standard addition for energy bills. However, the argument for its
abolishment falls under these general categories:
2.1.1
It could be argued that standing charges as a concept
is outdated, and the recouperation of cost for suppliers should be
gained from traditional bills, as stated from the Energy Security
and Net Zero Committee [ESNZ] “Ofgem explained that around
50% is for operational costs” (2023, p. 11), and therefore should be
included in one bill. Its elimination could improve the ease in
comparing energy bill prices for consumers, ensuring one figure for
price comparison “mak[ing] tariffs easier to compare” (Bridgeman,
White, Asher, Redgrove, 2015, p. 7).
2.1.2
The idea that standing charges are based on
geographical location and do not factor in localised incomes to
adjust rates, was presented by ESNZ explaining that they
inadvertently impact vulnerable regions (2023).
2.1.3
Non-users should not have to pay towards a service
they never intend to use; In a letter by Ofgem’s Associate Partner
Neil Barnes, he writes that officially there are at “least 4,500
customers who are considered as vulnerable with zero gas usage”
(2014, p. 7), and argues that the standing tariff system is
detrimental to their livelihoods. In this same letter he praises
companies who offer removal from their grid and states that for
those who do not consume gas and wish to withdraw their
connection, “should not have to pay for the removal of their meter,
should this be appropriate” (Barnes, 2014, p. 1). These non-using
households are typically of lower income, as the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation found that “households on low incomes will be
spending on average 18% of their income after housing costs on
energy bills after [as per the data of 2019-2020 period]” (Anderson,
54
Made with FlippingBook HTML5