I originally wrote this post as a Twitter thread in 2022. It was then posted on this blog and was checked by energy expert Mike Parr, who is a regular commentator on this blog.
A few price details might have changed since then, but I have not updated them.I have edited it a little in this new iteration.
The key issue that this post highlights is that the energy price cap - which has gone up today - is set to ensure that companies always get the best deal and the rest of us can, as far as the government is concerned, go to hell in a handcart. It's my suggestion that market rigging in this way is the exact opposite of what the government should be doing in the UK.
There is a dimension to the energy price issue which is not discussed at all, which massively impacts the way in which domestic energy is priced in the UK. The rules are set by Ofgem, the government regulator. These prices are set to make matters as bad as possible for everyone but energy companies.
What follows is a little technical. I have checked the facts with energy expert Mike Parr, to whom I am grateful, whilst accepting that all remaining errors are mine alone, having said which I think all that follows is true.
It's important to remember that the goal of energy regulation in the UK is to preserve the privatised energy ‘market', whatever else is claimed. In essence, everything it does is meant to ensure that at least some of the companies engaged in this ‘market' do not fail.
The way it sets energy prices reflects this. There are lots of ways to generate electricity in the UK. Renewables, nuclear, coal, hydro and gas all play a part. Most are used, except coal, which is now only in emergency use.
The cost of generating electricity using these various methods varies greatly. For example, using gas at current spot market prices costs about £611 per megawatt hour (MWh) right now. Other sources cost about £60/MWh for nuclear, £50/MWh hydro and in the range £50 to £140/MWh for on and offshore wind and PV. Those are big differences.
The electricity we actually get delivered to our houses is from a mix of all these sources. It is total nonsense, for example, that anyone supplies pure renewable electricity. All electricity from all generating sources is mixed together when it goes down the wires to our houses.
Bizarrely, however, that's not how the price is set. The wholesale price of electricity in the UK is set on what is called a ‘marginal costing' basis. This is much beloved of economists but is working against the interests of all consumers of fuel right now.
What it means is that the wholesale energy price is set so that the most expensive producer can make a profit from the sales they make into the wholesale energy market.
So, since gas-produced electricity is the most expensive to produce right now (and is likely to be so for a long time to come) its cost of manufacture plus a fair profit margin sets the wholesale price for all electricity right now, however it is generated.
What that means is that those producing electricity from gas can still make a profit and so stay in business at present. But what it also means is that the nuclear, hydro and renewables producers are being paid the price that the gas generators get.
This makes no sense at all. For example, there is no ‘marginal cost of production' for wind and solar power: the wind and sun are free. In those cases a marginal costing is simply the wrong one to use.
That is also true of nuclear power, where the cost of production is based on the capital cost of the plant spread over its useful life. Again, a marginal costing basis for pricing makes no sense when the amount of variable input into the nuclear process is tiny.
The result is obvious: the profit in the nuclear and renewable producing companies, who usually make more than half of UK electricity, increase dramatically and wholly unnecessarily when a marginal costing price setting model is used to suit gas generators of electricity.
I should, however, add a twist. Many renewable energy producers are already subject to contracts that essentially fix their prices, with the government already taking the risk on price variation. See https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/.
Where these contracts exist, and where fixed price contracts guaranteed by the government exist with nuclear producers, the current excess electricity profits arising because prices are based on the cost of gas production already flow to the government, a little-known fact.
There is also a pricing problem in the gas market. The UK produces about half its gas needs, the rest it has to buy internationally. We can't control that international price.
But the energy regulation system lets UK-produced gas be sold at the international price for onward supply to UK consumers, again massively increasing the profits of UK gas-producing companies wholly unnecessarily, and solely because of the pricing model used.
The talk is that a windfall tax could correct for this. That, however, is to ignore the fact that much of the problems that we face has been created by dire regulation, and changing that regulation is also within the scope of government.
Suppose that regulation was changed. Instead of all producers, whether of gas or electricity, being paid the price of the highest cost supplier in their market they were instead paid their own fair marginal cost of production, including a reasonable profit margin.
Then presume that the energy regulator priced the onward supply of wholesale gas and electricity to the energy distribution companies on the basis of the actual cost to produce (including fair profit) of the gas and electricity actually sold into the market each day.
I stress, that for much of the renewables sector and for nuclear this will not be hard to do because of the nature of the government price guarantees that are already in place.
