Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

[Bletchleyite]

Could I trouble you to expand on this? If the energy markets have been so massively and adversely affected, how have they still been making huge profits?

Because the companies are hardly going to reduce their profit margins. Why would they?

 

[tomuk]

Could I trouble you to expand on this? If the energy markets have been so massively and adversely affected, how have they still been making huge profits?

Ha ha, well I do have a sense of humour (albeit not necessarily to everyone's taste ), however there's something about all this which doesn't quite ring right, even if my initial ramblings aren't quite spot on ...

There are different companies involved, generally the suppliers haven't been making huge profits, in fact loads have been making a loss and have gone bust.

What is happening is the producers are making large profits, a barrel of oil, a m3 of gas can now be sold for a lot higher price. The other companies making profits are those electricity generators who don't use gas there costs have remained similar but they get paid the market rate for the electricity.

 

[Shrop]

Because the companies are hardly going to reduce their profit margins. Why would they?

Reduce their profit margins? How much of the present amount of what they take in revenue is profit? I don't know, say 90% covers costs and the remaining 10% is profit? If so then taking an extra 80% due to the new price cap, then since they're already making a profit, the new 80% must be completely additional profit. If not then why not?

 

[najaB]

If there's some other need for such a huge extra costs to the population then why is it happening? I mean, how can the energy companies possibly need the money when they've already been making massive profits before the price rises? It's not as if it's due to the Ukraine war and Russia withholding oil from us, how could the 4% of our supplies that we get from them make it even remotely necessary for the scale of the massive price hikes we're facing?

Up until the start of the war, Russia was the largest single producer of natural gas, accounting for more than half of global gas supplies. If you take half the supply of any product off the market, prices are going to rise significantly. We import about half the gas we use, which means that we are affected by those price rises as much as any other country.

No need to invoke any conspiratorial thinking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reduce their profit margins? How much of the present amount of what they take in revenue is profit? I don't know, say 90% covers costs and the remaining 10% is profit? If so then taking an extra 80% due to the new price cap, then since they're already making a profit, the new 80% must be completely additional profit. If not then why not?

Because the energy they are buying on the market costs more!

 

[Domh245]

Reduce their profit margins? How much of the present amount of what they take in revenue is profit? I don't know, say 90% covers costs and the remaining 10% is profit? If so then taking an extra 80% due to the new price cap, then since they're already making a profit, the new 80% must be completely additional profit. If not then why not?

Two things to consider here - the companies affected by the energy price cap (E.On, British Gas (/Centrica), OVO, Shell Energy, etc) don't typically have gas extraction arms themselves - they buy from companies that extract or otherwise produce natural gas (Shell Upstream & Integrated Gas, BP, Aramco, Equinor, etc) at the market rate (or a preagreed hedged rate) and then sell it at the capped rate in the UK. The comapnies that Joe Public deals with and that are affected by the cap are generally not making much profit at the moment, especially if OFGEM set a rate, and then the market rate shoots past that quite quickly into the covered period. The regulator has the unhappy task of balancing the need to protect consumers whilst also trying to stop these energy retailers from going bust (ideally, fostering a 'competitive market' but baby steps..)

The extraction and production companies are raking it in, but are pretty much answerable to nobody bar their shareholders (hence, no reason for them to reduce their profit margins - the merits and drawbacks of a global, largely unchecked capitalistic society is a whole other topic). Indeed since Covid, global production has generally been surpressed to maintain higher prices. With a significant player in Russia (+ Belarus) now locked out of major markets, this is pushing prices even higher as follows from basic economics (same demand, reduced supply = higher price - although supply is broadly being matched but higher production costs means it's viable to bring online more expensive extraction). OPEC figured that out years ago, now most other companies look to want a piece of the action

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I don't know much about the energy price cap, it confuses me a lot, so I've literally only today given it a bit of actual thought. Could I trouble anyone to answer these points?

1. Have Government been subsidising our energy for the last few years and now everyone needs to start paying it all back? If so then that's one way of taxing everyone in the country without calling it a tax rise perhaps, and without actually calling it that unpopular term "austerity" either.

