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.

This constant idea that the solution is to insulate homes and that's the energy crisis sorted.

So typical of this country that the media et al can start a campaign and everyone buys into the solution demanding it happen, only to realise it didn't work and move onto the next thing. I don't know how many times we saw that with Covid.

The insulation that I've had done hasn't lived up to the hype, and I've got no doubt it's oversold, particularly as I think they deliberately overlook certain factors (such as what already exists in your loft when dealing with roof insulation).

Have Labour actually said how they would address the issue of the global increase in energy prices, food costs and inflation?

I am not suggesting that the current government have done a good job but I would like to know what the opposition might do.

Labour will secure our economy by backing British businesses to create the next generation of high-skilled jobs, opposing tax rises on businesses and families that will choke off the recovery and put jobs at risk, investing in new industries by providing start-up loans for 100,000 new businesses across every region of the UK

This is their take on the economy. No tax rises, invest in business. Hang on a minute!

You'd need to take health and heating needs into account

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 agree that tiered rates would be the fairest way to go. The first 50kwh per month could be free, then the next 50 charged at band A, the next 50 at band B, the next 50 at band C and so on - and standing charges should be abolished.

It would encourage people to cut back on their usage - and without the standing charge, cutting back would be more beneficial financially.

It makes sense to me that the lowest users should pay the least.

Of course, with a tiered system there would need to be some exemptions, for disabilities, the very elderly and those with medical conditions that require them to use certain equipment or to have heating on all the time etc.

I think one of the big worries about this going into April is that even though people will be putting their heating off for the summer, for a significant number (probably those just over the benefits threshold that don't qualify for help), the costs from say Jan-Mar will have already started pushing people into debt, who have not been in debt before. Credit card debt for instance will start going through the roof again. Perfect storm.

I agree to a certain extent about having a tiered system, but one of the problems with that is the costs to actually administer it.

I'd make everybody who voted Tory pay double, and use the money to reduce bills for everyone else.

Companies know the usage of their customers.
Government knows the house types.

It would be interesting to look at outliers and wonder why their use is high - so if you have a 3 bedroom house, why is your usage that of a 5 bedroom?

Is there a good reason or are you wasteful?

It is complicated - but should people who waste energy be subsidised?

I agree to a certain extent about having a tiered system, but one of the problems with that is the costs to actually administer it.

Yes, and also the difficulty of recruitment at the moment. It would be a huge project and surely need new staff to be found. Anything other than a very, very broad brush approach may not actually be practically possible at the moment. On principle I see the attraction of the idea but I'm not confident much could actually be implemented.

I think it has to be based on three criteria:

• Income /wealth - here tbh I think the bar needs to be pretty high, so getting on for half the population is included. But because the richer half use way more energy than the poorer half, this would still allow a massive cut in government spending

• needs , so household size (ie how many people) , ages (more for under 5s and over-70s say) and health/disability etc.

• Building efficiency - even living in the most efficient home ought not to exclude the neediest from help as we all need hot water, lights, cooking etc and that is currently unaffordable for many. But the least efficient homes should attract extra help for occupants on average (or median or whatever works fairest) incomes or below . And despite what has been said upthread, insulating these homes properly would reduce the burden on the public purse long term.

Yes, that (my post above) would be faffy to design and even faffier to administer. But given the scale of the problem and the amounts of money involved, it is surely worth taking the trouble to get it right.

I don't think the issue is whether it would be worthwhile, it's whether it would be practically possible. We have a real labour squeeze at the moment.

Companies know the usage of their customers.
Government knows the house types.

It would be interesting to look at outliers and wonder why their use is high - so if you have a 3 bedroom house, why is your usage that of a 5 bedroom?

Is there a good reason or are you wasteful?

It is complicated - but should people who waste energy be subsidised?

Interesting, perhaps. But we are talking about practical and cost-efficient solutions here, not an academic study on anomalies.

Have you seen the UK track record for Governments implementing IT systems, how long this takes, how the costs spiral? How many get scrapped after billions spent on them without ever being implemented? And that is with years to implement whereas this needs resolving in six months.

It's delusional to think they could implement such a complex system in six months. Just "performing the review" will likely take them most of that, to come up with a "strategy".

And implementing support only through existing assessment systems such as pensions/ benefits will leave many people in need to fall through the gaps and be very far from fair because it ignore all of the complex factors impacting usage that I, and you, and many others have described. It will also mean the support scheme loses public support because many people who really need the support will end up paying for it but not receiving it: not viable.