For gas, simply mix internationally priced gas with UK-produced gas at its fair price of production. That's all that is required.
This would, though, require a change in the law. There would be yelling, screaming and shouting from some energy companies, despite what I have noted, and legal threats galore. These will need to be ignored for one straightforward reason. This is that the state should not support a market rigged by its own regulation.
I am sure a lawyer, somewhere, will see a chance to bring legal action to dispute that, but the reality is that their chance of success might well be low.
If in doubt, the UK needs to declare this a national emergency with existing laws suspended since, as a matter of fact, the cost of energy in the UK - which is way out of line with Europe - is creating a national emergency. And if we could do this sort of thing for Covid we could certainly do it now.
What would the impact be? Obviously, it's not precisely possible to say, but broadly speaking the price of gas might reduce by 40% whilst the price of electricity could fall by maybe 65%.
I stress these are estimates and that this move would not solve all the energy problem overnight: the remaining prices are still problematic and massive reforms to the market would still be required. But we would win three things.
The first would be instant reductions in energy costs. Households and businesses, let alone many lives, might be saved as a result.
Second, inflation would be reduced, although not eliminated. Massive pressure would be taken out of the UK economy.
Third, the pressure for state interventions to support households, public services and businesses would reduce - although by no means entirely go away.
Those are three massive wins that almost no other reform that could so simply be put in place could deliver.
So why won't this happen? First, because no one in politics seems to know about this. Second, because politics (of most sorts right now) is terrified of upsetting ‘the markets', even if those markets crush consumers.
Third, as a result politicians who lack the courage to hold the positions to which they have been elected will not do what is required to protect us from harm.
A decade ago I wrote a book called ‘The Courageous State'. It was all about the need for politicians who believed in the power of the state to deliver good for the benefit of the people that they might govern.
The sad fact is that we don't have such politicians right now. If we did they would be taking action to change energy price regulation right now to protect us all from the harm that those regulations are causing.
We need courageous politicians right now who might be willing to act in the public interest to change the rules of the energy price game to save us all from harm. I can live in hope that this might still happen. I am not holding my breath.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Couldn’t the Green Party’s 4 MPs and those Labour MPs that still care be shouting this from the rooftops? Fixing this would be massively popular.
I don’t know about you but I’m leaving X. I am no longer willing to add to the number of posts on there or promote links to it while Musk controls that channel and opposes almost everything that I believe in.
I no longer post there
A comment on the £611/MWh number.
Currently elec from gas turbines (CCGTs) is around +/- £90 – £100/MWh. The figure of £600/MWh reflected the “interesting” price spike in 2022. The other numbers have stood the test of time & do not affect the main thrust of the article. For those that are interested here are gas prices (TTF Rotterdam) – double them @ any point and add 20% (for carbon pricing) and you are in the correct ball park. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
One other thing – elec from gas tracks prceisely TTF gas prices (correlation +/- 0.9) but companies with gas turbines buy ahead in the gas market. This means that when (gas) prices are rising – they make a killing. When gas prices arefalling they “adjust” their buying strategies. Head they win, tails they win.
Last year I had a long one on one meeting with one of Ofgem’s former chief economic advisor’s. I came away from it both frightened & depressed. I see myself as, at very best, an informed amateur on energy matters (this is not false modesty on my part). I realised as the meeting progressed that I knew somewhat more about energy markets & their functionality than he did. Other meetings with those involved with electricity (e.g. cross-border trading) indicates that their views on electricity and markets are mostly based on belief systems, rather than on empirical data – which they ignore.
Thanks Mike
Are there good sources for the current cost of energy in the UK compared to other European countries? Around 2022 the UK moved from around average to well above the average. Is that still the case?
Why is the UK continuing growth throw money at renewable and nuclear operators?
And do we know how much has gone to the government through the fixed rate contracts? Is this in effect a disguised form of regressive tax?
Mike?
This is good up to 2022 (when Brexit took full effect): https://transparency.entsoe.eu/dashboard/show
For UK market pricing I usually go to NordPool
https://data.nordpoolgroup.com/auction/gb-half-hour/prices?deliveryDate=latest¤cy=EUR&aggregation=DeliveryPeriod&deliveryAreas=UK
Ovisouly these are wholesale prices. Eurostat does a good job on domestic prices – but UK not in EU any more. I suggest you try Ofgem.