2. If there's some other need for such a huge extra costs to the population then why is it happening? I mean, how can the energy companies possibly need the money when they've already been making massive profits before the price rises? It's not as if it's due to the Ukraine war and Russia withholding oil from us, how could the 4% of our supplies that we get from them make it even remotely necessary for the scale of the massive price hikes we're facing?

The UK thought it was clever decades ago to allow our prices to be set by the market and because N.Sea gas has been in decline we are having to source more of our gas abroad. However, this was well known about and the majority of imports are with long term contracts from Norway and Qatar (LNG) which we are being delivered at substantially lower prices that the current day ahead price. Thing is OFGEM use the day ahead price to set the price cap which is allowing many energy suppliers to boost margins where they have long term arrangements. These arrangements came at a higher cost but had certainty but OFGEM said they were overpricing and allowed dozens of other suppliers to enter the market who didn't have long term contracts and bought on day ahead market so they got absolutely burnt when gas prices exploded.

3. If neither 1 or 2 apply, then perhaps it's all just been a political game whereby the Tories have been working behind the scenes to promote a scare story, which of course our scandalmongering journalists can't wait to ham up into something massive (not forgetting that most of the press are Tory anyway). The reality then, is perhaps that we have no fuel shortage whatsoever, nor any actual need to rack up the prices at all, it's just been paving the way for the new PM to come along and provide some huge form of tax (or other) help to everyone, so that they can be seen as a miracle worker who everyone will want to vote for next time round.

If all of the above is complete rubbish then please just regard it as a bit of light entertainment. Or might there be anything in this?

Its not that complicated its simply the Tory belief that the market will solve everything.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Two things to consider here - the companies affected by the energy price cap (E.On, British Gas (/Centrica), OVO, Shell Energy, etc) don't typically have gas extraction arms themselves - they buy from companies that extract or otherwise produce natural gas (Shell Upstream & Integrated Gas, BP, Aramco, Equinor, etc) at the market rate (or a preagreed hedged rate) and then sell it at the capped rate in the UK. The comapnies that Joe Public deals with and that are affected by the cap are generally not making much profit at the moment, especially if OFGEM set a rate, and then the market rate shoots past that quite quickly into the covered period. The regulator has the unhappy task of balancing the need to protect consumers whilst also trying to stop these energy retailers from going bust (ideally, fostering a 'competitive market' but baby steps..)

Except it isn't that simple. Many of the energy suppliers either have their fingers in the energy production pie or are wholly owned by companies that do.
Centrica themselves have had part ownership of some of our nuclear generation (alongside EDF) and Shell Energy are wholly owned by Shell (who obviously have a lot of muscle in energy generation).

 

[Domh245]

Except it isn't that simple. Many of the energy suppliers either have their fingers in the energy production pie or are wholly owned by companies that do.
Centrica themselves have had part ownership of some of our nuclear generation (alongside EDF) and Shell Energy are wholly owned by Shell (who obviously have a lot of muscle in energy generation).

Sure, it's certainly not straightforward but the energy retailers don't have much say in the operations of the gas producers - indeed, other than sharing a parent company they're usually treated as just another company buying quantities of energy (because again - global energy markets and unfettered free market capitalism). This is no different to earlier in the year (and late last year) when petrol prices shot up - the 'upstream' extraction & refining divisions were making mega bucks, the divisions selling product to Joe Public, less so

Electricity is certainly a bit less clear cut as it's far easier to own and operate a grid connected generator than to extract gas from the ground, though this is another whole separate mess that @Nicholas Lewis has posted about at length where the price is set by the last generator to be switched on (which in this case, is gas and subject to the huge costs there now)

 

[skyhigh]

According to the BBC - apparently the plan is for the price cap will be fixed at the current rate for up to 18 months, with government loans paid to energy suppliers. These will be recouped over the next 10-20 years.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Sure, it's certainly not straightforward but the energy retailers don't have much say in the operations of the gas producers - indeed, other than sharing a parent company they're usually treated as just another company buying quantities of energy (because again - global energy markets and unfettered free market capitalism). This is no different to earlier in the year (and late last year) when petrol prices shot up - the 'upstream' extraction & refining divisions were making mega bucks, the divisions selling product to Joe Public, less so

But that is my problem with it all. I just don't see how say Shell Energy can claim they aren't making money when their parent company makes loads. Its the same damn company. Sure they may be treated as different companies for energy buying purposes but that is just a fictional façade in the grand scheme of things. If Shell Energy pays Shell Corporate a load of money for energy, or if other companies are paying Shell Corporate a load of money for energy, or if Shell Energy are making a load of money themselves, its still Shell who benefit. All this parent company rubbish does is obscure the fact these companies are making billions. Sure technically Shell Energy may not be, but Shell are and Shell own Shell Energy so there's no difference to me or you. It's no different to how companies structure themselves so it "looks" like they make smaller profits in high tax countries and higher profits in low tax countries. It is all a gigantic con and I'd hope most of the public can see through it.

