Are the current prices of energy really that high?

There is unit price, fixed prices and overall price paid. Which one needs to be fixed?

Fuel poverty is nothing to do with the cost of energy, it is to do with low wages or inappropriate housing.

Our energy prices are pretty reasonable really, I would think that there are not that many people you get disconnected purely because they cannot afford £0.18/kWh.

What could be changed is the taxation rates on utility companies to discourage excessive charges, but then that is just tinkering.

Anyone willing to dig out old bills and see how much all the increases really are?

But I could get married, transfer part of my tax allowance and save up to £200 a year. That will offset any increase in my £600 quid a year bill (hardly changed in last few years).

If He indeed stops them from increasing the price then they will increase it more the next year and we will have to pay the Interest...as well.

As someone else has said they should be making people insulate there homes. By offering everyone a reduction in council or income tax if they do it.

If they are skint then they should get a grant.

And if they don't after the offer of a Grant then be made to pay even more for there fuel ie double or even treble the cost.
Arny

Posted By: arnyjBy offering everyone a reduction in council or income tax if they do it.

Why should the state of the roads, or other local facilities, be governed by the level of insulation or other energy saving products.
Should my old 92 year old Father have to get a taxi rather than a bus because his neighbour has insulated so much that the council is now short of cash.

Posted By: beelbeebubHow about you can apply for a gov loan to insulate your house.

We could call it something snappy, how about the Green Deal

The best way to deal with a problem is to deal with the problem. The worse way to deal with a problem is to try and introduce a complicated system that gives the impression that there is no cost to anyone. Thankfully the public are not fooled and that is why all the schemes we have (and have had) are basically failures. They are either financially not worth it of overly complicated/bureaucratic.
A good example was the FITs. If PV was a 'no brainer', why was there not more installed. Surely every bank should have been lending every to suitable household. It did not happen as the reality fell short of the financiers break even point.

@SteamyTea:
Yeah, I think the green deal is probably not the way to go. A good basic idea with far too much complication and faff. If I remember correctly the number of actual take ups is in the single figures! Having gone through the process several times I can attest to the shear mindless bureaucratic stupidity of it!

I was more thinking along the lines of: If you own a place, you can apply for a grant to get work done. The standard EPC assessment should point out eligibility for the work. However much you borrow, it is payable on the sale of the property (I think the term is a lien, correct me if I'm wrong).

Hopefully the process would be the same as getting any building work done on your house, except you can get an interest free loan on it.

@Borpin & others
Yes, the current pricing structure is not great.

How about something similar to mobile phones? You pay a fixed amount each month and get an allowance of "included" minutes. Any over are charged at a higher rate. The "units" would be monthly, with either roll over to save the summer units for winter, or vary by month.

This would give an incentive to change your behaviour or upgrading your property to drop into the next lower band.

Certain "plans" with extra units or lower cost if you are in a certain group (benefits, elderly etc).

Any months where "cold weather" days occur, would have extra units automatically added to the relevant groups so the extra use doesn't cause extra cost.

@SteamyTea

IMHO you're right, and energy prices aren't that high. On the other hand I'm well enough off to afford the tiny bills that my well insulated house generates it's easy for me!

You're right that the problem is high energy AND energy costs. The way we view property (as some kind of weird, ever appreciating investment) distorts things.

If the goal is to reduce consumption (to reduce our national impact on the environment) then we need to encourage the improvement of our building stock.

Because of the distorted way we view property, I'm not sure that the pure market can achieve that. For example, try getting a discount on a house with a poor energy rating!

As you said, when a house costs 400k the 1 or 2k heating costs seem tiny, so people aren't inclined to improve the building.

Those that really suffer (the poor) are often in properties that they can't upgrade (i.e. rented). In this case, the market doesn't really work, as there is no incentive for the land lord to upgrade (at his cost) when the benefits fall on the tenant (lower bills). Th3e green deal was an attempt to solve this problem but seems to have failed due to over complication and the interest rate (7%) that will be charged .

If there was no interest rate, and the complication was less, then there would be more take up (hopefully).