“Why is the UK continuing growth throw money at renewable and nuclear operators?” Well RES is cheap, the Uk does not “throw money” at it – pretty competitive auctions define prices which are very close to the real cost of production.
“And do we know how much has gone to the government through the fixed rate contracts? Is this in effect a disguised form of regressive tax?” Zero. I’m assuming you refer to Contract for Difference which is +/- a washing machine for high/low prices, recycling money back to UK people as & when.
Oh dear, one other thing. Last year, me talking to large Spanish integrated energy company (gas & elec – generation a mix of gas & renewables, also owns elec & gas distribution comp[any). Have know the guy I talked to for some years. We talked about pricing @ the cost of production + margin (as per the blog). His reaction: a shrug and “fine as long as we have time to unwind our positions”.
The point is that this company & others are in the market to generatre and deliver physicals (gas & elec). Their trading desks are there to insulate them from the vagraies of “the market” said market trading roughly 4x – 6x the delivery of physicals. Who is doing this? The banks with their “prop-desks” (The HVDC interconnector UK – NL – “Britned” has a screen showing the trading of elec across the interconnector – oh look – there is Morgan Stanley etc – it scrolls continually – all the usual suspects – how do I know this – I visited BritNed). Currently in Brussels there is much talk about “market liquidity” – code for more trading. At this point you will be asking who pays for all this? You do, all of you, every day.
Precisely
There’s a risk that if you reduce the price of gas to consumers then they will consume more. So we would have two declared emergencies running in direct opposition to each other.
This is not an intellectually consistent system of running a country.
The tariffs set for domestic (at the lower end) and commercial energy users should be stepped.
The lowest step has been discussed widely – a social tariff – but other steps should be introduced so that there is an incentive to reduce consumption at all levels.
That would resolve your quandary, Michael Landau.
I’d be interested in Mike Parr’s view on this.
PS Michael Landau – ‘intellectual consistency’ has never been a criterion for running a country! As Keynes said, “it is better to be roughly right than absolutely wrong”.
I agree, energy pricing in UK is crazy, and dominated by international market prices, even for home produced renewable energy.
What I would also like to hear is a discussion about “incentives”. If we make changes to the pricing, what incentive does that provide to change behaviour amongst generators, providers and consumers, and is that desirable or undesirable change, and can we actually service those changed behaviours?
For example, changed behaviours include:
Patterns of generation (fossil v renewable).
Offers of demand led pricing by suppliers, and take-up by consumers.
Community energy schemes, as opposed to grid monopoly.
Rates of manufacture and purchase of renewable generation, both by large suppliers, communities, corporate consumers and individuals like me.
For example, I installed solar/storage in my house, incentivised as follows:
1. Some retirement capital.
2. Living in my own house.
3. Concern for future of planet.
4. Financially the incentives were poor in respect of capital cost, low ROI, no grants, but better on running costs despite poor export price, nil demand led pricing.
Then incentives changed a little, elec prices rose, I was offered a better night rate, and my ROI now exceeds my savings interest rate. So my consumption pattern has changed slightly because the numbers have changed. Perversely, rising electric prices improved my ROI!
On a purely selfish basis, the change in prices you have suggested, lower my ROI back below the bank interest rate. So if I was considering investing in solar/storage as an individual today, on purely financial grounds I might be less incentivised. So my behaviour and that of millions of others would change.
A similar argument applies to councils corporations, generators, suppliers, local community organisations. Changes in pricing changes incentives, which changes behaviour.
So – given that we want to both reduce fuel poverty AND reduce carbon output, what are the likely changes in behaviour that your proposals will induce, and what measures could/should government take to push behaviour in the right direction?
Can we widen the discussion beyond pricing, to include the incentives to change behaviour, by all the parties involved in production and consumption, with the goal of reducing fuel poverty and reducing CO2 emissions?
Very good points. When I was at a meeting near Hull in December on community energy I heard something very similar. The neo-libtards are very happy with societal atomisation – = every man/woman for him/herself. I want to change that with community energy which would mean those with resources and those without would all benefit through collective action. This is not a criticism of your actions – which are worthwhile. It does raise a question – what could be done in your community collectively? I’m hoping this answers the question contained in your last sentence.