For the energy suppliers who aren't involved with the generation then I have sympathies and there I really don't know what the answer is. But when the same parent companies have eggs in both baskets then they are making money either way so them complaining just sounds like them crying wolf to me.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

According to the BBC - apparently the plan is for the price cap will be fixed at the current rate for up to 18 months, with government loans paid to energy suppliers. These will be recouped over the next 10-20 years.

Whilst this is the fairest way to do it it does nothing to incentivise reducing demand nor investing in energy efficiency. It also signals to the market we will pay what it costs. I would draw a parallel that with our industry and as a result of the open ended liabilities we now have DfT meddling in an industry they don't understand and making things worse as a result.

 

[skyhigh]

Whilst this is the fairest way to do it it does nothing to incentivise reducing demand nor investing in energy efficiency.

Personally I think a discount for the first x number of units used then full price thereafter would be a fairer system, but we are where we are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I think a discount for the first x number of units used then full price thereafter would be a fairer system, but we are where we are.

Doesn't work because the most vulnerable are often in private rented accommodation where the landlord won't fix the lack of insulation/single glazed windows etc.

I would support the idea of a sliding scale of "first N units cheap, next N more expensive, next N outrageously pricey" for domestic use but only if landlords were mandated to insulate to EPC A or B within a very short time period with no "but it's a bit expensive" excuse.

 

[brad465]

Whilst this is the fairest way to do it it does nothing to incentivise reducing demand nor investing in energy efficiency. It also signals to the market we will pay what it costs. I would draw a parallel that with our industry and as a result of the open ended liabilities we now have DfT meddling in an industry they don't understand and making things worse as a result.

Yes while I agree with the necessity to keep costs of consumption down, I agree that it must be done on the condition of providing a drive to improve efficiency in insultation, etc., and promoting savings through reduced use. I think this decision has come about as a result of Truss needing to get voters onside quickly but at the same time not upsetting energy company profits, who she will rely on for support.

Also, as the proposal is for 18 months, should she lose the next election, Labour (or some for coalition/alliance more likely) will have to put up with the costs of this plan.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes while I agree with the necessity to keep costs of consumption down, I agree that it must be done on the condition of providing a drive to improve efficiency in insultation, etc., and promoting savings through reduced use. I think this decision has come about as a result of Truss needing to get voters onside quickly but at the same time not upsetting energy company profits, who she will rely on for support.

Not sure what support they provide for her - Kwarteng view was we need them to invest the profits in the UK but doesn't mean they will and if they do its 3-5 years away before any benefits would accrue anyhow.

Also, as the proposal is for 18 months, should she lose the next election, Labour (or some for coalition/alliance more likely) will have to put up with the costs of this plan.

Good point she behaving like a gambling addict and betting the house on it to try and win the next general election. If she loses not her problem if she wins she can just kick the can down the road and take all the benefits.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Personally I think a discount for the first x number of units used then full price thereafter would be a fairer system, but we are where we are.

Doesn't work because the most vulnerable are often in private rented accommodation where the landlord won't fix the lack of insulation/single glazed windows etc.

I would support the idea of a sliding scale of "first N units cheap, next N more expensive, next N outrageously pricey" for domestic use but only if landlords were mandated to insulate to EPC A or B within a very short time period with no "but it's a bit expensive" excuse.

Yes while I agree with the necessity to keep costs of consumption down, I agree that it must be done on the condition of providing a drive to improve efficiency in insultation, etc., and promoting savings through reduced use. I think this decision has come about as a result of Truss needing to get voters onside quickly but at the same time not upsetting energy company profits, who she will rely on for support.

