http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005 ... .utilities
http://www.ebico.co.uk/html/home.php
I'm just switching to these guys 11.37p per kw/hr eleccy 2.86 per kw/hr gas (my current supplier - EDF rates are about to rise to 19.86p per kw/hr for eleccy and 7.35p for gas)
Not-for profit, no shareholders, and they dont charge extra for pre-payment customers
Should I take a fixed energy price deal?
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Nice idea in theory but beware of law of unintended consequences: the energy supplier would be dependent financially on a smaller group of high using customers, is that really a great idea? Same problem applies to green and sin taxes, government gets dependent on the very things its trying to discourage through taxation. Best I think to support the poor by direct benefits or vouchers..and the rest of us can just cope with high prices by cutting consumption as best we can?emordnilap wrote:
This is something I thought of years ago - basically, your first x number of units of energy should be free (average requirements), then the next number of units double, the next double that and so on. Basically I suppose it's a recipe for energy rations, which I've always thought should be the way things are anyway.
One of the stupid feudal downsides of the capitalist, free market system we've all voted for - the more money you have, the less you're required to spend per unit of whatever. Same with usury: the more money you have, the more you acquire.
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Cut out the middle man and just buy you electricity from the good guy: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/
Dale Vince's blog
Dale Vince's blog
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
No, it's intended. Rich people - and that includes the very poorest people in Britain, don't forget - consume far, far too much. I have no sympathy whatsoever with multiple energy suppliers. There should be one supplier of electricity per region and the aim should be to make that supplier/supply as small as possible. Profit is not the point - lasting energy is.goslow wrote:Nice idea in theory but beware of law of unintended consequences: the energy supplier would be dependent financially on a smaller group of high using customers, is that really a great idea? Same problem applies to green and sin taxes, government gets dependent on the very things its trying to discourage through taxation.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
-
echurchill - E4B
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 10:23
- Location: Milton Keynes, Bucks
- Contact:
There's no reason to NOT fix your energy bill for a longer term especially as with rising and often unpredictable prices, you know you are protected from future price rises.
Just make sure if you're a business to be aware of your renewal date and shop around in plenty of time to get the best price!
But I agree not to buy things off the door - only sign if you've made an appointment for them to visit you.
Happy hunting!
Just make sure if you're a business to be aware of your renewal date and shop around in plenty of time to get the best price!
But I agree not to buy things off the door - only sign if you've made an appointment for them to visit you.
Happy hunting!
-
adam2
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10894
- Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 17:49
- Location: North Somerset, twinned with Atlantis
On strictly moral grounds, one can see the the merit of charging a lower price per unit for the first XX units and then a higher price for additional units.
I cant see it working in practice though for the following reasons.
1)it would unfairly penalise large households, whose energy use per head might be moderate, but the bill per dwelling relativly large.
We should be encouraging fewer, larger households, the proposed policy would encourage more households.
2) it would unfairly penalise shared houses/bedsits where perhaps 6 households are on one meter with a shared bill. Such persons would have to pay a very high price since the total consumption would be well above the low price band.
3) it would be unfair to those without a gas supply, who would use more electricity for heating.
4) The rich if required to pay a much higher price than they do now, would probably give up useing the public supply and run a diesel generator instead, this would add to pollution and reduce the money available to subsidsise the low users.
5) The present high price for the first XX units is in effect the standing charge and is used to provide and maintain the meter and supply cables.
Without either a standing charge or a premium price for the first XX units then supplying small users would be hopelessly un-economic, especialy in rural areas.
Electricity supply to small rural consumers is already in effect a social service and not a business. It has been estimated that if the standing charge reflected the true cost of supply, that it should be at least £2,000 a year.
6) What about small busineses such as shops, public houses and farms? Most such use more power than an ordinary household, are they to be penalised by paying the higher price?
And if an exemption is made for home busineses, then any large household could run some small enterprise in order to claim the lower rate.
7) special arrangements would be insisted on for pensioners, the disabled,war veterans, those with small children, the chronicly sick etc. etc. A whole new set of officials would be required to administer this, at our expense.
I cant see it working in practice though for the following reasons.
1)it would unfairly penalise large households, whose energy use per head might be moderate, but the bill per dwelling relativly large.
We should be encouraging fewer, larger households, the proposed policy would encourage more households.
2) it would unfairly penalise shared houses/bedsits where perhaps 6 households are on one meter with a shared bill. Such persons would have to pay a very high price since the total consumption would be well above the low price band.
3) it would be unfair to those without a gas supply, who would use more electricity for heating.
4) The rich if required to pay a much higher price than they do now, would probably give up useing the public supply and run a diesel generator instead, this would add to pollution and reduce the money available to subsidsise the low users.
5) The present high price for the first XX units is in effect the standing charge and is used to provide and maintain the meter and supply cables.
Without either a standing charge or a premium price for the first XX units then supplying small users would be hopelessly un-economic, especialy in rural areas.
Electricity supply to small rural consumers is already in effect a social service and not a business. It has been estimated that if the standing charge reflected the true cost of supply, that it should be at least £2,000 a year.
6) What about small busineses such as shops, public houses and farms? Most such use more power than an ordinary household, are they to be penalised by paying the higher price?
And if an exemption is made for home busineses, then any large household could run some small enterprise in order to claim the lower rate.
7) special arrangements would be insisted on for pensioners, the disabled,war veterans, those with small children, the chronicly sick etc. etc. A whole new set of officials would be required to administer this, at our expense.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here