I’m conflicted on this. Yes, energy prices are hurting both consumers and industry, but while we’re still using fossil fuels for a significant part of our energy supply it seems like a good idea to put pressure on energy users to save energy, and it also seems worth encouraging the green suppliers to invest further. On balance I would like to see more demand-side intervention like the Winter Fuel Allowance to support those suffering hardship.
And of course @BBC Today programme this morning gave absolutely no hint of how the price of energy comes about – and was totally incurious as usual. Even a modicum of journalistic curiosity might have questioned why we are paying for the profits of gas suppliers when wind and solar are so much cheaper.
Richard puts it so starkly. BBC has hand -wringing Citizens Advice about families wiht young children shivering and not eating – but no one saying as Richard does – its just about keeping gas company profits – and letting the consumer go hang.
This is not ‘public service broadcasting’.
And of course this is also the public paying to incentivise burning fossil fuels which are wrecking the planet.
Forbes says that the wholesale price makes up around 25% of household bills.
The ‘suppliers’ don’t actually generate the energy – but just buy it wholesale and sell int on – what’s the point? Presumably there isn’t a pure ‘gas supplier’?
Surely some MP’s should at least be asking to change the whole system
Do MPs have time to think?
MPs do have time to think.
Whether they have the ability or inclination is an entirely different matter. In far too many cases I think they have neither.
IMO, far too many MPs see their role as a local social service. They seem rather uninterested, or incapable,of embracing their proper role of strategic thinking; fixing things like the broken energy system.
The MPs I have known (numerous of them) have struggled with time, always.
And thinking is hard.
I was struck by your comment that excess profits from producers with fixed price contracts go to the government. Why do they not go to reduce the overall electricity price?
Overall energy costs in other countries such as France are lower because producers are paid a price relating to the production cost, presumably incorporating a small operating surplus. Given the captive market for utilities, there is no reason why that surplus shouldn’t be much more than the risk-free interest available on government bonds.
Let me play Devil’s advocate for a moment, whilst stressing that this is not my view.
I guess the rationale for this regulatory dysfunction is intentionally to provide windfall profits to renewable, nuclear, hydro and, generally, any sources that have a near zero marginal cost of production. This then encourages, so the argument goes, more private companies to set up in order to reap these windfall profits. Eventually there will be more renewable energy and and equilibrium will be reached where very little gas generation is used. This could, however, take a long time, and in the mean time the consumer is hung out to dry. But that’s “a cost worth paying”.
OK, end of Devil’s advocacy.
If that rational is correct the government knows that extreme windfall profits are being made. Presumably it has been convinced that this is a move towards green energy generation.
But that is utter bunkum.
It is based, interalia, on a common (it seems to me) economic fallacy that markets quickly reach equilibrium. (Another example of this fallacy is Bank of England interest rates. These are set according to the most recent year on year inflation figures, which are six months out of date because they are year on year, ignoring the fact that they take about 18 months to have full effects). Any decent systems engineer will tell you that ignoring lags between action and effect leads to instability, i.e. boom and bust.
So, in the energy market, new energy sources take a long time to come on stream. Nuclear power takes decades (which is one reason it is not sensible to build new reactors). Renewables takes years (yes, you can set up solar farms quite quickly – but you can’t get a grid connection – I wonder why?).
In the mean time the consumer is fleeced.
And, there is no guarantee that the energy system will ever reach a sensible economic equilibrium.
In the winter, at the moment, we need gas generation when renewables are not providing enough energy. What is needed is long term energy storage (months not hours) so that summer solar can be stored for winter use. Technological solutions are available, and not just batteries. But, with the current system, there is little economic incentive to build storage. Why would you build that if you get the marginal cost of gas production (because you haven’t stored energy) and even, sometimes, are paid not to produce?
So the current system does not work. It abuses consumers. It damages the economy. It is not green. It will never encourage enough renewable production (because that would eliminate high marginal cost of gas generation). It discourages long term energy storage that we need.
The supposed economic rationale is bogus, designed only to support excessive profits for the few.
In short the current system is an ongoing disaster.
Fair points which made me smile.
“The supposed economic rationale is bogus, designed only to support excessive profits for the few. In short the current system is an ongoing disaster.”
Permit me to re-express: we have an engineering problem: deliver low cost, low-carbon electricity. The current “economic rationale” is based on the category error that “markets” can deliver. They can’t – markets are cost optimisation systems – they are functionally incapable of engineering an electricity system.
