The Lemon Fool

The Scottish Power CEO has apparently called for .GOV to provide £1000 support per family in fuel poverty to pay for excessive energy bills. Apparently there are several million families in this category.

Your comments are most welcome.

Scotview

The call was made by Keith Anderson, CEO of Scottish Power.

His main concern is not the plight of his customers, it's his fear that his owners, Iberdrola of Spain will exit the UK market rather than keep propping up the company due to the price cap.

He sees his position going down the pan.

would he be so keen if it wasn't central funding

Well, there's a surprise. Power industry boss calls for more money for power industry.

Had it not been smoke-and-mirrors, the government's £150 might have been proportionate. But £1000 just tells us how entitled and profligate expectations have become. LBYM should pocket a decent profit on that.

Only for the deserving poor though.

scotview wrote:The Scottish Power CEO ....

A national habit for the Scots, being subsidised.

In big-picture terms I think the hike in energy prices a good thing. It will make us less profligate in energy use.

I would favour an overturning of the present tariff structures, with the per-unit price increasing as one uses more. That would really encourage economy.

Of course using less power is probably not what the CEO has in mind.

V8

88V8 wrote:I would favour an overturning of the present tariff structures, with the per-unit price increasing as one uses more.

Does it not?
Or do you mean because there's a standing charge?

88V8 wrote:

scotview wrote:The Scottish Power CEO ....

A national habit for the Scots, being subsidised.

In big-picture terms I think the hike in energy prices a good thing. It will make us less profligate in energy use.

I would favour an overturning of the present tariff structures, with the per-unit price increasing as one uses more. That would really encourage economy.

Of course using less power is probably not what the CEO has in mind.

V8

I recollect something faintly akin to that in Italy in the 1990s.

This was long before I spoke enough Italian to understand, but my first landlord there explained that I should limit the power I drew. My flat was on a domestic tariff that was cheaper than "standard" prices, but only for low usage. That suited me just fine!

88V8 wrote:

scotview wrote:The Scottish Power CEO ....

...I would favour an overturning of the present tariff structures, with the per-unit price increasing as one uses more. That would really encourage economy.

Of course using less power is probably not what the CEO has in mind.

V8

I'm sure in the good old innocent days of the gas and electricity boards, the opposite used to apply.

I clearly recall in the late 60s or early 70s that after buying a couple of gas fires, to replace open fires, my parents spent some time doing the maths to determine if a high user tariff, where, once a certain number of units had been used (at a higher than normal cost per unit) the rest were a fair bit cheaper, would be better than staying on the standard tariff.

But at least they only had one option as far as supplier was concerned

staffordian wrote:But at least they only had one option as far as supplier was concerned

Having one supplier is a bad thing
those who shop around get better deals than those who don't

88V8 wrote:A national habit for the Scots, being subsidised.

It interests me that the Scots seem so much more approving of big-government nanny-state politics than the English. Even though, after centuries of inter-breeding, the two peoples really cannot be that different.

One theory is that in Scotland, but not in England, the percentage of voters who get at least some of their income from the government exceeds 50%. The tipping point, perhaps?

Lootman wrote:

88V8 wrote:A national habit for the Scots, being subsidised.

It interests me that the Scots seem so much more approving of big-government nanny-state politics than the English. Even though, after centuries of inter-breeding, the two peoples really cannot be that different.

Are they really?

Or is it largely just a consequence of our respective constitutional positions? For the Jocks - financially tied to a separate and much bigger UK government - there's basically no downside to their government maximising spending within what Westminster allows them. Nor any benefit to government thrift.

scotview wrote:The Scottish Power CEO has apparently called for .GOV to provide £1000 support per family in fuel poverty to pay for excessive energy bills. Apparently there are several million families in this category.

Your comments are most welcome.

Scotview

Their suggestion wasn’t for the government to provide £1,000 support, but for customers to fund the support. Those in fuel poverty would get £1,000 and that was to be paid for by everyone having £40 added to their annual bills for the next decade.

Now ‘fuel poverty’ is a term thrown around but does have a definition, and in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland it is straightforward as it is spending more than 10% of income on energy. Although with that simplicity does come some odd cases, such as someone might have a large salary but also a large fuel bill - £100,000 salary but £10,000 fuel bill due to heating their swimming pool means they are in ‘fuel poverty’. Hmmm.

