• @Schal330OP
      link
      1
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Currently with energy suppliers we have to pay two charges:

      1. A charge for each unit of gas/electric used
      2. A “standing charge” - a bullshit charge applied daily. The companies claim it is a charge for the service of giving us said energy

      The goal of this is to get rid of the standing charge as for example if someone is on holiday with no appliances running they are still being charged. It will in theory benefit those who try to limit their energy usage as much as possible. But energy companies will figure something out to avoid losing money from this.

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65 hours ago

    Good about a year ago, the price of my gas and electricity went down but my standing charge went up enough that I ended up paying more. Then again, I’m sure they’ll just find another way to screw you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      28 minutes ago

      I remember when my energy company went public. Literally the next bill was double. Supposedly they separated the delivery charge and a few other charges from the energy usage, at least that’s what they told me. I had several computers running 24/7 and it was costing more to GET the power than I was using. Then a few years later they decided to do “time-of-use” billing with 3 different charges depending on time of day. Yeah, they will screw you at every opportunity

    • @Schal330OP
      link
      24 hours ago

      Of course they will, this is definitely a step in the right direction, but I’m not fooling myself into thinking what ever tariff they conjure up is going to be substantially cheaper.

      Energy provision should never be for-profit, it should offer what is a necessity for people at the markets unit prices plus any maintenance/development on top.

      • @scholar
        link
        14 hours ago

        Would the ‘maintenance/development on top’ not be called profit?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          No, non-profits still have overheads such as fixing their buildings they run out of and if they provide a service then building additional infrastructure to provide more of it.

          That is not profit.

          Profit is charging more than your costs so that you have a positive balance afterwards outside of the overheads which can be withdrawn.

        • @Schal330OP
          link
          1
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          When I say profit I mean money going to shareholders. The money made should be kept within the business (where possible) to fund its maintenance and development.

  • Mex
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14 hours ago

    They will implement it in a way that makes 99% of prople worse off so no one takes it up and they can “prove” it’s not wanted.