Time to give electricity the flick?

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Time to give electricity the flick?

1 | ... | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | ... | 132

1476 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2112892 23-Oct-2018 20:33

I'm still sticking with Flick.

During the last jump in prices, I moved to Genesis for power with a $200 credit and a $200 break fee. Once the prices dropped, I moved back to Flick. Pretty cheeky I'll admit, but, I'm sure they make more than enough to cover it.

This time, I'll ride it out as, overall, we should be better off on Flick. There will be ups and downs, but, over a long period you should be in front.

Stuff have a story on Flick at the moment with one of the most pointless videos I have ever seen.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/108028018/lower-than-normal-lake-levels-have-caused-electricity-spot-price-to-spike

(Video is just a few sentences over a few pictures that add no value at all and could have just been added to the article).

Stasis007

85 posts

Master Geek

#2112897 23-Oct-2018 20:50

Looks like I picked a good time to join Flick.

Wish I'd researched a bit more heh. Checked one of the online power comparing sites that listed Flick as cheapest (3-4 weeks ago), and had a look at how they worked and figured it'd be a good fit for how I use power... didn't realize I was about to get royally shafted a week or two later.

Interesting how brutal the swings are. Friday I used 5.61 units which cost me a total of $5.93 and then 5.62 units on the Saturday cost $10.47. The Saturday would have had more off-peak units also, otherwise identical days for me as I work on both and have a consistent power using schedule. So almost double the cost from one day to the next!

Needless to say, I'm out!

michaelmurfy

meow
13217 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2112945 23-Oct-2018 21:32

@Stasis007 just move to Fixie for now until the pricing sorts itself out.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

dantheperson

173 posts

Master Geek

#2112958 23-Oct-2018 22:00

Aredwood: The low user regulations have lots of side effects. Biggest one being how they force power companies to charge artificially high unit rates, and artificially low fixed daily fees.

Rich people avoid the higher unit rates by over investing into energy efficiency measures. switching to other energy sources, and it is also an indirect subsidy for solar. But poor people in rental properties can't do much of the above. The low user plans have to also be the cheapest plans. So if you have high power usage due to too many people in your house, you are subsidizing households with fewer people. And poorer households tend to have more people than rich households. So poor people are getting punished twice.

The higher per unit costs mean that you can save money by converting your hot water to Gas. This causes far more carbon emissions than electric hot water, especially night rate hot water. So we are doing the equivalent of paying people to emit carbon dioxide.

They force power companies to offer fixed rate plans to low users. And the power companies are not allowed to offer any other plans that could result in cheaper overall costs than the low user plans. So plans such as a high peak charge combined with a very low off peak charge. Or a plan with a strict low limit on the amount of capacity a customer can use, but combined with a very low per unit charge. Such plans are illegal. As it would be possible for a customer to structure their usage so it would be cheaper than the low user plans.

Because the low user plans are the cheapest plans. There is an incentive to reduce your power usage to qualify for those plans. Yet because they have a max 33c daily charge, of which only 15c per day has to cover lines and transmission charges. 15c per day is nowhere near enough to cover those costs. So high per unit surcharges have to be added. Everyone responds by reducing their power usage. But overall power usage has very little relationship to fixed costs and capacity costs. So a reduction in income without a matching reduction in costs, means that prices have to increase. So everyone complains that power keeps on going up in price.

Hi,

So i totally get how high per unit rates are applied to the low-user tarriffs, but you seem to be implying the low-user-tarrifs lead to higher per unit charges on high-user tarrifs. What evidence is there that this happens? Why would a retailer charge low-user-tarriff users a lower per unit rate than needed to cover their costs and then charge high-user-tarriff users a higher per unit rate to make up for the loss? I don't know the details of the regulations so probably missing something here.

What do you mean low user plans must be the cheapest? Only for low users. If you are a high user the high user plans will be cheapest.

