News13 mins ago
Sse Think We Must Be Due Some Cold Weather
they are putting their tariffs up by 8-2%
http://
http://
Answers
Gromit, whilst I appreciate your anti capitalist stance your figures are a bit scew.
Taking just SSE electricity customers of 4.4 million it would mean that each would have to pay £2.79 (and a ha'ppeny) each per annum. If the 8.2% rise was to cover your items then the average bill for the 4.4 million would be £34.20 per pr household per annum. - And that is without the 2.2 million or so gas users contributing! (Yes some may be same household beofre you gt pedantic that is why I did not count them originally)
Taking just SSE electricity customers of 4.4 million it would mean that each would have to pay £2.79 (and a ha'ppeny) each per annum. If the 8.2% rise was to cover your items then the average bill for the 4.4 million would be £34.20 per pr household per annum. - And that is without the 2.2 million or so gas users contributing! (Yes some may be same household beofre you gt pedantic that is why I did not count them originally)
Ymb
It has nothing to do with Miliband's propose cap. It will be 17 months before the election. The Labour idea is to freeze the prices for a year, so it os pointless SSE or anyone else putting prices up now.
A bit of a novel excust though ymf. You tend to blame the last Labour Government for everything, so it is refreshing to hear you blame the next one.
It has nothing to do with Miliband's propose cap. It will be 17 months before the election. The Labour idea is to freeze the prices for a year, so it os pointless SSE or anyone else putting prices up now.
A bit of a novel excust though ymf. You tend to blame the last Labour Government for everything, so it is refreshing to hear you blame the next one.
We can speculate all we like as to why energy companies are raising their prices now. Fact is that this is the historical pattern - to hike prices just before the cold spell really hits, and then grudgingly lower them a fraction of the rise come the following spring/summer. So, this could be more of the same, or it could be energy companies trying to anticipate a prospective Labour victory in 2015 and the consequent price freeze.
The manner in which the energy supply and production was separated and privatised has not worked, except for large investors who receive steady dividen payments, and the boards of directors, all of whom take home stonkingly large bonuses - for what, it is difficult to say, since they are hardly operating in a genuinely open and competitive marketplace. What we see is more akin to a cartel if not an actual one, overseen by a regulator with no teeth.
And it is easy for the energy companies to gouge, and then deflect attention away from what they are doing by claiming the rises are a consequence of greening the energy supply, or because of wholesale price fluctuations. Meanwhile, we are in a country whose facility to store gas is now down to weeks, leaving us especially vulnerable to wholesale price rises ( compare to Germany, who have the capacity to store at least 3 months worth of national gas demand).
And lets not forget the further complications of the energy market in that the big six, in addition to being distributors, are also through vertical integration producers of much of our energy.
Now, given our capitalist economic structure, profit is necessary and is a good thing. Without those regular dividends, pension funds might struggle, for instance. But we need far more regulatory control of such a fundamental marketplace, far greater price controls to protect consumers than is currently available, and we need a proper joined up nationally agreed plan for infrastructure development and energy production for the medium to long term, not a bunch of corporate pirates concerned only where their next bonus check is coming from
The manner in which the energy supply and production was separated and privatised has not worked, except for large investors who receive steady dividen payments, and the boards of directors, all of whom take home stonkingly large bonuses - for what, it is difficult to say, since they are hardly operating in a genuinely open and competitive marketplace. What we see is more akin to a cartel if not an actual one, overseen by a regulator with no teeth.
And it is easy for the energy companies to gouge, and then deflect attention away from what they are doing by claiming the rises are a consequence of greening the energy supply, or because of wholesale price fluctuations. Meanwhile, we are in a country whose facility to store gas is now down to weeks, leaving us especially vulnerable to wholesale price rises ( compare to Germany, who have the capacity to store at least 3 months worth of national gas demand).
And lets not forget the further complications of the energy market in that the big six, in addition to being distributors, are also through vertical integration producers of much of our energy.
Now, given our capitalist economic structure, profit is necessary and is a good thing. Without those regular dividends, pension funds might struggle, for instance. But we need far more regulatory control of such a fundamental marketplace, far greater price controls to protect consumers than is currently available, and we need a proper joined up nationally agreed plan for infrastructure development and energy production for the medium to long term, not a bunch of corporate pirates concerned only where their next bonus check is coming from
All the utility companies are getting their snouts firmly in the trough, yet again. That is why we have these headlines " Prices up 17%" followed a couple of weeks later by " Companies profits up 17%"
Labour forecast this situation years ago, when the Tories privatised all our publicly-owned utilities. As the present Labour party shows no sign of re-nationalisation, and the Tories are on the side of the companies, this will just go and on.
I pity anybody old or poor this winter.
Labour forecast this situation years ago, when the Tories privatised all our publicly-owned utilities. As the present Labour party shows no sign of re-nationalisation, and the Tories are on the side of the companies, this will just go and on.
I pity anybody old or poor this winter.
Storage capacity and comparing us with Germany is not relevent. Germany are not a gas producer. They are wholely reliant on gas being imported by pipeline fro foreign countries. So they store 3 months of supplies.
The UK is a gas producer and we do not rely on imports for 100% of our gas. We have storage capacity of tens of years - under the North Sea.
The UK is a gas producer and we do not rely on imports for 100% of our gas. We have storage capacity of tens of years - under the North Sea.