Or, we are undegoing a system change, the assumption is that markets sending price signals will facilitate that change. Empirically, this is not the case, markets being profit optimisation systems for suppliers.
What would I do? Hold auctions for a given wind farm site or PV or… but with respect to the EPCer (engineering procurment construction). Let the government own it. Ditto for storage (needed) etc etc. UK has done it before, could do it again.
Much to agree with
“All electricity from all generating sources is mixed together when it goes down the wires to our houses.” Quite, and my supplier claims only to supply renewable energy despite the fact that my supply is connected to exactly the same cable as my neighbour and her supplier makes no such claims. I would suggest this is a case of obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception which is an offence under the Consumer Rights Act.
Also, there was an article in the Saturday Torygraph (which I believe), reporting that the government paid a wind farm £65m to turn off their generators because the grid is unable to carry enough. “The Viking wind farm in the Shetlands […] had 57pc of its output cut last year at a cost of £10m”. “A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security said it is working to “upgrade” infrstructure”.
All completely crazy
And as a matter of interest I asked ChatGPT to list houshold electricity prices in selected European countries and it came up with –
France 0.2187, Italy 0.2451, Spain 0.1481, UK 0.3951 all in euros per kwh including tax.
Thanks
Mr Hargeaves, you need to be somewhat careful with ChatGPT.
The best resource for gas & elec prices industry and domestic is Eurostat. Not easy to use but packed to the rafters with good stuff.
I hope this link get you to the table I am now looking at: (second half of 2024 – all taxes and levies included)
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_pc_204/default/table?lang=en&category=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc
eurocents/kWh: France: 27.76, Italy 32.74, Spain 24.36, Germany 39.51. Uk sits around 27 eurocents. (24.5pence).
Sadly with the Uk leaving the EU – data resources on this subject covering the UK are now shit (a technical term). Oh and Ireland? 37 eurocents – ouch.
Key point UK domestic elec prices are far too high – but not in the same league as Germany (or Denmark). No elec prices reflect generation realities or network costs.
On a related note – I see that LINO are about to have their arses handed to them on a plate:
https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-labour-rust-belt-britain-reform-uk-steelworks-retire
It would be trivial to offer most of the good people of Port Talbot half price elec from a sized-fit-for-purpose wind & PV system built around that well know beauty spot and national park: Port Talbot steel works. That would take some of the sting out of the failure of 14 years of tory gov. But, the politicos are, for the most part witless. In the unlikely event that a South Wales politico is reading this – I’ll even design the thing for nothing.
If yu ask ChatGPT to use Eurostat data it will…
The Port Talbot comment is appropriate
Mike Parr. Yes, I accept that criticism. I was just being lazy. CGPT I have found very unreliable. In some cases outright wrong. Thanks for the links. I did have them but find those resources very hard to navigate, hence my laziness.
My lesson is bb very, very specific in the question asked, and ask for references.
Local communities should be able to create local energy generators that fall outside this neoliberalism profiting system, and offer it at vastly reduced prices.
A new housing development of my aquintance is designed to be “ecological”.
To this end it uses district heating. Unfortunately this is gas fired. This would be mitigated if they produced combined heat and power. They could do this. They have a gas turbine generator in their “energy centre”. It’s been there for at least five years. It has never been used. Why?Because it is impossible to get the needed connection to the grid.
So yes Ian, it would be great if local communities were able to generate their own power. But they are actively prevented from doing so by National Grid PLC.
Totally agree Ian.
Mike Parr is helping us do that in my village in East Yorkshire. But it is far from simple or quick….
AND – we are about to elect a new Mayor for “Hull and East Yorkshire”. Approx half the population is rural, half urban. We tried to interest the LibDem candidate in offering a programme of local Community Energy to the (many) villages in the county. A clear vote winner we thought….
He is totally fixated on “Don’t risk getting Starmer’s Labour Mayor” – the headline of his election leaflet.
What a wasted opportunity!!! This is one thing a Mayor really could make a difference about.
A couple of thorts. While MPs might be ignorant of energy pricing structure, I find it hard to believe that Civil Servants in the relevant department would also be unaware and therefore unable to advise politicians. Perhaps the answer is closer to your second point about upsetting ‘the market’. If would be investors see the juicy profits from renewables being squeezed and are therefore more reluctant to invest in new green energy projects (the current Government model seems fixated on private rather than public sector investment), then the Government might well be reluctant to interfere. More public awareness of how we’re being ripped off could sway Sir Keir as his standing among voters is currently in free fall and he’d likely want to avoid yet more bad publicity.
