Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

[DelayRepay]

That said, unless there's a special reason to keep the house (e.g. it's been in the family for generations), then downsizing is probably a good idea anyway. She can get a house that is more suited to keeping her living independently, and the capital that's freed up can be put to work by way of investments that could well provide more of an inheritance than the house will.

There is an emotional attachment to the house. It's nothing special, just a normal semi on a 1960s housing estate. But she and my dad moved in together not long after getting married, and it's where me and my sister were brought up. We have discussed that she may need to move in future, but she's not keen on the idea. I may be odd but I have no interest in the inheritance value of the house or any of mum's assets. In reality there's a high chance they will be needed to cover care costs at some point, anyway.

I take it's she's fully independent, if that were my gran I'd see if it's possible to "live" in a suitable room where everything is, bed, chair, TV, immediate clothing cupboard etc and keep that warm. Shame to have three rooms not doing anything, in her position I would live in one room (I'm doing that myself) and alter the unused ones into "summer quarters" such as chairs/table etc to sit in and enjoy the summer sun with a tea/something stronger!

She's fully independent. She struggles with a few things like changing lightbulbs but I do that for her, or if I'm not around her neighbour will do it. Two of the bedrooms are used as guest rooms - one for me when I stay and one for the grandkids if they stay. The third isn't used. I have managed to train her to use the thermostatic radiator valves in the spare rooms so at least she's not paying to keep them warm now, unless guests are in them.

One suggestion, if she has several friends locally, they could house-share so Monday we all go round to Edith's, Tuesday Fran's etc so in a cycle everyone can turn their heating off and use someone elses!!

If she was in a position where she was struggling to pay the bills, then she would do something like that, or go to my sister's (who lives near by). But as things stand, she can afford the bills and will be able to afford them even when the prices increase, thanks to the pension arrangements my dad made. So whilst she doesn't want to waste money, she also doesn't need to make drastic changes at the moment. On the other hand, if my dad hadn't had the foresight to pay into his pension plans, then she would be really struggling now.

 

[Howardh]

There is an emotional attachment to the house. It's nothing special, just a normal semi on a 1960s housing estate. But she and my dad moved in together not long after getting married, and it's where me and my sister were brought up. We have discussed that she may need to move in future, but she's not keen on the idea. I may be odd but I have no interest in the inheritance value of the house or any of mum's assets. In reality there's a high chance they will be needed to cover care costs at some point, anyway.


She's fully independent. She struggles with a few things like changing lightbulbs but I do that for her, or if I'm not around her neighbour will do it. Two of the bedrooms are used as guest rooms - one for me when I stay and one for the grandkids if they stay. The third isn't used. I have managed to train her to use the thermostatic radiator valves in the spare rooms so at least she's not paying to keep them warm now, unless guests are in them.


If she was in a position where she was struggling to pay the bills, then she would do something like that, or go to my sister's (who lives near by). But as things stand, she can afford the bills and will be able to afford them even when the prices increase, thanks to the pension arrangements my dad made. So whilst she doesn't want to waste money, she also doesn't need to make drastic changes at the moment. On the other hand, if my dad hadn't had the foresight to pay into his pension plans, then she would be really struggling now.

Glad to read she's gonna be OK and that hubby provided for her!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you'd solve climate change by freezing and starving the less well off?

Where did I say that?

The solution is less consumption, don't ship crap halfway across the world from China.

I agree with that. Or if we do ship it, the ships should be powered by sail.

The culture of leasing cars on PCP, getting a brand new car every year. Rather than using the same car for 5 years etc.

You know that primes the used market, right?

 

[najaB]

I may be odd but I have no interest in the inheritance value of the house or any of mum's assets. In reality there's a high chance they will be needed to cover care costs at some point, anyway.

Fair enough. I was more thinking about paying for the grandkid's education, etc. though rather than for yourself.

 

[cactustwirly]

Where did I say that?



I agree with that. Or if we do ship it, the ships should be powered by sail.



You know that primes the used market, right?

You implied it, by saying that prices have to stay high. Which would be a complete disaster to lots of people.

Yes, I do. But building cars creates lots of CO2 emissions. If people didn't change their cars so often then there would be a big CO2 saving. Especially for electric cars as they produce significantly more CO2 in their production compared to traditional ICE cars

 

[Herefordian]

Sizewell B is likely to be life extended, at least

Fully agree that the government needs to get a move on and approve some more new nuclear, and possibly look if construction at hinkley point could be sped up

That's good news.