Of course it is relevant, Gromit.
Domestic production is ever-declining.
2009 45% of our natural gas was imported
2013 Highest ever amount of gas was imported - 14.7 bcm between Jan and March alone.
2019 Projected imports of natural gas will be at 70%
Of that imported gas,75% comes through pipelines from Norway, Belgium and Holland. The rest we get in liquified form via tankers.
And we have to buy that imported gas via supply contracts in the global marketplace - and that is a very volatile market, subject to change at a moments notice. The supply contracts that energy companies sign reflect that, and producers/exporters of gas will look to maximise their return.
So purely from a negotiating perspective, it would make far more sense if the UK maintained greater fuel reserves, making them less reliant on such a volatile marketplace.
"The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand for gas consumption in emerging economies to overtake mature economies by 2030. The UK Government has warned that remaining heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels could expose the UK to the risk of supply shortage and price volatility"
And then you have the margins for keeping the lights on. It was claimed that at one point during the cold spell last winter, the UK was "just hours" away from using up its stocks of gas.
Is such short termism in the form of gas supply a sign of good governance? Allowing ourselves to become hostages to the gas market - is that a good thing? I do not think so.
http://
Domestic production is ever-declining.
2009 45% of our natural gas was imported
2013 Highest ever amount of gas was imported - 14.7 bcm between Jan and March alone.
2019 Projected imports of natural gas will be at 70%
Of that imported gas,75% comes through pipelines from Norway, Belgium and Holland. The rest we get in liquified form via tankers.
And we have to buy that imported gas via supply contracts in the global marketplace - and that is a very volatile market, subject to change at a moments notice. The supply contracts that energy companies sign reflect that, and producers/exporters of gas will look to maximise their return.
So purely from a negotiating perspective, it would make far more sense if the UK maintained greater fuel reserves, making them less reliant on such a volatile marketplace.
"The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand for gas consumption in emerging economies to overtake mature economies by 2030. The UK Government has warned that remaining heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels could expose the UK to the risk of supply shortage and price volatility"
And then you have the margins for keeping the lights on. It was claimed that at one point during the cold spell last winter, the UK was "just hours" away from using up its stocks of gas.
Is such short termism in the form of gas supply a sign of good governance? Allowing ourselves to become hostages to the gas market - is that a good thing? I do not think so.
http://
//he outgoing CEO has a pension pot of £10.4million. Due to the huge fine from the regulator (mentioned above) he waived his £500,000 bonus. //
And ? Still does not change the fact you used large figures to try and press a point but to the individual householder it becomes p***ing in the ocean. Therefore the figures you used have little relevance.
//
Gromit
Ymb
It has nothing to do with Miliband's propose cap. It will be 17 months before the election. The Labour idea is to freeze the prices for a year, so it os pointless SSE or anyone else putting prices up now. //
Dont you think that is has crossed the minds of the graspers in the energy companies that the coalition may pinch the idea and implement it, or a form of it, early?
Of course there is an element of Millbands irresponsible mouthing off.
And ? Still does not change the fact you used large figures to try and press a point but to the individual householder it becomes p***ing in the ocean. Therefore the figures you used have little relevance.
//
Gromit
Ymb
It has nothing to do with Miliband's propose cap. It will be 17 months before the election. The Labour idea is to freeze the prices for a year, so it os pointless SSE or anyone else putting prices up now. //
Dont you think that is has crossed the minds of the graspers in the energy companies that the coalition may pinch the idea and implement it, or a form of it, early?
Of course there is an element of Millbands irresponsible mouthing off.
As I have said before on here we need transparency between the supply and the generation. Personally I thin generation should be in government hands but that is unlikely to happen.
Once we have the transparency then it becomes easier to regulate (like train fares). Proposing a cap for a few months is a pointless gimmick, we need a long term solution.
Once we have the transparency then it becomes easier to regulate (like train fares). Proposing a cap for a few months is a pointless gimmick, we need a long term solution.
Energy companies were already offering price capped tariffs, capped for up to 2 years, even before Miliband made his comments. And I think the volatility of the market probably has more to do with this current round of price hikes that whatever a politician not in power and not in prospect of power until at least 2015 has to say.
And it seems a pretty sensible thing to do to me to invest in greater energy production at home so that we are less reliant upon gas imports and fossil fuels - so diversification of energy production seems an entirely uncontroversial thing to do. Even were you to disregard the need to develop diverse fuel sources and expand our fossil fuel reliance by, say, exploiting coal reserves or shale gas reserves, those projects require funding. So either the companies pay for it, or the government does, through taxes. Perhaps the companies should be diverting some of the dividend and profit they currently enjoy into energy production and infrastructure projects instead.
And it seems a pretty sensible thing to do to me to invest in greater energy production at home so that we are less reliant upon gas imports and fossil fuels - so diversification of energy production seems an entirely uncontroversial thing to do. Even were you to disregard the need to develop diverse fuel sources and expand our fossil fuel reliance by, say, exploiting coal reserves or shale gas reserves, those projects require funding. So either the companies pay for it, or the government does, through taxes. Perhaps the companies should be diverting some of the dividend and profit they currently enjoy into energy production and infrastructure projects instead.
Latest Posts
It's Really Annoying When You Drop A...
News18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles225 mins ago
Strands #262 “For Our Furry...
Quizzes & Puzzles305 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.