A capacity based plan will better target capacity costs, but usage correlates also. Can you say that granny in her one bedroom unit is being subsidised by a 10 person household, when the capacity utilised by a 10 person household is going to be far higher? Sure you can make up a case of one person using 3kwh in one hour at 8am and nothing the rest of the day vs someone using 0.25kwh every hour of the day - that gives you double the usage but a tenth of the capacity, but in most cases yearly usage vs peak capacity is going to correlate.

voy1d

178 posts

Master Geek

#2112961 23-Oct-2018 22:11

dantheperson:

Hi,

So i totally get how high per unit rates are applied to the low-user tarriffs, but you seem to be implying the low-user-tarrifs lead to higher per unit charges on high-user tarrifs. What evidence is there that this happens? Why would a retailer charge low-user-tarriff users a lower per unit rate than needed to cover their costs and then charge high-user-tarriff users a higher per unit rate to make up for the loss? I don't know the details of the regulations so probably missing something here.

What do you mean low user plans must be the cheapest? Only for low users. If you are a high user the high user plans will be cheapest.

A capacity based plan will better target capacity costs, but usage correlates also. Can you say that granny in her one bedroom unit is being subsidised by a 10 person household, when the capacity utilised by a 10 person household is going to be far higher? Sure you can make up a case of one person using 3kwh in one hour at 8am and nothing the rest of the day vs someone using 0.25kwh every hour of the day - that gives you double the usage but a tenth of the capacity, but in most cases yearly usage vs peak capacity is going to correlate.

Every household by default will have a single phase 60 Amp connection, meaning they can draw (if I'm correct) at least 13.68 kW of power at a singular half hour. In capacity based charging everyone has the capability to draw that load and thus the network company will have to develop a system which is able to support that load draw (it's not one to one, but that's the idea).

In your example in the last paragraph means that yes, granny may not draw the load but she has the capability to.

An alternative would be to use demand based charging (which is what The Lines Company tried to do) whereby the peak demand charge is used to assess the load draw.

Stasis007

85 posts

Master Geek

#2112970 23-Oct-2018 22:43

michaelmurfy: @Stasis007 just move to Fixie for now until the pricing sorts itself out.

Fixie isn't competitive enough, and the prices they're showing me for Freestyle was only out by >100% (and getting progressively worse), so I don't have any faith in the accuracy of that stated Fixie price either. I get that the Freestyle estimate was based on some previous time-frame when things were rosier, but it's misleading at best to be using that to entice a new customer imo.

My fault for not doing due diligence of course. But yeah, once bitten.

michaelmurfy

meow
13217 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2112972 23-Oct-2018 22:49

@Stasis007 Fixie for me was quite competitive.

Basically the same price for me, or cheaper than other providers. So, I’m sticking around and may go back to Freestyle in the future.

Flick is good, but people need to understand the highs and lows of the spot market. Bad timing on joining though! Despite a few large bills I’m still ahead.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2112989 24-Oct-2018 00:37

dantheperson:

Aredwood: The low user regulations have lots of side effects. Biggest one being how they force power companies to charge artificially high unit rates, and artificially low fixed daily fees.

Rich people avoid the higher unit rates by over investing into energy efficiency measures. switching to other energy sources, and it is also an indirect subsidy for solar. But poor people in rental properties can't do much of the above. The low user plans have to also be the cheapest plans. So if you have high power usage due to too many people in your house, you are subsidizing households with fewer people. And poorer households tend to have more people than rich households. So poor people are getting punished twice.

The higher per unit costs mean that you can save money by converting your hot water to Gas. This causes far more carbon emissions than electric hot water, especially night rate hot water. So we are doing the equivalent of paying people to emit carbon dioxide.

They force power companies to offer fixed rate plans to low users. And the power companies are not allowed to offer any other plans that could result in cheaper overall costs than the low user plans. So plans such as a high peak charge combined with a very low off peak charge. Or a plan with a strict low limit on the amount of capacity a customer can use, but combined with a very low per unit charge. Such plans are illegal. As it would be possible for a customer to structure their usage so it would be cheaper than the low user plans.