Also, as the proposal is for 18 months, should she lose the next election, Labour (or some for coalition/alliance more likely) will have to put up with the costs of this plan.

What any sliding scale fails to take into account is the fact that some households are entirely electric whist others are a mix of gas and electric (other fuels are also available). Why should I pay an 'excessive rate' because I use many units of electricity, mostly to heat my house, whilst others use fewer units and for less essential purposes? Unless there is a balancing rebate because I use exactly 0 units of gas. To get to a fair system there would need to be an assessment of a households energy use by activity across all fuels.

I think the new PM has more immediate concerns than getting the voters onside. More a case of getting the potential rioters onside and keeping people spending money across the economy (thus preventing mass business failures), rather than most income being immediately passed to energy companies leaving nothing for other expenditure. As I have said before, some people can easily weather a £5,000 per annum price cap, others will manage by belt tightening but a large number simply cannot manage those numbers. They simply don't have headroom in their budgets for an extra £x,000 pounds on energy plus all the other inflation increases now coming through. Energy costs already represented a large proportion of total expenditure by some groups such as the low paid, benefit recipients, many pensioners, students etc. A large increase on a small part of your budget can be accommodated, a extra super-size mega increase on a large part of your budget cannot.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What any sliding scale fails to take into account is the fact that some households are entirely electric whist others are a mix of gas and electric (other fuels are also available). Why should I pay an 'excessive rate' because I use many units of electricity, mostly to heat my house, whilst others use fewer units and for less essential purposes? Unless there is a balancing rebate because I use exactly 0 units of gas. To get to a fair system there would need to be an assessment of a households energy use by activity across all fuels.

Unfortunately I would have to agree but of course by now we should have had a register of the EPC ratings of each dwelling but that was knocked on the head when Cameron came into office.

I think the new PM has more immediate concerns than getting the voters onside. More a case of getting the potential rioters onside and keeping people spending money across the economy (thus preventing mass business failures), rather than most income being immediately passed to energy companies leaving nothing for other expenditure. As I have said before, some people can easily weather a £5,000 per annum price cap, others will manage by belt tightening but a large number simply cannot manage those numbers. They simply don't have headroom in their budgets for an extra £x,000 pounds on energy plus all the other inflation increases now coming through. Energy costs already represented a large proportion of total expenditure by some groups such as the low paid, benefit recipients, many pensioners, students etc. An large increase on a small part of your budget can be accommodated, a extra super-size mega increase on a large part of your budget cannot.

Personally i would have cut business more slack than domestic users as they are fundamental to the workings of the economy and keeping people in work.

 

[AM9]

Unfortunately I would have to agree but of course by now we should have had a register of the EPC ratings of each dwelling but that was knocked on the head when Cameron came into office.

Personally i would have cut business more slack than domestic users as they are fundamental to the workings of the economy and keeping people in work.

If people cannot heat their homes, many could die. If a business goes bust, only a business dies.

 

[Dai Corner]

If people cannot heat their homes, many could die. If a business goes bust, only a business dies.

If a business dies and people lose their livelihoods they may be unable to afford to heat their homes and therefore die.

 

[AM9]

If a business dies and people lose their livelihoods they may be unable to afford to heat their homes and therefore die.

Higher unemployment is a given. Whether its losing a job in a small business, a large corporation or even a public department, the effect is the same.

 

[david1212]

If people cannot heat their homes, many could die. If a business goes bust, only a business dies.

Directly true but there are consequences including
- workforce unemployed so living on the state
- no income to the state from trading profit
- even if the business is only breaking even it is paying business rates, employers NI and second state pension contributions
- if loss making supporting other businesses that are profitable
- purchases from suppliers is lost with the snowball effect of making then less viable

 

[87 027]

As I have said before, some people can easily weather a £5,000 per annum price cap, others will manage by belt tightening but a large number simply cannot manage those numbers.

My direct debits for gas and electricity have further increased this month to equate to an annual charge of around £4,600. I have just been involuntarily switched to a new supplier so maybe they are looking to boost cash flow.

I find quotes along the lines that the annual price cap will rise to £x,xxx to be completely meaningless if it's based on units of consumption rather than absolute limits. That said, I have sufficient headroom in my domestic budget to absorb the increase so I'm acutely aware I am in a fortunate position and completely undeserving of any government support.

My house (1930s build) is not especially energy efficient but I suspect it's of an age where demolition and rebuild may be preferable to attempt to retrofit energy-efficient measures.

 

[jon0844]

I don't really get why we talk of caps at all, as nobody is capped at the amounts mentioned. There's a unit charge and standing charge, and your spend is based on consumption. The unit charge and standing charge is capped, and that's all people really need to know.

Every single day people talk of their bills going up based on what the energy supplier is asking people to pay by direct debit, which adjusts in relation to your previous usage and an estimation based on whether you'll continue to use the same amount of energy for the rest of the year (or a year ahead, or whatever period they set).

I used more electricity for air conditioning in July and so there was a blip. Despite August coming back down (lower than June in fact), they told me they wanted more money per month. They nicely changed the DD amount, and I nicely went on and modified it so it wouldn't happen! (I'm with Shell, so if you manage the account online you can do this - which is actually pretty good, although you need to watch them closely!!).

 

[87 027]

I don't really get why we talk of caps at all, as nobody is capped at the amounts mentioned. There's a unit charge and standing charge, and your spend is based on consumption.

Completely agree. I know this isn't a smart meters discussion but perhaps if I had one it would help. I have had 2 failed attempts at installation - I've been told by a fairly authoritative source that houses of my age and construction have asbestos in the meter cupboard so there are additional health & safety measures required over and above a bog standard job.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't really get why we talk of caps at all, as nobody is capped at the amounts mentioned. There's a unit charge and standing charge, and your spend is based on consumption. The unit charge and standing charge is capped, and that's all people really need to know.

Every single day people talk of their bills going up based on what the energy supplier is asking people to pay by direct debit, which adjusts in relation to your previous usage and an estimation based on whether you'll continue to use the same amount of energy for the rest of the year (or a year ahead, or whatever period they set).

I used more electricity for air conditioning in July and so there was a blip. Despite August coming back down (lower than June in fact), they told me they wanted more money per month. They nicely changed the DD amount, and I nicely went on and modified it so it wouldn't happen! (I'm with Shell, so if you manage the account online you can do this - which is actually pretty good, although you need to watch them closely!!).

It is rather frustrating that so many people seem to think 'my direct debit is £x so my bill is also £x' without looking at their underlying actual consumption and the price per unit they pay. Someone is the sort of person who keeps track of such things, or they aren't. My advice is never trust your energy company, they like to have your money in their accounts and not the other way round. Remember when annual budget schemes had periods of being in credit and periods in debit which balanced out over the 12 months! Now it's credit all year. I have in the past been with companies where I could adjust my monthly payment online, now with Futilty Warehouse I have no such control.

The way the price cap is quoted is not at all helpful unless you happen to be the magic 'typical customer'. A straight 'the price cap is changing by x%' would be a better number to report but can be equally meaningless as it assumes a 'typical customer' with a dual supply and certain levels of usage for gas and electric. My April 2022 increase, based on my personal consumption etc was actually a 90% increase rather than the public figure of 54%.

 

[Dai Corner]

It is rather frustrating that so many people seem to think 'my direct debit is £x so my bill is also £x' without looking at their underlying actual consumption and the price per unit they pay. Someone is the sort of person who keeps track of such things, or they aren't. My advice is never trust your energy company, they like to have your money in their accounts and not the other way round. Remember when annual budget schemes had periods of being in credit and periods in debit which balanced out over the 12 months! Now it's credit all year. I have in the past been with companies where I could adjust my monthly payment online, now with Futilty Warehouse I have no such control.

I'm actually in debit on my energy account as we come up to autumn and the beginning of the heating season.

The way the price cap is quoted is not at all helpful unless you happen to be the magic 'typical customer'. A straight 'the price cap is changing by x%' would be a better number to report but can be equally meaningless as it assumes a 'typical customer' with a dual supply and certain levels of usage for gas and electric. My April 2022 increase, based on my personal consumption etc was actually a 90% increase rather than the public figure of 54%.

My April increase was over 100%, but then I was on a very cheap fixed tariff until then. My current fixed tariff is slightly above the April cap but lasts until next April. I was looking forward to £400 off my bill but I'm not sure how the new Governments proposals will affect me.