I hope the proposed Wylfa Newydd, Bradwell B and Oldbury B plants can follow suit.

Hopefully Moorside can be revisited too. That, and the others, would give the UK the six plants I think it needs.

What we could do is change the scope of VAT. It does these days include quite a few essentials, e.g. adult clothing and shoes. And it would help the beleagured hospitality industry if it was permanently removed from that, too.

If we could refocus it as a luxuries tax, so someone living a basic life would never pay any, then even 25 or 30% would be reasonable.

On another front, many are once again "predicting a riot" as they incorrectly did over COVID measures. I doubt it.

I agree. VAT should not be applied to essential goods and services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You implied it, by saying that prices have to stay high. Which would be a complete disaster to lots of people.

No, I didn't. Prices have to stay high, and WILL stay high, but we have to use less by improving the housing stock, with grants for doing this if appropriate.

Yes, I do. But building cars creates lots of CO2 emissions. If people didn't change their cars so often then there would be a big CO2 saving. Especially for electric cars as they produce significantly more CO2 in their production compared to traditional ICE cars

Again, it primes the used market. How often people have to change them is dictated by the bottom of the market. Unless you propose pricing poor people out of car ownership, of course.

 

[Cdd89]

Prices have to stay high, and WILL stay high, but we have to use less by improving the housing stock, with grants for doing this if appropriate.

I agree that prices should stay high enough to deter unnecessary energy usage and incentivise generation. For too long energy has been cheap enough that blindingly obvious savings (like motion sensors for lighting) are not bothered with.

Clearly they shouldn’t (and won’t) stay this high. I hope/assume you’re not suggesting that.

 

[najaB]

Again, it primes the used market. How often people have to change them is dictated by the bottom of the market. Unless you propose pricing poor people out of car ownership, of course.

That wouldn't be an entirely bad thing, as long as there was commensurate increase in public/shared transport provision to compensate. Private vehicles are a large expense, not to mention the environmental impact.

 

[Howardh]

. For too long energy has been cheap enough that blindingly obvious savings (like motion sensors for lighting) are not bothered with.

If typical bills will reach £5000 or more, we will be so glad and relieved when (if...) they return to £2500...yet that's twice what we were paying before the April increase. Will that be a good thing that we are used to paying a lot more and use less? Or will it mean those on low incomes will struggle for energy for the rest of their lives, in order to "save the planet" for future generations?

 

[najaB]

Or will it mean those on low incomes will struggle for energy for the rest of their lives, in order to "save the planet" for future generations?

Prices will come down significantly - probably not down quite as low as they were, but probably to around 30% more than their traditional levels. The one thing about renewables is that the costs are front-loaded - they are more expensive to commission, but the ongoing costs are tiny in comparison to being dependent on buying fossil fuels at the market prices.

 

[Howardh]

If Truss's plans on VAT 5% cut across the board aren't as popular as she thinks they should be, then there could be a two-pronged attack; firstly at the Tory conference and secondly by MP's submitting "letters" within days of ther PM'ship? Let's face it, those most in need, the low paid and pensioners, won't spend anywhere near enough on non-essentials for the 5% cut be of any benefit towards their power bills. A £1000 annual spend on non-essentials will "save" £50*; nothing like enough to cover a power bill.

*That's assuming the cut is passed on to consumers.

Could have the shortest reign ever, and if there's another contest who would throw their hat in the ring? I can name one....

 

[cjmillsnun]

As can I. And believe me he would. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. That isn’t a good thought.

 

[Herefordian]

No, I didn't. Prices have to stay high, and WILL stay high, but we have to use less by improving the housing stock, with grants for doing this if appropriate.



Again, it primes the used market. How often people have to change them is dictated by the bottom of the market. Unless you propose pricing poor people out of car ownership, of course.

They do not have to, and will not, stay high. That is a fallacy.

Energy prices will not remain this high long term.

You are suggesting unnecessary overinflation of energy provider profits to deter excessive energy use.

That will accomplish nothing other than inflicting more misery on people who can't afford to pay high prices.

If you're willing to be ripped off by your energy provider, then good for you.

 

[Gostav]

The solution is less consumption, don't ship crap halfway across the world from China.

