
Energy bills could RISE for wealthier households to help poorer ones
Ofgem launched a major review into energy pricing this week, as it wants to ensure "fixed costs don't disproportionately affect vulnerable and low income consumers."
1
The regulator is also asking people around the country to give their views on how energy costs are shared.
"We want to make sure energy system costs are shared fairly and transparently - so we're launching a review of all the costs that make up bills, looking at whether there are better ways to do this," Ofgem posted to its official X account.
It said the energy pricing system needed to be updated in line with how households' energy use has changed.
For example, many people are now using new technology such as smart meters to shift their energy usage to different times of the day.
Some households are also using more energy than in previous years, it pointed out, thanks to the rise of electric cars and heat pumps.
As part of the review, standing charges - fixed daily fees added bills by energy suppliers - could also be overhauled, as Ofgem said many consumers had complained the current system was "unfair".
Ofgem boss Jonathan Brearley said: 'As we transition to a more secure, homegrown, renewables-based energy system, unit costs may decrease due to reduced reliance on expensive and volatile gas.
"However, fixed costs – such as those needed to upgrade the energy network to deliver cleaner and more secure power to our homes – could rise.
"This shift in the make-up of system costs means we need to review how we pay for energy and carefully consider how these costs are distributed.
'We know customers have real concerns about fairness and transparency in their bills, especially around fixed costs. That's why we're asking big questions about how and where these costs are shared – and whether there are better, fairer ways to do it.
Stop Making This Air Conditioning Mistake: How to Slash Your Summer Energy Bill
'The launch of this review is the next step in developing fairer pricing for a changing energy system, ensuring more choice for consumers while protecting those most in need.'
Ofgem said it was only seeking views at this stage and was not giving any recommendations.
Currently, energy prices are made up of unit rates and daily standing charges.
Your unit rate tells you how much you pay for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity and gas you use, while your standing charge covers the cost of supplying your electricity and gas supply to your home.
The review was welcomed by some experts, who said there was a "clear need" to review how households pay for their energy.
USwitch director of regulation Richard Neudegg said: 'The energy system is changing rapidly as we use more and more clean power, so the way we pay for it needs to change as well.
'There is a clear need to look at how pricing and the price cap works.
'As part of our move towards Clean Power 2030, it's vital to ensure consumers get real rewards for managing their consumption, ensuring standing charges are reasonable, as well as securing support for the vulnerable.
'These goals could be achieved within tariffs that consumers choose to be on, considering how the price cap itself works, and or through various support and grant schemes.
"There are no firm proposals from Ofgem on particular shifts to pricing approaches yet, but it is good to see the regulator opening up the thinking on how this could best work.'
However, others argued the plans don't go far enough to protect vulnerable families.
Heat Trust boss, Stephen Knight, said: 'Forthcoming regulation of heat networks is great news for consumers, but Ofgem's proposals around price regulation do not yet deliver the level of fairness or price protection that heat network customers deserve.
"Many households are still paying twice as much for heat as those using gas boilers – and that simply isn't sustainable.
'We need urgent action from government to rein in unregulated costs and reduce unacceptable levels of heat loss from poorly performing systems.
'Unless these issues are addressed, we risk undermining public confidence in heat networks at a time when they need to be a key part of our low carbon future.'
He added: 'We urge government to go further than these proposals, engage more closely with consumers and their representatives and deliver the strong, enforceable protections that heat network users urgently need.'
Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Concrete sales plunge to 62-year low as hopes for Labour's building boom fade
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour's hopes of building more houses. Sales of ready-mixed concrete fell by 11.5pc in the three months to June against the previous three months, according to data from the Mineral Products Association (MPA), which represents producers. The product is widely-used in housebuilding to lay foundations, and provide the base for flooring and driveways. The figures suggest that Labour will miss its target of building 1.5m new homes by the end of this Parliament 'by a significant margin', the MPA said. Concrete sales have fallen by a third in 10 years, and more than halved over the last 20 years. The drop means that annual sales have not been this low since 1963 – before the nationwide housing and infrastructure building boom that transformed Britain. The MPA said that sales of other building materials, such as mortar and sand, also fell, with demand for most products at 'historically low levels'.


The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.