However in England it is more complicated, as it is having fuel costs that are above average and if they did spend that amount they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.

So some complicated issues to actually identify who is in fuel poverty, and who has an expensive bill they would sooner not pay.

With the £150 loan scheme the government decided it was ‘too hard’ and just gave it to everyone with a band D or lower council tax bill.

As someone with a band D council tax bill if someone wants to give me £1,000 and I only have to pay back £400 over 10 years then I will say thanks, but I am not in fuel poverty by a long long way.

Equally is it fair that a young working family renting a house because they can’t afford to buy one but are just above the ‘fuel poverty’ official definition, have to pay the annual £40 subsidy someone living only on the state pension to receive the £1,000 subsidy but that person owns a house worth hundreds of thousands.

No easy answers.

AF62 wrote:With the £150 loan scheme the government decided it was ‘too hard’ and just gave it to everyone with a band D or lower council tax bill.

Just to clarify the £150 is not a loan, you don't have to pay it back
It is the £200 reduction in your electricity costs from this October and from April 2023, and for 4 years after that, your bill automatically be increased by £40 a year

"

pje16 wrote:

AF62 wrote:With the £150 loan scheme the government decided it was ‘too hard’ and just gave it to everyone with a band D or lower council tax bill.

Just to clarify the £150 is not a loan, you don't have to pay it back
It is the £200 reduction in your electricity costs from this October and from April 2023, and for 4 years after that, your bill automatically be increased by £40 a year

"

April 2023?

So by then we'll be seeing lots of pressure to drop the rise. And who-knows-what new pork barrel.

UncleEbenezer wrote:April 2023?
So by then we'll be seeing lots of pressure to drop the rise. And who-knows-what new pork barrel.

AFAI
which April then ?
There will be rises in October so that's when the £200 is needed

pje16 wrote:

AF62 wrote:With the £150 loan scheme the government decided it was ‘too hard’ and just gave it to everyone with a band D or lower council tax bill.

Just to clarify the £150 is not a loan, you don't have to pay it back
It is the £200 reduction in your electricity costs from this October and from April 2023, and for 4 years after that, your bill automatically be increased by £40 a year

"

Sorry, yes you are right - me getting confused with the schemes.

As you say the £150 isn’t a loan, but the government’s ‘too hard to identify those in fuel poverty so have £150’ scheme.

The £200 is the ‘sort of loan’ scheme (but really a grant and a levy scheme) where most people get £200 in October and most people pay back £40 a year - but those getting the £200 may not be the same as those paying the £40 a year.

But it just goes to show that targeting those deserving of support is fraught with difficulty.

I'm sure in the good old innocent days of the gas and electricity boards, the opposite used to apply.

I clearly recall in the late 60s or early 70s that after buying a couple of gas fires, to replace open fires, my parents spent some time doing the maths to determine if a high user tariff, where, once a certain number of units had been used (at a higher than normal cost per unit) the rest were a fair bit cheaper, would be better than staying on the standard tariff.

But at least they only had one option as far as supplier was concerned

And I seem to recall the time when we had two meters(circuits) for the electric.
One for Light and one for Power.
Unfortunately we didn't have enough wit to run all the lights off the Power circuit

Since I have changed most of my lighting to LED and taking a hard line on electricity use, my usage Jan/April this year was the lowest it has ever been. That is surprising considering it was the winter months but I have double checked. I think if more people were more careful with their usage they could reduce their usage quite a lot. I keep saying usage because of course at the moment there is not much we can do about the cost. The other thing is of course to do something about these silly meters where people pay in advance to put credits on a stick and slot it in to their meter. This is incredibly expensive and is used by those who cannot get a credit meter for whatever reason. These are the people who are probably very poor with money or are just poor. Scottish Power and the other suppliers should be doing something about them.

Dod

Dod101 wrote: I keep saying usage because of course at the moment there is not much we can do about the cost.

Dod

Indeed. The likes of Martin Lewis used to tell us how we could save £300 or £400/year by switching, some time before my bills ever reached £100/year. That was before bloomin' standing charges came to dominate the bill and actual usage became marginal to it.