Over 90% solar panels are made in China.

 

[Howardh]

Over 90% solar panels are made in China.

They should ship themselves then!!

I'll get my coat...



Been looking at where I can save....my late June week's holiday abroad can be moved to late winter, saving £600, my footy club season ticket won't be renewed (£175-ish) and I won't be subbing to Now or Sky sports (£20-34/month) so that's nearly the grand I need to find over the winter.

 

[najaB]

Over 90% solar panels are made in China.

However, solar panels are an investment - the typical expected lifespan is about 20 years - so don't fall into the same category as the large quantities of other throwaway plastic crap that we import in bulk.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or if you read the Daily Mail, more likely to be "benefit scroungers or (illegal) immigrants kept in 4* hotels"!!!

Do you think that many (or any) subscribers to this website are readers of the Daily Mail?

 

[Trainbike46]

However, solar panels are an investment - the typical expected lifespan is about 20 years - so don't fall into the same category as the large quantities of other throwaway plastic crap that we import in bulk.

And those 20 years is a low estimate, some of the panels come with 25 year guarantees, and the expectation is that most of them will significantly outlive that. To be fair, the transformer does usually only last about 10-15 years, but is relatively cheap to replace if needed

They do not have to, and will not, stay high. That is a fallacy.

Energy prices will not remain this high long term.

I do not think they will ever go down to levels before Russia started reducing gas exports. The two reasons for that are:

- Even if the Ukraine situation gets resolved, European countries rightly will not trust Russia to continue delivering gas reliably, meaning that gas imports from Russia will likely never recover

-Over recent years global gas prices were deflated by large output from US fracking firms. Recently, these firms seem to have realised that they can make more by keeping prices high, so it is likely that they will reduce supply to keep prices high.

I do agree though that they are unlikely to stay THIS high though, so they will likely settle at a level somewhere between current prices and the old prices

The only way we have to bring people's bills down in a way that we can be certain works, is by insulating. I don't get why you seem so opposed to a strategy that focuses on insulation AND temporary bill support AND expanding renawbles + nuclear

 

[jon0844]

£68 is to cover the costs incurred by 'suppliers of last resort', that is the money lost by customers of failed companies. The new supplier credits the customer account then claims that back.

If the standing charge was reduced, the unit price would go up. Depends where you are in terms of use. As a heavy user I prefer a higher standing charge and lower rate per unit. Others prefer it the other way round.

Ofgem should never have allowed the smaller firms to use the money people had in credit, that I bet most people assumed was secure and simply being held to pay higher bills in the winter. In fact, Ofgem didn't just allow it - they encouraged it, as a way for these smaller firms to use the money to grow. For a long time, they did.

Until they didn't.

As ever, when they were making the money the shareholders and board were making bank. Then when it all went sour, they mostly went bust and we pay the losses. Funny how it always works like that.

 

[Ediswan]

There is an article in The Times today (paywall applies) which includes the following table:

I would treat that table with care. The multiplier used is not consistent, even allowing for rounding errors. Mostly less than x2, but "Bathroom underfloor heating" is more then x2. Two items which currently cost 43p "will cost" different amounts. Does a 4m x 5m heated swimming pool really only cost £1.32 a day ?

 

[Howardh]

I would treat that table with care. The multiplier used is not consistent, even allowing for rounding errors. Mostly less than x2, but "Bathroom underfloor heating" is more then x2. Two items which currently cost 43p "will cost" different amounts. Does a 4m x 5m heated swimming pool really only cost £1.32 a day ?

That stood out a mile as being incorrect? £1.32? I'm having one installed and lie all day in it, be warmer than the living room!!

Unless, of course, it's on expenses along with your stables and duck ponds.

 

[Dai Corner]

Ofgem should never have allowed the smaller firms to use the money people had in credit, that I bet most people assumed was secure and simply being held to pay higher bills in the winter. In fact, Ofgem didn't just allow it - they encouraged it, as a way for these smaller firms to use the money to grow. For a long time, they did.

Until they didn't.

As ever, when they were making the money the shareholders and board were making bank. Then when it all went sour, they mostly went bust and we pay the losses. Funny how it always works like that.

I'd assume the shareholders lost their investments and the board their jobs?