Because the low user plans are the cheapest plans. There is an incentive to reduce your power usage to qualify for those plans. Yet because they have a max 33c daily charge, of which only 15c per day has to cover lines and transmission charges. 15c per day is nowhere near enough to cover those costs. So high per unit surcharges have to be added. Everyone responds by reducing their power usage. But overall power usage has very little relationship to fixed costs and capacity costs. So a reduction in income without a matching reduction in costs, means that prices have to increase. So everyone complains that power keeps on going up in price.

Hi,

So i totally get how high per unit rates are applied to the low-user tarriffs, but you seem to be implying the low-user-tarrifs lead to higher per unit charges on high-user tarrifs. What evidence is there that this happens? Why would a retailer charge low-user-tarriff users a lower per unit rate than needed to cover their costs and then charge high-user-tarriff users a higher per unit rate to make up for the loss? I don't know the details of the regulations so probably missing something here.

What do you mean low user plans must be the cheapest? Only for low users. If you are a high user the high user plans will be cheapest.

A capacity based plan will better target capacity costs, but usage correlates also. Can you say that granny in her one bedroom unit is being subsidised by a 10 person household, when the capacity utilised by a 10 person household is going to be far higher? Sure you can make up a case of one person using 3kwh in one hour at 8am and nothing the rest of the day vs someone using 0.25kwh every hour of the day - that gives you double the usage but a tenth of the capacity, but in most cases yearly usage vs peak capacity is going to correlate.

@dantheperson Have a read of the Electricity low user regulations. Especially sections 8,9,10. Section 8 says that only a fixed charge, a per KW/Hr charge, and any special service fees (eg disconnection and reconnection fees) cam be billed. So capacity based charges cannot be offered to low users. While section 9 means that a non low user plan cant be offered, if it would be possible for someone on that plan to both use less than 8000 units per year (9000 units for lower Sth Island). And structure their usage so that their bills are cheaper than what they would be if they were on the low user plan. And section 10 prohibits low user plans that have stepped charges (eg, first 200 units per month billed at 50c per unit, any usage after that billed at 10c per unit). While regulation 5 says that each high user plan must have a matching low user plan. So high user plans with stepped charges can't be offered either.

With the right incentives, it is definitely possible to structure your usage. So you have high total usage, with low capacity used. Back when I was with Flick, my capacity used during peak times was rarely over 3KW. And that was with 5 people in my house at the time. All I had to do was implement gas cooking, non electric heating, and hot water a mixture of non electric and a timer so the element would only switch on late at night. (bulk heating and hot water was via a boiler that used waste oil). I could have managed just fine on only 1/4 of the standard capacity that is provided to a residential house. I was still on standard user, as usage was still getting close to 900 units in the middle of winter.

A more extreme case - Someone with their own battery storage would be able to manage on just a 1KW rated connection. As they would just use the batteries to provide the extra capacity when they need it. But in my own example, and the battery example. Power companies can't offer cheaper per unit rates or lower daily fees (or at least not much lower). In exchange to agreeing to capacity restrictions. Or other restrictions. An example might be agreeing to reduce your usage when coal or diesel generators are in use. Or a price plan with high fixed daily fees, but a certain amount of electricity usage bundled into those fees. As such plans open up scenarios where someone could structure their usage so it would breach section 9.

In relation to the capacity charges as billed by "The Lines Company". The problem was that they wouldn't restrict the capacity to the billed amount. They would simply measure it, and then sting you next year if you happened to exceed the amount billed. This made it very difficult for people to relate their usage to their bills. Compare that to how Chorus charge for capacity on their UFB network. If I sign up to a 30/10 plan, Chorus place a strict capacity limit of 30/10mbit on the connection. Even though their equipment can easily provide me with gigabit speeds. If Chorus operated the same way as The Lines Company, they would provision gigabit to everyone, allow people to signup to 30/10 plans. Then sting you if you exceeded 30/10 speeds. And if the low user regulations applied to Chorus and ISPs. They would only charge you $11.50 per month for Gigabit UFB, But then you would probably have to pay at least 30c extra per gigabyte of data transferred on your connection. With little or no bundled data. Imagine the uproar if all ISPs started charging a variant of the above for UFB. Yet that system is considered the norm for electricity.

