"I get the feeling that the aims of the scheme have been lost in the objectives of getting there."

Yes , no great change there , and from what I've heard , green deal replaces warm front and other insulation incentives , so sounds like a potential reduction in overall funding ( or money spent by consumer as green deal is self-funding) will result.
Just another book keeping fiddle and sudo-green policy ?

As opposed to the totally crap politicians in countries that completely failed to curb corruption and massively inefficient working practices and take other hard political decisions over many years while effectively spending richer countries' money, sometimes fraudulently, to do so?

The political systems of Greece et al do NOT come out of this smelling of roses: more honesty with their populace and EU partners, and much of this could not have happened.

Rgds

Damon

I think the first X units of gas and electricity per home should be cheapest with the cost per unit climbing steadily the more you use. It would also need to be shouted from the rooftops that this is how it works.

I'd like to see cheap insulation continuing to be available for the DIY market. Even badly applied it would probably do more good than many so-called professional installations. I don't know much about the Green deal but I think it is useful at least inasmuch as it put the idea of doing something "green" in people's heads.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: RobinB</cite>I think the first X units of gas and electricity per home should be cheapest with the cost per unit climbing steadily the more you use. It would also need to be shouted from the rooftops that this is how it works.</blockquote>

Seems an excellent idea to me, as it would mean cheap energy for those that aren't profligate with it. The only fly in the ointment would be finding a way of dealing with real hardship cases, like those who are on a limited income yet have unavoidably high energy requirements. If the insulation grant system worked properly it would probably deal with the majority of such cases, but as we've seen from other comments here it doesn't seem to work at all well.

Do it like income tax


1 Abolish standing charges
2 Charge 50% of current rate for first 25% of the current annual average usage.
3 Charge 100% (i.e. current rate) for next 50% and 150% for everything over that.

People in small flats/well insulated homes save a packet. People in average homes remain the same but have a clearly increased incentive to save.

People in large homes or profligate lose out. Energy saving measures suddenly make sense to a new tranche of the population. People start to look at EPC when considering somewhere to rent or buy.

Downside (and I'm sure there are more) - people in mansions may install two or more supplies - but they still wouldn't get too far before hitting the higher prices.

Child benefit for under 5s, disabled living allowance, pension credit etc tweaked where necessary to avoid undue hardship.

p23 of this DECC doc shows percentage of income spent on household fuel 1970 - 2009 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/climate-change/3224-great-britains-housing-energy-fact-file-2011.pdf

RobinB (aka Hood)

Pensioners are already being hammered, so I suppose death by hypothermia is at least a relatively gentler one than starving to death.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Pensioners are already being hammered, so I suppose death by hypothermia is at least a relatively gentler one than starving to death.</blockquote>

Depends on the pension arrangements people choose to make when they're working. My annual pension increase notice arrived in the post yesterday, 5.2% (and I'm not old enough to collect my state pension yet........)

Pretty much everyone has a choice, in my view, it's whether or not they were prepared to accept the reduced income during their working life that's the real issue, plus the fact that many trusted people to manage their pension scheme who shouldn't have been allowed to run a corner shop.

My pension scheme doesn't exist any more, it was closed to new employees around 10 years ago and replaced with a less generous scheme. However, I did fairly deliberately choose to accept a significantly reduced income for many years in order to end up in the position I'm lucky enough to be in today. In the thread on heating engineers pay I mentioned my joiner friend who was serving his apprenticeship whilst I was studying. Right up until around 10 years ago he was earning more than me, not that I begrudge him that, he worked hard and was good at his job. Overall he's earned far more during his working life than I did, probably around double at a rough guess, yet he can't afford to retire and has recently realised that his pension is worth a fraction of what he thought it was.

He and I discussed this recently, as for years he's always taken the mickey out of my relatively poor pay and didn't reckon that my reasonably good pension was worth trading for his pretty good lifestyle. His views have changed markedly since I retired, and I sense a twinge of regret from him in our recent conversations. We both made choices back when we left school, I consciously (on the advice of my father, who was a banker) chose a low income, good pension, career, John (my joiner friend) chose a relatively high income career and looks like he's ended up with a not-too-good pension.

I get the feeling that a lot of people fail to pay enough attention to their pension arrangements, plus an awful lot of people have been well and truly ripped off by their pension providers.

And we'd all hate your guts because of any or all of the above!

My pension plan is simple as well.
I am going to wait till I am getting to infirm to work, rent a van, drive it to Spain, load it up with drugs, bring it back and:

A, Sell them on the street and make a killing
B, Get caught and put inside where I wil be treated better than in a retirement home.

Sorted

Posted By: SteamyTeaHow do those prices relate to the UKs old definition of fuel poverty?

I'm not sure - but they have to be read in the context that 70% of the population here heat by electricity. That said, consumers cannot be disconnected for non-payment during the winter months.

Paul in Montreal

But just think what a marvellous incentive a hike in energy prices would be to you. Don't be so friggin selfish, Jeff, think of the planet for a change.

Posted By: DamonHDAs I suggested before, make it per per person per month limit of 250kWh before the first rate step. That's loads.

Averaged over the year, or fixed each month?
Flat limit across the country or different if mains gas not available as an option locally?

That was intended to be electricity not including heating, averaged over the year.

Though one person's allowance would just about cover our heating also if we switched to a decent heat-pump.

So I think that could be with or without heating, with some (transitional) relief for E7 et all.

The aim is about 1.5tCO2e per person per year in primary energy, in whatever mix of electricity/gas/fossils they like. Many/most people in the UK would be within the thresholds right now without trying I suspect.

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: DamonHDThat was intended to be electricity not including heating, averaged over the year.
[SNIP]Many/most people in the UK would be within the thresholds right now without trying I suspect.

Thanks for the clarification.

The thresholds do seem reasonable in that light, though I suppose that another complication would be defining how many "persons" were associated with each supply point?