"Too cheap to meter", some thoughts, 70 years on.

  • 21 March 2024
  • 4 replies
  • 97 views
Buzby
Rank
Userlevel 2
  • Buzby
  • Carbon Cutter*****
  • 60 replies

70 years ago the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis L. Strauss, predicted that by 1970 electricity would be ‘Too cheap to meter’.  ( It is suspected that he thought nuclear fusion would be here by then, but as we all know nuclear fusion is always 40 years in the future. )

‘Too cheap to meter’ does not mean ‘Free’, it means metering is not worth the effort.

All our electricity suppliers spend a lot of money on billing, accounts, support, etc., most of which could be avoided if users just paid a fixed price for having power supplied to their house. Like car tax, but for electricity. 

A fixed part of our bills already exists, the despised ‘Standing Charge’. What you you think of paying just that, but somewhat higher, for all your electricity ?.

Obviously there would be a lot of effort to get this working, but it could be done. ( e.g. Just like bigger cars attract bigger tax, the ‘Standing Charge’ could be banded by some method. )

What do you think ?

I burn gas, petrol, and diesel. I am 100% Carbon Neutral ( Well, I will be, when I can buy some carbon offsets.. )

4 replies

waltyboy
Rank
Userlevel 6
Badge +2

Interesting idea!

 

I think there is a lot of mileage in the idea of SC being made more equitable, e.g. millionaires and single parents not paying the same. The justification/excuse, when any is offered at all, for maintaining the present iniquitous system seems to be that some heavy consumers may not be particularly rich (those with energy-hungry ongoing health requirements, for example) although that justification sounds thin to me: millionaires rarely live in one bed flats. Perhaps in Mayfair or somewhere!

 

Many agree with you that SC should be banded, consumer spokesperson Martin Lewis being one vocal advocate.  But then look how regressive Council Tax is in the way it’s currently banded; as you say there “would be a lot of effort to get this working”!!

 

UK energy provision may well be fractured, not to say highly politicised into the bargain, but whether it could ever find one overarching plan fair on everyone is a big reach. Perhaps more and more localised community-driven energy provision and perhaps accompanying community-based lifestyle choices might come close to providing an answer for a growing number of people. Particularly if there is an acceptance that electricity-based well insulated homes are the way to go. Maybe, given enough incentive…

 


 

 

Walt. 2013 installation 3.2kW PV East/West + Fronius IG, >23MWh (18MWh exported). 2023 2.4kWh LiFePo4 battery
ChristopherS_OVO
Rank
Userlevel 4
Badge

Hi, @Buzby ,

 

It definitely is a thought provoking idea and it would be interesting to hear different views on the matter. The standing charges are already such a big talking point with so many differing opinions. 

 

If you could make changes to this what would you implement?

 

Nukecad
Rank
Userlevel 6

There is currently a joker in the pack with ‘domestic’ energy use now extending beyond the home.

I'm already seeing an increasing number of people questioning why those with EVs should get a reduced rate for charging them. (Pub-talk admittedly, but it is being talked about).

Questions like - If it can be that cheap for charging car batteries then why is it not the same for everything else?

Obviously it's an incentive to switch from petrol/diesel, but like all incentives it can seem unfair if you are not a beneficiary. (Particularly if you can't afford a new EV or don't have a vehicle).

And what happens when the incentives end?

Today I have zero energy, I plan on going back to bed.
Firedog
Rank
Userlevel 7
Badge

  

Like car tax, but for electricity … bigger cars attract bigger tax ...

 

Road tax currently brings in £7Bn a year. Fuel duty brings in more than three times as much - £24Bn - so the analogy doesn’t really work. Road tax is the ‘standing charge’ element, while fuel duty is the variable cost - the more miles you cover, the more you pay. 

I understand that some mobile phone tariffs consist of a fixed rate regardless of how much or little you actually use the beast. This might be a closer analogy. The difference there, though, is that the phone provider isn’t really spending much on delivering your phone calls and data. Your energy provider has to buy what he resells to you; if your scheme were to work, it would have to extend to the distributors and generators of the energy.

There have been electricity tariffs with a sort of ‘eat all you can’ arrangement, but with limits, e.g. you pay a fixed price, but any consumption over say 2kWh a day is charged separately at a specific rate. This still requires metering and complicated billing.  

Ask any ‘bills included’ landlord how he copes with tenants who never switch lights off, have two baths a day or always boil a full kettle for a single cup of tea. It used to work, but no longer, I fear.

Water charges went the other way, for much the same reason as the landlord aforesaid had to install meters. From a flat rate per tap (ISTR £2/10 per tap p.a. when Strauss was busy at the USAEC) to widespread metering, nowadays smart in many cases.  

Noel | I have no official status; I'm just a volunteer who comes here to help other customers. My gear: Aclara SGM 1416-B Electricity-only E7 meter; Chameleon IHD3-PPMID-AAA

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings