Peoples Energy: any experiences and/or knowledge of this supplier please?

[rafletcher]

Not switching to save, just want a 100% renewable supplier.

Try SO Energy.  Small, but owned by ESB of Ireland.

[felstedrider]

Not switching to save, just want a 100% renewable supplier.

Try SO Energy.  Small, but owned by ESB of Ireland.

Octopus
Ovo
Good Energy
Eon Next
Green Energy UK

Read the small print.  All green tariffs are not the same.

So’s offering is backed direct from a wind farm or two so auditable back to source.

[fd3]

Octopus are not taking on any customers atm.

[Pedal Castro]

Not switching to save, just want a 100% renewable supplier.

Try SO Energy.  Small, but owned by ESB of Ireland.

That's who we are with. It's not that every electron we use is wind generated but they are adding theirs to the general sea of electrons. 

[felstedrider]

Any clues or is that just too much of a risk?

Pretty public to be honest.  If you dig around.

Home Hero
GoTo
Omni
Pure Planet

One left.

(HomeHero was the trading name of Colorado)

There’s some other issues in that one major gavservice provider that looked after 18 small suppliers also failed last week.   This has the potential for a domino effect downstream.

[fd3]

Just been moved from Pure Planet to ... Shell!

I am actually torn, as I would be inclined to stay wit them for gas as whichever gas provider I am with will lose money due to the cap on gas prices (IIUC - which is a big caveat).  I do want a 100% renewable provider for Electricity though, as the 100% rate Shell do is them being forced to have some green production and greenwashing an eco rate (IIUC - similar caveat).

[FifeingEejit]

Shell claim to buy all their electricity from renewable providers which is about all any of them can do unless they also generate.
That's not the same as all the electricity coming into your house being entirely renewable.

It's all a greenwash really, even up here unless you know that Torness, Peterheid, Stornoway and Arnish are not producing and the grid connection to the E+W grid is only exporting.

[grams]

It must create at least a small price premium for wholesale green energy.

Though the larger effect is going to be making the energy mix of people on non-green tariffs proportionally worse.

And I wonder what happens at times when green energy production is less than demand from customers on green-only contracts. Presumably the promise to customers is vague enough that you can’t create the equivalent of a short-squeeze.

[felstedrider]

The wholesale price of electricity is currently circa £200/MWh.  The cost of a REGO is circa £3/MWh.  Biomass REGOs are a little cheaper than wind/solar/hydro.

Ofgem rules say you have to buy enough REGOs pa to cover your total load in order to provide a FMD that is 100% green.  Everything else is just politics and one supplier accusing another of greenwashing is just shits and giggles.

[felstedrider]

Just been moved from Pure Planet to ... Shell!

I am actually torn, as I would be inclined to stay wit them for gas as whichever gas provider I am with will lose money due to the cap on gas prices (IIUC - which is a big caveat).  I do want a 100% renewable provider for Electricity though, as the 100% rate Shell do is them being forced to have some green production and greenwashing an eco rate (IIUC - similar caveat).

The cap applies to both gas and power *. At the moment you’ll get the same variable rate from pretty much anyone.

Shell did a pretty big deal with a big biomass generator to buy their power so it depends how you feel about that.

Shell Retail lost £100m in 2020, although to be fair some of that was an acquisition.  They’re not going bust, though.  Shell also supply all the wholesale power to Ovo and Octopus, although both can negotiate renewable PPAs outside of these agreements.


* Edit.  Read your post again and understood better second time round.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Shell claim to buy all their electricity from renewable providers which is about all any of them can do unless they also generate.
That's not the same as all the electricity coming into your house being entirely renewable.

It's all a greenwash really, even up here unless you know that Torness, Peterheid, Stornoway and Arnish are not producing and the grid connection to the E+W grid is only exporting.

I have no idea how you'd tell if the islands are exporting, apart from noticing some turbines 'turned off' on a windy day. Guess that means that the interconnect is exporting at capacity, and can't take any more.

[Frank9755]

Just been moved from Pure Planet to ... Shell!

Same here. We'll switch when things settle down.

[felstedrider]

Not a bad article on the state of the industry below.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/20/blame-ofgem-energy-company-collapse-utility-point-gas

[fd3]

Just been moved from Pure Planet to ... Shell!

Same here. We'll switch when things settle down.

Just watched this
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/joe-lycett-vs-the-oil-giant

I would consider leaving my gas with Shell, if I were sure it would cost them money,

[felstedrider]

Just been moved from Pure Planet to ... Shell!

Same here. We'll switch when things settle down.

Just watched this
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/joe-lycett-vs-the-oil-giant

I would consider leaving my gas with Shell, if I were sure it would cost them money,

Watched that at work today.  Research innit.

We’ve seen Shell, BP and now Total moving in this direction and they have been throwing money at the sector in terms of investments but also recruitment.  I knew some of it was greenwash but the documentary highlighted the scale.

[fd3]

The most annoying thing about the level of greenwash is the accompanying level of STOOPID.
If shell invest in new sources of FF, they will never be able to sell them, because it would require them selling it to the corpses on dying earth.  So why piss that money up against a wall when they could spend it on hard drugs alternatives that would actually make money in 30+ years' time?  They corenered the market for 100 years, why not go for the next 100?

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think that's underestimating the potential future market for fossil fuels and people's desire for 'economic growth'.