 

[DelayRepay]

I don't really get why we talk of caps at all, as nobody is capped at the amounts mentioned. There's a unit charge and standing charge, and your spend is based on consumption. The unit charge and standing charge is capped, and that's all people really need to know.

Every single day people talk of their bills going up based on what the energy supplier is asking people to pay by direct debit, which adjusts in relation to your previous usage and an estimation based on whether you'll continue to use the same amount of energy for the rest of the year (or a year ahead, or whatever period they set).

It works both ways - some people are panicked by talk of £3,500 bills, even though they don't use anywhere near that amount of energy.

Other people, worryingly, see the cap as an actual cap, i.e. a maximum amount of money that anyone will pay. I spoke to someone who said they were delighted that Liz Truss is planning to cap energy bills at £2,500 because that means the monthly payment will be less than they were paying last winter. They are a high energy user so will be in for a shock when the bill arrives! This person is not an idiot - they work with figures all day long - they have just not read the details behind the media headlines and have never really taken the time to understand how electricity billing works.

Last weekend I actually had to teach someone (my friend's son, in his early 20s and living on his own for the first time) how to read his meters. He'd not done it since he moved in. He thought his Direct Debit was too much but didn't actually have any usage data to check it. Fortunately the letting agent took a meter reading at the start of his tenancy so we have an accurate starting point.

 

[davews]

I agree with the comments about the cap which isn't a cap in any sense, I might suggest that we should be moving away from the fixed monthly direct debit arrangement as the default. Most people can't get beyond the 'my electric is £300 a month' argument and the energy firms seem to have total control over that monthly amount with the consumer unable to work out what the real figure is. Much of the poverty will be caused by people paying unrealistic sums set by the providers.

I still pay by variable direct debit based on quarterly bills and long may it continue. I am a light user, at 60% or so of the Mr Cap Average. I am also in a good financial position so yes I hate big bills but at least I can pay them.

I would like to start a campaign that the energy firms move away from fixed direct debit as the default and offer variable direct debit based on real consumption as the default. I can't see it happening but we really do need to get round this £3000/year £200/month terminology, it is doing nobody any good.

 

[DelayRepay]

I agree with the comments about the cap which isn't a cap in any sense, I might suggest that we should be moving away from the fixed monthly direct debit arrangement as the default. Most people can't get beyond the 'my electric is £300 a month' argument and the energy firms seem to have total control over that monthly amount with the consumer unable to work out what the real figure is. Much of the poverty will be caused by people paying unrealistic sums set by the providers.

For balance, other poverty will be caused by people who have cancelled their Direct Debit because they think it's too high based on their summer usage, and then get a massive shock when the winter bills arrive.

The problem though is that energy pricing generally is complex and not well explained or understood. We have the confusion around the 'cap', confusion around estimated vs actual bills, confusion around how monthly direct debits are supposed to work and actually work. Not to mention confusion about how to work out the cost of running a device/appliance leading to people taking steps to reduce consumption that actually lead to bigger bills...

I still pay by variable direct debit based on quarterly bills and long may it continue. I am a light user, at 60% or so of the Mr Cap Average. I am also in a good financial position so yes I hate big bills but at least I can pay them.

I prefer to pay by monthly Direct Debit. Because I understand how it works, and keep an eye on my usage and account, I've never really had an issue. I could do the same using variable direct debits and a savings account but it would involve slightly more effort. I understand that different people manage their budgets differently and what works well for me wouldn't work for you.

I would like to start a campaign that the energy firms move away from fixed direct debit as the default and offer variable direct debit based on real consumption as the default. I can't see it happening but we really do need to get round this £3000/year £200/month terminology, it is doing nobody any good.

On this I kind of agree. Not necessarily to move away from fixed direct debits, but to educate customers about how they work, and provide transparency about how the supplier has calculated the monthly amount. Where I agree is that customers should be made aware of the other options, and the pros and cons of each.

I mentioned above my friend's son, in his young 20s and recently moved out. He didn't even know how to read his meters (or that he should be reading them!). He had no idea how his Direct Debit was supposed to work other than thinking it was too high because someone else he knows pays less. He sounds naïve, but his parents have pre-pay meters and if you've never had to think about this stuff, how would you know? The energy companies are really bad at explaining how their bills work and the other options available - this should be the focus of any campaign.