So while imperfect, there does not appear to be any viable solution that can be implemented in six months to do anything other than make any relief offered universal. This could of course (as it has been) be topped up with additional relief for certain groups who are easily identifiable from existing systems as having a need that would lead to higher usage. But the idea that some complex algorithm that will factor in all relevant circumstances and spit out a "fair" Government contribution per household is either theoretically or practically possible to implement in six months - when they have not yet even discussed on what basis they would do so! - is farcical.

Then, a huge team of people would need to gather all of the data from each household on the various factors to input into said IT system. There would need to be procedures to orevent fraud and false responses, cross checking to other Government data, enforcement expertise involving tens of thousands of investigations. New legislation passed to give said team the power to do that. The costs of actually means testing something like this would far, far outstrip it being universal. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times before. UK child benefit is a recent and obvious example.

Complaints and resolutions staff, independent oversight of that process for escalated complaints, etc...

The list goes on.

Total waste of resources and time which will put yet more people into unproductive jobs during a labour shortage, and also mean more people in genuine need fall through inevitable cracks and get no support when they need it, and could habe had it for a lower overall cost.

Not the brightest idea.

Perhaps 3 tiers?
One for the poorest, capped at average use.
One for the middle, capped at 130% of average use.
Beyond that, market rates.

We live in very poorly insulated housing overall, this would be a long term win for government to subsidise upgrading. Solar panels also work for many to reduce bills. Lots of new skilled jobs. Housing Associations are well placed to be involved in the delivery of this, helping them grow.

In addition, extra support for people in receipt of disability benefits. I think that should go without saying, though

So you're not impressed with the idea of tiered pricing?

Like I said, it would be an interesting idea to look at the outliers.

But as to how to implement tiered pricings, well, it could just be a certain price to a certain level of KWH. And yes, there could be the processes you mention. But something needs to be done - as it's going to be very diffficult for many people if they have to pay the full unsubsidised price for energy

I like your idea 🍰 but I'm quite a low energy user already, well under average, so that colours my view

I’m hearing a lot about rich people using more household energy than the poor but I can’t find much to back that up with? I know there were carbon footprint baselines done but this included travel and buying energy intensive luxury goods - so the ones that take a lot of energy to make but not necessarily a lot of energy to run from the home. Does anyone have actual figures to back up the easy answer of blaming the rich rather than taking some responsibility for reducing their own usage? This suggests household energy use is pretty much small fry www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/21184814/climate-change-energy-income-inequality

My anecdata is that I know precisely zero rich people with a pool and many poor people with hot tubs. It’s frequently spouted on mumsnet that rich people don’t watch/own a TV but from the daily mail we know poor people have 50 inch TVs 😉 Take this in the spirit of me trying to challenge the preconceptions by the way and not just be goady. Other than heating I can’t see much of a difference in energy use and not all income rich people live in big houses (particularly London and the SE).

Universal support was stupid and i ve argued long before now for it to end as has the OP.

So, i would have Tiered support and nationalise gas and renewables, why should the average tax payer be asked to subsidise my former neighbour with a Pool and Sauna with cheap electricity?

We are unique (Norway aside) in that we, locally, produce around 67% of our own energy requirements, yet ALL of it is sold and then bought back at inflated prices, as if we produced none at all.

Once energy crisis is over, assuming something else doesn't come along, we could look at recouping costs and privatising it again.

I think people are overestimating how the “better off” aren’t also struggling and needing to cut back.

Our household has a significant income and were massively comfortable before this mess of inflation/interest rates. We’re also in the North (so colder), WFH (so in all day) and in an old and reasonably big house (so energy inefficient). Our gas/electric bills are now close to £500 p/m and we’re sitting in the cold because we can’t afford more. Catch 22 is that we also can’t afford to make energy efficient alterations to the house and will never qualify for any government subsidy because of our income.

This is something that will effect most people massively and is largely out of their control so everyone needs some help.

Absolutely. Before the current cap, it was estimated that 80% of all households would be in fuel poverty if the initial cap was allowed to proceed. This isn’t going to change come April.

This is so big that it bears repeating.

80% of ALL households are going to be in fuel poverty.

Agree, if just energy had gone up it would be easy to absorb for us (we’re lucky) even though it’s a jump of hundreds a month.

I cut luxuries, and can’t cut mortgage or shave much off food, so heating our house will have to suffer.

It’s depressing for us and we’re in a lucky position of having some luxuries that can be cut, but I don’t know how people who were on the breadline before can get through this and that’s terrifying.