[Andy65]

I've disliked standing charges ever since they were introduced @retrotecchie as they are disproportionate for low users. I'm now struggling to think how I managed to squander a tenth of a cubic metre of gas in the first place.

The regulatory bodies such as Ofgem and Ofcom are nothing short of useless when it comes to the consumer. Changing the subject slightly but when inflation was at 10%, 'some' were complaining that their mobile or broadband was increasing mid contract by 14%. They weren't interested or were too ignorant to realise that when signing up they'd agreed to an annual increase of CPI plus 3.9% or whatever, and that inflation at that level would be temporary and was nothing more than a blip compared to the 70s.
As a result Ofcom insisted that telecoms providers must now tell customers how much their contract will increase in £s when they sign up. BT/EE knew this was coming so in a bid to 'look good' from a PR point of view to the complainers, announced that their broadband will increase by £5 per year and air time £3 per year. Those complainers, who let's be honest, probably couldn't even turn a calculator on, were over the moon with themselves. I though, now know that my contracts will increase by more than they ever have before, and will continue to do so. It's a good job I've got Ofcom looking after my interests!

[meldrewreborn]

@Andy65

i don’t know what charges the supplies have to pay to the network operators but I suspect it will be based on the member of customers it has in any particular area. If so each connection will cost the supplier money, and then would it be sensible to run an individual account at a loss? Because that what a tariff with nil standing charges would entail.

Even when there were tariffs with zero standing charges, the initial units were charged at a substantially higher rate to recover the missing standing charges.

Unless the way the infrastructure is radically changed, I don’t see how we can get away from standing charges. Admittedly competition between supplies can result in standing charges being eliminated - landline telecoms and mobiles spring to mind. Once competitive tariffs become available without standing charges is made available then market forces mean it becomes universal.

whether people like standing charges or not will inevitably depend on their level of consumption, but as you say they weigh more heavily on low users. The other factor is whether they are comprised of element that are really appropriate. If subsidies are paid to encourage development of solar or wind electricity generation, is it fair or reasonable for them to loaded onto standing charges or should unit rates be the fairer option.

[Andy65]

I'm not saying that the suppliers don't need to invest in infrastructure etc @meldrewreborn but the SC has become a tool to tax everyone for fund this that and the other, smart meters being the obvious one. Haven't National Grid said they need £85 billion or something, we know where that'll be coming from.

I've said this before that it it's built into the price per kWh, then there is a greater incentive for people to use less. By having a SC it lessens (in theory!) the price per kWh, so there's less incentive to save energy.

I have gas central heating, my standing charges for the last year were £94. The actual cost of the gas I used came to £55. If profanities were allowed on here I'd be using them all. If the SC was built back into the unit price, would I moan - who knows. What I do think though is that it would be a fairer system in as much as the more you use, the more you pay. To have to pay more for having a supply than you actually use seems wrong to me.
Then again, we're back to Ofgem who have dictated that the SC can be used to fund all and sundry it seems.

If you have a SC then the question is whether it's set at the right level, the only ones who'll think the current levels are right are the suppliers and Ofgem - although to be fair they'd both want it to be even higher.