Posted By: SteamyTeaI am not sold on the idea that energy expensive, it is tiny compared to the cost of buying a house.
If a house cost £20,000 (as some do in some places), then yes a £1000 a year looks bad, but on a £400,000 house it does not.

The difference is that someone buying a 400K house can afford the cost, it is likely the 20K house (or the rental sector) cannot.

The issue to me is that some folk are in fuel poverty; for them energy is too expensive even though they use the minimal amount they can. This is caused by 2 things, the amount they need to use (poor insulation) and secondly the distorted price structure that penalises low use.

This then translates into those that can afford it, using the energy without thought for the wider effect.

Fixing poor insulation is a long term thing that requires some incentive. If we gave those that can afford it the incentive (making higher use more expensive) then that would happen. Think of it in marginal profit terms. If reducing your energy use only shaves off the least expensive element why do it? If the reduction took off the most expensive part you are more likely to do it (and see a return on investment).

So, changing the pricing structure has 2 effects; it helps those with the least, to afford the energy that, in a civilised society, they should be able to use. The additional energy use would probably be relatively small. Secondly, those that have most would have an incentive to use less energy and invest in material changes that really reduce consumption and thus cost to them.

As an aside, those of us that have invested in low energy houses also benefit. Have you tried to get a no standing charge gas tariff recently?

@borpin

we sort of have a standoff, few can afford the asking prices (until the gov support schemes kicked in). As very few house sellers are forced to sell, because of low interest rates and high rents it's better to just sit tight rather than accept a low offer, we sort of have a mexican standoff.

This would be resolved by either the buyers being able to offer more money (i.e. banks loan more or lower deposit requirements) or sellers being forced to drop prices.

The current gov solution has been the former by subsidising the buyers allowing prices to rise.

It would have been better for the country if house prces had stayed static for the next decade or so, thus becoming cheaper (i.e. realistic) in real terms. It would also (hopefully) get the UK out of the habit of assuming that house prices will always rise faster than inflation forever (clearly impossible, unless you are an estate agent)

Over inflated house prices, relative to earnings are a massive problem for the UK and the source of many social and economic problems. The UK owuld be better of if the average house price was around 100K, maybe 150K in the SE.

This is what we have on this side of the pond - the Régie de l'énergie : http://www.regie-energie.qc.ca/en/faq.html

"The Régie de l'énergie is an economic regulation agency. Its mission is to foster the conciliation of the public interest, consumer protection and the fair treatment of the electricity carrier and distributors. The Régie strives to ensure that energy needs are satisfied while promoting sustainable development as well as individual and collective equity.

To this end, the Régie fixes and modifies the rates and conditions for the transmission of electric power by the electricity carrier, the distribution of electric power by the electricity distributors, and the supply, transmission, delivery and storage of natural gas by the natural gas distributors. In fixing and modifying rates, the Régie favours the use of incentives to improve the performance of the electricity carrier, the electricity distributor and the natural gas distributors, and to promote the satisfaction of consumer needs.

The Régie examines consumer complaints about decisions rendered by the electricity carrier, the electricity distributor or a natural gas distributor concerning the application of the rates or conditions of service.

The Régie also monitors the prices of petroleum products and steam."

---

I don't think they have any impact on the price of petroleum products though.

Paul in Montreal

Miliband's big idea - a price freeze - is actually straight out of the book of the energy companies.

For years some companies have offered a limited-period freeze on the price you pay. (The latest regulations may have brought this to an end.) The catch, of course, is that the initial price on the 'frozen' tariff is higher than on a standard tariff. And when the freeze ends, up goes the price and the company claws back anything it may have lost.

I have always disliked these apparently tempting tariffs. They may protect consumers from wholesale price fluctuations in the short term, but they can't do it in the long term. The same goes for Ed Miliband's scheme. It's not much better than the Tory approach, which is to suggest that if you find energy overpriced, it is entirely your own fault for not choosing the right company or the right tariff. In a competitive market, the Tories imply, it is impossible for energy to be overpriced. Yeah, right.