If the low user regulations were repealed, it would make it possible for power companies to offer unlimited use electricity plans. With the only fair use clause being not exceeding the rated capacity of your connection.

pchs

184 posts

Master Geek

#2113469 24-Oct-2018 20:40

Looks like we might see some nicer prices tonight according to the forecasts, potentially as low as $0.10 / kWh - if so would be the first time in the couple of weeks.

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2114006 25-Oct-2018 18:16

I always thought it was risky.

Stayed with my cheap provider, I check it now and then, Flick during the cheap - not worth it, $20 a year difference.

Now......well.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2114022 25-Oct-2018 19:03

pctek:
I always thought it was risky.

Stayed with my cheap provider, I check it now and then, Flick during the cheap - not worth it, $20 a year difference.

Now......well.

Back when I was with Flick, I saved over $1000 according to their built in savings calculator. Even if the savings were overstated, they would have still been significant.

Main reason I switched away was actually to do with politics. Namely that it is a Labour/ greens government in power. Look up how much power prices increased while the Helen Clark Labour government was in power and you will see what I mean.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2114047 25-Oct-2018 20:22

Aredwood:

Main reason I switched away was actually to do with politics. Namely that it is a Labour/ greens government in power. Look up how much power prices increased while the Helen Clark Labour government was in power and you will see what I mean.

Don't remind me!

Since I started keeping the data in 1993, the average annual price increase under each leading party in the government is as follows:

Actual / Fixed (12,000 kWh p.a.)

National 3.5% / 3.9% p.a. (1993-1999)

Labour 6.5% / 6.7% p.a. (2000-2008)

National 1.1% / 1.4% p.a. (2009-2017)

Part of the reason for the low increase for me in recent years is that we have a lot more choice with more diversity among retailers. Some of that diversity was starting while Labour was in government, e.g. Powershop in 2007.

timmmay

20498 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2114049 25-Oct-2018 20:25

I saved heaps with Flick while the going was good. I moved to EK before the peak about a year ago, and I haven't compared prices, but gut feel I haven't noticed any real difference. I take good advantage of the EK features though.

I like the Flick model, but there's too much volatility for me in the past 12 months.

voy1d

178 posts

Master Geek

#2114054 25-Oct-2018 20:43

Hammerer:

Aredwood:

Main reason I switched away was actually to do with politics. Namely that it is a Labour/ greens government in power. Look up how much power prices increased while the Helen Clark Labour government was in power and you will see what I mean.

Don't remind me!

Since I started keeping the data in 1993, the average annual price increase under each leading party in the government is as follows:

Actual / Fixed (12,000 kWh p.a.)

National 3.5% / 3.9% p.a. (1993-1999)

Labour 6.5% / 6.7% p.a. (2000-2008)

National 1.1% / 1.4% p.a. (2009-2017)

Part of the reason for the low increase for me in recent years is that we have a lot more choice with more diversity among retailers. Some of that diversity was starting while Labour was in government, e.g. Powershop in 2007.

You might be interested in this data from MBIE on historic data.

2016 and 2018 are the only years since 2005 where the residential power price decreased in real terms. Interestingly since 2012 the average energy costs portion has been around -0.3% with the highest increase being 2% in 2012 whilst Lines Charges have increased by around 2.8% on average (the exception being 2016 where a -0.8% decrease took place, remove that and it has averaged 3.4%)

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2114095 25-Oct-2018 21:08

I just did an estimate for 2018 to complete the table. So far the Labour figures look good because I've changed twice already this year to get better prices.

Actual / Fixed (12,000 kWh p.a.)

National 3.5% / 3.9% p.a. (1993-1999)

Labour 6.5% / 6.7% p.a. (2000-2008)

National 1.1% / 1.4% p.a. (2009-2017)

Labour -15.0 / -14.1% p.a. (2018)

This year my price dropped from 24.0 to 20.4 c/kWh based on ~14,000 kWh p.a. which is twice the usage for the average retail customer. In one year, that is a saving of $500 but there's not much more to be wrung out of retail electricity stone. Even so, I'd like to get down to 20.0 c/kWh.

P.S. Edited to correct failed BBcode

1 | ... | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | ... | 132