Unfortunately taxpayers lost money too in the case of energy trading companies set up by Councils such as Bristol.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As ever, when they were making the money the shareholders and board were making bank. Then when it all went sour, they mostly went bust and we pay the losses. Funny how it always works like that.

Can someone clarify a point for me with regards to shareholders in the energy firms that failed. Would any of those have lost out financially at the time of failure as I am unsure if their financial stake would have had protected status?

 

[najaB]

Does a 4m x 5m heated swimming pool really only cost £1.32 a day ?

I guess that depends on what temperature it's heated to, and if it's in a well-insulated room or not.

I'd assume the shareholders lost their investments and the board their jobs?

They would lose the capital but not any dividends. The wise ones will have sold out their holdings when the direction of travel started to become aparent.

 

[birchesgreen]

And those 20 years is a low estimate, some of the panels come with 25 year guarantees, and the expectation is that most of them will significantly outlive that. To be fair, the transformer does usually only last about 10-15 years, but is relatively cheap to replace if needed.

I was told that the solar panels installed by BR in the 1980s at Idridgehay still work.

 

[najaB]

Can someone clarify a point for me with regards to shareholders in the energy firms that failed. Would any of those have lost out financially at the time of failure as I am unsure if their financial stake would have had protected status?

Shareholdings are not, in any way, protected - hence the prominent warnings on stockbroking sites to that effect. For example, eTorro state:

eToro is a multi-asset investment platform. The value of your investments may go up or down. Your capital is at risk. Crypto assets are highly volatile and unregulated. No consumer protection. Tax on profits may apply

Shareholders are treated as unsecured creditors in the event of insolvency which means they will be among the last to receive anything if the company is wound up.

 

[Herefordian]

And those 20 years is a low estimate, some of the panels come with 25 year guarantees, and the expectation is that most of them will significantly outlive that. To be fair, the transformer does usually only last about 10-15 years, but is relatively cheap to replace if needed


I do not think they will ever go down to levels before Russia started reducing gas exports. The two reasons for that are:

- Even if the Ukraine situation gets resolved, European countries rightly will not trust Russia to continue delivering gas reliably, meaning that gas imports from Russia will likely never recover

-Over recent years global gas prices were deflated by large output from US fracking firms. Recently, these firms seem to have realised that they can make more by keeping prices high, so it is likely that they will reduce supply to keep prices high.

I do agree though that they are unlikely to stay THIS high though, so they will likely settle at a level somewhere between current prices and the old prices

The only way we have to bring people's bills down in a way that we can be certain works, is by insulating. I don't get why you seem so opposed to a strategy that focuses on insulation AND temporary bill support AND expanding renawbles + nuclear

I expect we will see prices settle at around 50% above what they were before. When, I don't know.

I'm not against insulation. I wholeheartedly support it.

However the priority should, rightfully, be to deliver the financial support packages first.

Insulation should start as soon as possible afterwards.

Will it though? I unfortunately doubt it.

 

[Cdd89]

Insulation should start as soon as possible afterwards.

Will it though? I unfortunately doubt it.

Those capable of insulating will be doing so already (and have only themselves to blame if they are not).

Those who aren’t need support, which I would suggest is best delivered as a charge against the house (with mortgage providers obliged to accept).

I don't get why you seem so opposed to a strategy that focuses on insulation AND temporary bill support AND expanding renawbles + nuclear

All absolutely fine, but on a 2-3 year horizon (and that’s if we pedal very hard). Given how dire things are looking, I’m not sure bill support will even help as there will be further increases. We (ie EU) have lots of good mid-term options but seem woefully lacking in short term solutions. I suspect we may start looking to geopolitical solutions soon, since we are clearly totally unprepared for the situation we are in

 

[paul1609]

Thing is we live in a granite house built in 1950. It would be impossible to fit cavity wall insulation due to the way the property is built. We have roof insulation and good doors and windows but it's not enough in the winter. Suspect many others in the same situation.

We are in one of the warmer parts of the country so traditionally even local authority housing was half brick built with the upperhalf being tile or weatherboard clad timber frame. Some of the attempts to fill those buildings with modern insulation materials have been nothing short of disasterous. The resultant damp negating the insulation properties and worse causing structural failure of the frame.
The councils attempt to replace traditional heating with heat pumps has been no more sucessful. They are unable to reach the temperature that older people feel comfortable in so they turn them off and just heat one room with conventional heaters.