[mrcharly-YHT]

The most annoying thing about the level of greenwash is the accompanying level of STOOPID.
If shell invest in new sources of FF, they will never be able to sell them, because it would require them selling it to the corpses on dying earth.  So why piss that money up against a wall when they could spend it on hard drugs alternatives that would actually make money in 30+ years' time?  They corenered the market for 100 years, why not go for the next 100?

Big corps don't care about the next 100 years.

They care about exceeding projected profits. That is what drives up share price. Increased share price means increased, huge, bonuses for board members.

The board members will each only be around for a few years. Their primary driver is to increase their personal earnings; and that is best done by being focused on each year's profits.

[Cudzoziemiec]

And the same for the purchasers of fuels, both as corporations and nations. Leaders of some nations, such as China, are freed of the need to think to the next election cycle, but national survival will be increased by making the nation richer. Burning coal now to manufacture tqt to sell to the West for hard dollars increases the nation's ability to eg feed itself in the future. This is obviously all amplified when no one really trusts anyone else to actually implement meaningful measures.

[arabella]

The most annoying thing about the level of greenwash is the accompanying level of STOOPID.
If shell invest in new sources of FF, they will never be able to sell them, because it would require them selling it to the corpses on dying earth.  So why piss that money up against a wall when they could spend it on hard drugs alternatives that would actually make money in 30+ years' time?  They corenered the market for 100 years, why not go for the next 100?

Big corps don't care about the next 100 years.

They care about exceeding projected profits. That is what drives up share price. Increased share price means increased, huge, bonuses for board members.

The board members will each only be around for a few years. Their primary driver is to increase their personal earnings; and that is best done by being focused on each year's profits.

I'm reminded of this article: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

[mrcharly-YHT]

The most annoying thing about the level of greenwash is the accompanying level of STOOPID.
If shell invest in new sources of FF, they will never be able to sell them, because it would require them selling it to the corpses on dying earth.  So why piss that money up against a wall when they could spend it on hard drugs alternatives that would actually make money in 30+ years' time?  They corenered the market for 100 years, why not go for the next 100?

Big corps don't care about the next 100 years.

They care about exceeding projected profits. That is what drives up share price. Increased share price means increased, huge, bonuses for board members.

The board members will each only be around for a few years. Their primary driver is to increase their personal earnings; and that is best done by being focused on each year's profits.

I'm reminded of this article: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

I'd take issue with some of the points in the article. The board, mostly the CFO and CEO, 'manage' expectations of the stock market and shareholders.
Sure, they are expected to announce increased profits each year. However they can also do well by predicting 'poor' years, with lower growth than previous years - then slightly outperform the prediction.

The main thrust of the article, that boards are not motivated to improve the company, but improve share price is absolutely correct.

It doesn't matter if they are driving the company into the ground, and it will fail in 10 years. What matters is the next year, stock price, and bonuses.

[ian]

Indeed. The last place I worked at, the CEO was pocketing >$20million in share options (and pretty much all the senior management were heavily reliant on similar), so they're not just focused on shareholders, they're very focused on themselves. If they tank the company next year, they're still rich. If they don't, they're richer. There's no failure mode for them.

The other thing was that the business ultimately existed to pay off interest on the huge pile of debt – which is more often the case, every acquisition and merger just accumulates more debt, so the day-to-day business is to service that debt while meeting shareholder expectations on a quarterly and annual basis. Any planning beyond that is merely to reinforce the current year's expectations.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Indeed. The last place I worked at, the CEO was pocketing >$20million in share options (and pretty much all the senior management were heavily reliant on similar), so they're not just focused on shareholders, they're very focused on themselves. If they tank the company next year, they're still rich. If they don't, they're richer. There's no failure mode for them.

The other thing was that the business ultimately existed to pay off interest on the huge pile of debt – which is more often the case, every acquisition and merger just accumulates more debt, so the day-to-day business is to service that debt while meeting shareholder expectations on a quarterly and annual basis. Any planning beyond that is merely to reinforce the current year's expectations.

Remarkably similar to a third-world country.

[citoyen]

I would consider leaving my gas with Shell, if I were sure it would cost them money,

I heard that nice Martin Lewis on the radio the other day. He said if you’ve been moved, you’ll be on the capped tariff by default and there’s no point switching because you won’t get a better deal on a fixed tariff from any supplier right now. 

We’re also on Shell now, and not planning to move while it’s costing them money for the privilege of having us as customers. 
 

[ian]

Indeed. The last place I worked at, the CEO was pocketing >$20million in share options (and pretty much all the senior management were heavily reliant on similar), so they're not just focused on shareholders, they're very focused on themselves. If they tank the company next year, they're still rich. If they don't, they're richer. There's no failure mode for them.

The other thing was that the business ultimately existed to pay off interest on the huge pile of debt – which is more often the case, every acquisition and merger just accumulates more debt, so the day-to-day business is to service that debt while meeting shareholder expectations on a quarterly and annual basis. Any planning beyond that is merely to reinforce the current year's expectations.

Remarkably similar to a third-world country.

I'd never thought of it that way, but you're very correct, it's a good analogy. The country labours, in a considerable part, to service debt while the leaders and the lenders pocket the profits.

That said, you can apply the same to most countries, they're all based on huge piles of debt (and the value of debt is literally set by expectation).