help people struggling with the cost of living.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon met with representatives from the sector in a summit at Bute House in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

At the meeting, it was agreed that the UK Government must immediately cancel any further energy price rises for domestic consumers.

And ministers at Westminster have also been urged to provide significant additional support to households and businesses to help them meet current energy bills.

Energy firms have pledged to pursue “all possible options” to provide enhanced support to consumers who are in difficulty.
Advertisement

Following the meeting, the Scottish Government stated that it would provide additional support to advice agencies.

It said that it would also consider further support for households and businesses as part of its emergency budget review.

The group that gathered at Bute House will reconvene following the announcement by Ofgem of the new price cap on Friday, August 26.

Having met with energy sector representatives, Sturgeon said there is a “clear consensus” that customers cannot be expected to carry the burden of further price rises.

“Any further increase in energy bills in October will have a profound impact on households, businesses and the public sector already struggling with the cost crisis,” she said.

“No single government, company or organisation can solve this crisis alone. It requires a collective response commensurate to the situation and the Scottish Government is now treating this situation as a public emergency.
Advertisement

“There was clear consensus at today’s summit that energy customers simply cannot be expected to carry the burden of further price rises in October, and that the UK Government must now commit to freeze the cap for all households and to support the energy companies to deliver that.”

Sturgeon outlined the intention of her government to provide “practical steps” to help households and businesses through the crisis.

She said: “This meeting was focussed on practical solutions, but without action by the UK Government to address the problem at source, the actions we discussed can only ever mitigate the impact of such dramatic price rises at the edges.

“I am grateful to energy suppliers and our third sector partners for coming to the table today and for committing to work together with the Scottish Government to develop further action and practical steps to help households and businesses through the cost crisis.”

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/first-minister-nicola-sturgeon-hosts-energy-summit-amid-cost-of-living-crisis

Need to find out the details bui nice to have an actual adult in charge being proactive on fuel costs.....

[Wabaloolah]

Nicola Sturgeon hosts energy summit amid cost of living crisis
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/first-minister-nicola-sturgeon-hosts-energy-summit-amid-cost-of-living-crisis

Need to find out the details bui nice to have an actual adult in charge being proactive on fuel costs.....

good on her, about time the UK government took the initiative

[-Willo-]

Hi,

What is everyone currently paying?

We had a fixed rate which was less than £100 for it all.

New 1 year fixed estimated cost is £461 per month for gas and electric.

70.33 p/kWh unit rate for electricity
20.28 p/kWh unit rate for gas

Feels absurd.

[Elmo!]

I've just had my renewal come through, with it estimating my monthly cost going up from £90pm to £120 if I go onto the SVR which seems pretty good all things considered but I think it is based on current price cap and not the new one which will be announced tomorrow..... alternatively I can fix for around £300pm.

Going to wait until the announcement tomorrow and then see if Sainsburys Energy can give me a new estimate for the SVR.

[-Willo-]

I've just had my renewal come through, with it estimating my monthly cost going up from £90pm to £120 if I go onto the SVR which seems pretty good all things considered but I think it is based on current price cap and not the new one which will be announced tomorrow..... alternatively I can fix for around £300pm.

Going to wait until the announcement tomorrow and then see if Sainsburys Energy can give me a new estimate for the SVR.

Yeah we are getting £150 ish on a variable rate as estimated, but I think its going to rocket over winter again so don't know what to do.

My fixed current one at around £100 runs out in October so just waiting to see what happens

[west_london_red]

Currently pay 28.5p for Electricity and 7.5p for gas on a variable tariff with Octopus.

If you go by some of the price predictions price cap prices are due to go up to about the prices you have been quoted in 9-12 months time so you might save money this time next year going on that tariff, but for 9 months or so you’ll be paying a lot more then you need to.

[ChrisOH]

When people talk about the prices of their energy, it always scares me that they use their direct debits. A direct debit is a just an estimated payment to cover your usage. Companies get this wrong quite often so it is not entirely reliable.

Before the price increases last Autumn, the average gas kWh was 3p to 3.5p. The average electricity kWh price was around 18p. This is what should be used to really reflect the increase in prices.

I work within the sector and it literally scares the shit out of me if no political steps are taken. Nationalisation would put my job at risk but I'm all for it with the hope that I would be in a good position for work afterwards.

[sheepfest]

Managed to get a fix from 1 April this year for 1 year and pay £120 a month.

28.175 unit rate for electricity
7.014 unit rate for gas

Got great advice in here to take this deal when I asked about it back in February.

[Schmidt]

25.8p/kWh with Ovo, no gas.

My minimum direct debit is set to £175/month despite my last four months costing less than £80 and my credit being around £250. They seem to be using the amounts I paid last autumn/winter to predict my usage this autumn/winter, ignoring that my bills got cut in half when I stopped working from home a few months ago and I'm obviously not going to be using as much electricity now that the price is absurd.

Pretty annoying, I don't get why I can't just go below the recommended debit amount if I want, I could probably pay nothing for the next 3 months and still not be out of credit.

[west_london_red]

Managed to get a fix from 1 April this year for 1 year and pay £120 a month.

28.175 unit rate for electricity
7.014 unit rate for gas

Got great advice in here to take this deal when I asked about it back in February.

That’s a really good deal!

[ChrisOH]

25.8p/kWh with Ovo, no gas.

My minimum direct debit is set to £175/month despite my last four months costing less than £80 and my credit being around £250. They seem to be using the amounts I paid last autumn/winter to predict my usage this autumn/winter, ignoring that my bills got cut in half when I stopped working from home a few months ago and I'm obviously not going to be using as much electricity now that the price is absurd.

Pretty annoying, I don't get why I can't just go below the recommended debit amount if I want, I could probably pay nothing for the next 3 months and still not be out of credit.

Without gas, I'm guessing your electricity usage is A LOT more in winter due to electricity radiators/boilers. £80 in summer months would be at least £200 per month in winter. £175 per month seems reasonable.

[Elmo!]

When people talk about the prices of their energy, it always scares me that they use their direct debits. A direct debit is a just an estimated payment to cover your usage. Companies get this wrong quite often so it is not entirely reliable.

In my example I was sing my DD amount for current price - but it has worked out to be about right over the last year, I'm a small amount in credit - but for the renewal prices I was basing it on the annual estimate divided by 12.

[Schmidt]

Without gas, I'm guessing your electricity usage is A LOT more in winter due to electricity radiators/boilers. £80 in summer months would be at least £200 per month in winter. £175 per month seems reasonable.

I don't really use my radiators at all. I get why they would estimate that amount since they can't differentiate between me turning my heaters on or running my PC, but I should be able to override their estimates if I have enough credit.

[ChrisOH]

I don't really use my radiators at all. I get why they would estimate that amount since they can't differentiate between me turning my heaters on or running my PC, but I should be able to override their estimates if I have enough credit.

My advice would be to just keep providing regular readings throughout winter. Most electricity supplies I see in my role - and my own flat in Oxton before I moved out - sees a substantial jump in usage in winter.

[west_london_red]

My advice would be to just keep providing regular readings throughout winter. Most electricity supplies I see in my role - and my own flat in Oxton before I moved out - sees a substantial jump in usage in winter.

Exactly, even without heating people use more electricity in the winter, it gets dark earlier so people turn the lights on earlier, people use dryers more and hang clothes outside less, they spend more time at home and less out and about, it all adds up.