Category Archives: Energy

Britain, Economic, Energy, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Reduction in energy bills following the removal of green levies – a step in the right direction…

ENERGY BILLS

Householders will be somewhat relieved to hear that the UK government will be pegging back the recent increases made to electricity prices by all the major suppliers. The reduction is being made because the government is removing some of the green levies applied to bills to pay for policies designed to either reduce energy use or to encourage renewable energy development. These levies can be as much as 11 per cent that are directly added on to domestic bills. The impact of green levies on suppliers is to be lessened and the savings passed on to consumers. Utility bills will still go up by an average of around £70, rather than £123, a saving of about £50 this winter.

Changes are being made to two of these levies, the Energy Company Obligation, which commits energy firms under statute to assist with the costs and installation of better insulation, and the Warm Home Discount, which reduces bills for elderly consumers over 75. The idea is to transfer some of the money raised to pay from these schemes to general taxation so the taxpayer rather than the energy consumer foots the bill.

These charges are not being scrapped, but diverted. According to Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, this will cost the taxpayer somewhere in the region of £600 million. The problem, however, goes much further than the bills themselves. Whilst Labour have proposed a freeze or cap on bills from 2015, this is wholly unrealistic since energy companies cannot control wholesale costs and will be required to invest for the future. The dilemma of market failure arising, something which is still to be investigated, will be attributable to Labour – because when the party took office in 1997, there were 17 companies in the energy sector that kept the market competitive. By the time Labour left office in 2010, there were just six remaining. Most analysts now perceive the energy market as operating like a cartel where energy prices are effectively rigged.

All the main political parties must share some responsibility for the confusing mess that passes for an energy policy. They are now engaged in a political battle over who can promise the lowest prices. Yet, the biggest problem concerns energy security.

Next winter looks certain to be affected by a coalescence of factors that will alter the capacity of the electricity system. A recently published report from the Royal Academy of Engineering suggests that the mothballing of gas-fired power plants and decarbonisation targets could lead to a ‘significant reduction in the resilience of the system’.

Undoubtedly, the cheapest way to generate electricity at the moment is by burning coal. The global price of coal has dropped substantially in recent months as coal mines in many parts of the world, including America, remain under-exploited. Yet, amendments to the UK Energy Bill are expected to force coal stations to close earlier than planned. In addition, there are also doubts in the medium term over the nuclear power programme planned at Hinkley Point, with questions in Brussels over the payments of subsidies to French and Chinese companies. Future supply, then, is the critical issue: energy consumers may be pleased to see their bills go up less than originally planned, even though many will still be paying for it through taxation. But they will be appalled if the lights go out. And for those who believe that green energy is greatly over-valued will complain that the government is just shifting the burden from one set of people to another.

The finer details of the changes also reveal that homebuyers will become eligible for a £1,000 contribution towards insulating their new home. Mr Davey has said this will be paid via a reduction in the stamp duty paid on the purchase price.

The changes to energy bills might just cause the energy companies and the government to be more transparent about exactly what makes up the unit price of gas and electricity on our bills. Hopefully, that might lead to them being more sensitive to that information, delivering consumers a far better deal in the longer term.

Standard
Britain, Consumer Affairs, Economic, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

Addressing the massive public concern over rising energy bills…

ENERGY SUPPLY FIRMS

The Government has made known its intention to make it a lot easier for energy consumers to switch their supplier. Ed Davey, the Energy and climate change secretary, wants consumers to be able to do it within a day instead of the present arrangements which can take up to five weeks. Mr Davey’s suggestion certainly sounds like a positive move and one which will be embraced by all energy customers seeking better deals elsewhere in the market.

But is the real issue not more to do with consumer inertia and one that is caused by the belief that banal paperwork is tedious and that some cost may be involved, rather than the time taken to complete such a move? If so, then the additional competition which the Government is craving for – which should drive down prices – may not occur at all.

Of more significance, though, is Mr Davey’s plan to make the probing of the accounts of the ‘Big Six’ energy supply firms a lot easier. They have been accused and arraigned of utilising networks of subsidiary companies to purchase and sell fuel and services – effectively from and to themselves. This has allowed them to inflate prices and to boost profits while claiming that they are faced with soaring costs.

Whilst more transparent accounting practices could put a stop to this, a cautionary note would also be required to be issued. Based on recent experience of other big corporates’ activities, however clever state legislators and the tax authorities think they are, big company lawyers and accountants will always be one step ahead of them. That is pretty much a given.

But in a politically astute move, Mr Davey is also considering increasing the size and weight of the political baton he can wave at energy companies. This could lead to their executives being liable to face criminal prosecution if the evidence proves that they have been engaged in unfair and illegal price-fixing, as well as bill-inflating practices.

Most of the action that can be taken against companies to punish such activities is currently undertaken by regulators. This is done for the very good reason that regulators have a sophisticated understanding of the very complex methods that companies use. Because of that, the financial penalties and fines that OFGEM and other public regulators impose are rarely challenged.

Some commentators may argue that putting that material in front of a lay jury and expecting them to understand it, and following it through a trial which may last for several months, might be a sanction too far. Complex fraud trials are few and far between because of this very problem. However, if executives know that some underhand and deceitful practice might lead to such a trial with all the public ramifications and consequences that could follow – including imprisonment – it could also be a powerful deterrent.

In a game of fast moving politics, politicians are attempting to outbid each other in seeking to address the energy crisis problem. But action which brings results in the form of lower bills for consumers as opposed to instant popularity and votes should be the guiding principle.

Standard
Britain, Business, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

Energy firms and the responsibilities they have…

UK ENERGY FIRMS

The decision by Britain’s biggest energy firms to send junior executives to face a grilling by MPs at this week’s select committee inquiry into soaring utility bills beggars belief.

The distinct absence of energy bosses, who are paid mega-buck salaries, goes to the heart of important issues of power, responsibility and accountability in this country. The nonappearance of chief executives also suggests that energy firms have learned little from recent history about the relationship between large consumer businesses and the customers they profess to serve.

It is not inconceivable to think that the absent bosses had in mind the cross-examinations endured by bank chiefs (including Fred Goodwin of RBS) by MPs in the wake of the government bailout of two of Britain’s major banks. Mr Goodwin – formerly Sir Fred, who has since been stripped of his knighthood – and his colleagues had to make humbling apologies for their actions as MPs held them to account.

If energy bosses had hoped to body-swerve a similar scenario as they are being held to account for inflation-busting price hikes, then they have fundamentally misunderstood their privileged position in British society, and their responsibilities in relation to regulations set out by Parliament.

Energy firms cannot take the view that their business is a private matter between them, their shareholders and their consumers. If that ever was the case – and the apparent powerlessness of the OFGEM regulator has often made it seem so – it is certainly not the case now.

Energy bills and the way they are being calculated now stand at the nexus between industry, politics and austerity. The ‘cost of living’ factor is a key voter concern and has become a major political issue in the run-up to the 2015 General Election. The main topic of political discourse was thrown open ever since Ed Miliband threw down the gauntlet at the Labour party conference, promising a price freeze and cutting electricity and gas bills if he made it into Downing Street. For the Conservatives, former prime minister Sir John Major floated the notion of a windfall tax on the energy firms, should a particularly harsh winter produce bumper profits. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party produced its own riposte, with a pledge that energy bills would be reduced by 5 per cent in an independent Scotland. The political battle over energy is heating up.

With the cost of living set to continue to be the most pressing political concern, Britain’s energy bosses need to accept they can run, but they cannot hide. They need to engage with this process – by listening, explaining and being open to market reform – or they will end up on the receiving end of both political and public indignation.

Standard