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.