My energy provider is Octopus and they have an agile tariff which changes on a 30 minute basis throughout the day. The tariff varies widely from being -ve at times of low demand and high supply (eg windy days) to up to £1/ kWh during very high demand. I’d always understood this as being a consequence of the energy mix changing as demand changes. But if all energy sources charge the same for their electricity, why does this cause a change in tariff? Is it simply that the energy generators charge whatever the volatile energy market is willing to pay to maintain demand and because often demand can’t be met without using gas then everyone is able to charge the gas rate? So once demand can be met by renewables alone, prices should automatically significantly reduce?
Yes, Ian Tresman. I like the idea of local control though I know little about economics that I haven’t learned from Richard.
I remember, though, that there used to be an entity called “The Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB)”. Wiki says that it “was responsible for electricity generation, transmission and bulk sales in England and Wales from 1958 until privatisation of the electricity industry in the 1990s”.
Have consumers/taxpayers been served better or worse in the last 30 years? … or is it much the same?
Bring it back, I say.
Ahhh – CEGB! A brief uphill toddle from my (now late) parents home. And a downhill toddle to school.
Octopus now agree that Scotland has the highest energy prices in Europe, when we should have the lowest! Our countryside is filling up with turbines we do not need for export down south, and Labour think they can site mini nuclear plants here too. Where are our politicians when we need them.
I don’t really know very much about economics but when the energy companies and the supermarkets are making huge profits while customers are paying top dollar it’s not difficult to see that we are being fleeced. But what can we do about it?
We need effective competition law
I have argued for several years that we need to change the way in which we price electricity. Linking it to the highest price means that the consumer is not seeing the real benefit of low cost renewable energy.
The article linked here using graphs to show how the current system works has been useful in helping less technical friends understand the problem.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electricity-pricing
I wonder if Richard has a solution to Scotland’s problems regarding energy prices, particularly electricity.
Scotland generates a surplus of electricity compared to its requirements and is being ‘encouraged’ or managed into generating even more in order to supply demand in England. Meanwhile, because of the way access to the National Grid is set up and priced, Scottish consumers pay the highest prices in the UK (if not Europe) while living in the coldest, wettest and most windy part.
This is manifestly unfair so any suggestions from Richard would be most welcome.
Of course the most obvious one would be Scottish Independence but we have a Scottish Government with no appetite for that and it would mean England would have to pay for what it currently gets free, which would not be popular there as the price increase would be significant.
I am afraid indepdence is really it….
Ni=ot that I am afraid of independence. I think it is exactly what Scotlnd needs.
The Scottish government has, as far I know, no powers to intervene on this, so I suspect there is nothing that I can suggest.
UN fortunately I think you’re right, though I would like the Scottidh government to make more of a stushie over this as it is ridiculous that Scotlsbd should jot have an oil refinery given that it has oil, whereas Englabd and Wales with no oil have 5 refineries between them. Yet another example of England destroying Scotland’s industrial base in order to make Scots dependent on England’s
‘generosity’!!
However the people are beginning to rebel and take action, even if our government cannot/will not! See latest information from Salvo.scot.
All correct
[…] home-produced energy that would cut the cost of energy supplies to domestic customers, and yet, as my blog post yesterday explained, this is total nonsense. UK energy customers pay the price of the energy that costs the most to […]
Two other high-profile people who regularly contributed on this subject are Martin Lewis (Money-Saving Expert) and Dale Vince (Ecotricity chief). Both have said before that the market structure must change, so how about joining forces on this issue to get more public visibility and force Govt to act?
I suspect time is the issue for all of us.
Martin Lewis had OFGEM CEO Jonathan Brearley on his programme last night, and tried to give him a bit of a grilling.
Brearley indicated he wanted to change the way pricing is set, to reflect the lower cost of renewables, but seemed to be procrastinating somewhat, putting out the “this is all very complicated” excuse. I’m not confident anything is likely to change particularly quickly.
Thanks
FYI
The UK Parliament, Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero has begun a new enquiry into energy bills to consider how bills can be reduced for domestic and commercial consumers :
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8940/the-cost-of-energy/
Mike
Is a submission required?
One is now on my worklist
Richard