Energy prices to increase dramatically from April - but support will be targeted. How would you target it?

[cakeorwine]

The energy guarantee will go from April instead of for 2 years.

The support will be targeted on the most needy.

Personally I think we need to look at some kind of tiered rates. It would need to be based on your home usage, domestic needs but some system where you get a certain amount of KWH for a certain price and then pay more for KWH if you go over that usage.

I would also look at insulating houses and try to reduce usage so less subsidy is needed for energy as well.

Restart grants for everyone to get solar panels etc. Don't make any means testing just those on benefits or families. Single people on one income are always ignored and squeezed the most.

Go back in time and undo all the stupid decisions that have left us in this state

Totally agree the energy market is totally broken anyway. It would ultimately save money too.

The problem is that the likes of British gas are selling the gas they produce on the open market, that's what dictates the price. If we refuse to pay someone else will. They'll still make the money but we would be left in the cold and dark.

They need to nationalise the producers but could we afford as a country to do that

One of the issues with subsidised up to a certain usage is that sometimes people use more for reasons they can't avoid, I live in the North in an area where there's a lot of old terraced housing, the insulation is bad and very little can be done to improve it so yes it takes more energy to heat the homes but alongside that the people living in the houses are the ones who have little choice through having less to start with, a higher rate above an average usage would hit those households hard (it was 6° when I did the school run so already cold here)

If the situation in Ukraine is resolved prices will surely fall again?

If prices stay so high it will be disastrous to simply base it on benefits received including UC. Countless families would find it more beneficial to be on UC and get a fuel subsidy rather than manage on ‘barely getting by without astronomical fuel bills’.

Loads needs to change, even if prices go down. We have a climate emergency.

Lots of working from home that began in lockdown needs to be reversed so that homes are not heated all day every day. Especially in places like London where people commute by public transport rather than car.

Tiered costs sounds a good idea. I am not happy to subsidise the many families who, according to Mn, keep their homes at 21’, overnight at 20’ etc.

I'm not convinced the energy prices will be through the roof come April. Back when Truss announced the two year policy the wholesale prices of gas was trading at £5/ therm - the general trend has been downward since that time and today it's trading at £2.10.

Now, obviously, it's still much higher than it was back when we could fix unit prices at 16p/kWh (elec) and 2.2p (gas) but I don't think the disaster scenarios that people imagine are built in are necessarily inevitable.

Although there will absolutely need to be a better mechanism to target interventions at those who most need it.

Because gas is bought several months in advance.......

They need to have some allowance for single people with no children who work FT for a low wage
I earn min wage or so but I still have to pay pretty much the same gas and electric as if there was another person in the house. Only 25% off council tax, not much difference in water etc etc

If you cook for one, bath for one, heat for one, wash clothes for one and use one TV/laptop at a time then you do not need the same subsidiaries as a two person household.

Disagree. It's much more expensive to live alone than with a partner. Cooking for two costs basically the same as cooking for one, the same with watching TV/lights/heating.

I was just typing the same. Boiling one potato costs the same as boiling 10. Sitting in the same heated room, costs the same, whether for one or 4. Food is actually cheaper bought in bulk, the per portion cost being less if you buy four rather than two.

Oh yes! Forgot about being forced to pay more for smaller pack sizes unless you're privileged enough to have loads of storage and freezer space!

I'd like the 500,000 still advised to shield to get higher rates.

Because they have to stay away from other people, by definition they have a serious medical condition and have been royally screwed over by the (unique) decision not to provide Evusheld.

It's hard enough to deal with eg cancer treatment, without having to do it in isolation. But if it must be that way, then lets at least recognise and ameliorate their plight.

And everyone else housebound.

Lots of working from home that began in lockdown needs to be reversed so that homes are not heated all day every day. Especially in places like London where people commute by public transport rather than car.

This is not going to happen, and nor should it.

Can someone tell me how insulating my house will make my electricity bills less? How does it make it cheaper to use an oven or power my computer for work?

Well of course it doesn't, who said it did?

The only way to target is either via the benefits system or tiered costs. Means testing would not work, far too expensive and who would do it?

But the Tories might be history bythen 🤷‍♀️

Some people use electricty for heating, so will help them.

Also some electricity is generated using gas, so a reduction in demand on gas, will also help the nation.

You have to look at these things as a population. Not every suggestion will help every person, but if a good proportion is helped, it helps the nation as a whole.

Apparently 5% of homes use electric storage heaters, 3% use portable electric heaters and 3% use other electric (presumably ashp?). 78% use gas heating.

But obviously it's the 50% of electricity which we generate by burning gas which makes the cost of gas integral to the cost of electric.

Single households have increased about 10 to 30% over the last 50 years. Some people want to live alone and for some it’s not a choice but it is a huge reason why there is a housing shortage and it’s not just older people live longer , it’s a societal shift of huge proportions that no amount of legislation can solve. It also means a massive economic pressure in those living alone.

And then it would need to take account if the varied cost of living in different parts of the country, and number of dependents, and additional needs, and how much time is spent at the property, and how well insulated the property is... etc.

Fairness is a matter of perspective. There's no way of doing this practically in a way that most people would agree is "fair", except to keep it universal. And also it's obvious that if many people do not receive it, it will lose public support. And that such complex means testing would likely cost more than is saved by not just leaving it universal.

In short, if there is to be any support with this it will not work properly unless it is universal.

Lots of people have medical conditions that mean they have to stay warmer that don't involve running equipment.

It's just too complicated with too many individual circumstances to means/ needs test fairly.

I'm not sure that it's just too complicated is a good reason not to provide for tiered charging. Because running a country IS complicated, and we cannot, as a nation, afford to subsidise everyone, and we should be encouraging lower energy use in any event.

You could minimise the worst of the unfairness by giving an additional tier for electricity to those without gas (which would cover oil heating and those on electric). And then you could hand out additional cash sums to those claiming disability benefits.

By capping energy unit rates, you're literally subsidising people to heat their swimming pools and hot tubs and I think that is morally wrong (and disastrous for climate change).

But your response only considers a couple of the factors that impact people's usage, as explained above. The more factors that you need to consider, the more arbitrary (and expensive) means testing becomes so you end up with a huge additional administrative cost and still an "unfair" distribution that disadvantages some people for things that they cannot change/ did not choose.