/ Home & Energy

Update: reforming the energy market

Lightbulb_1

Ofgem has announced plans for reform in the energy market. What can energy companies do to make you take an interest in your tariff?

This morning Ofgem responded to the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) investigation into the energy sector.

As many of you will know we’ve long campaigned for a fairer energy market, and the regulator is looking to implement the CMA’s recommendations as quickly as possible.


Well done Ofgem

It’s not often we get to praise regulators, but we will where we believe they have acted in the consumer interest.

It’s good to see Ofgem swiftly take forward the remedies set out in the CMA’s final report. The CMA’s investigation took two years to complete and it’s right that consumers start to feel the benefits of reforms as soon as possible.

The remedies that the CMA set out will not be easy to implement.

Making the remedies work for consumers

One of the biggest challenges Ofgem faces is how it will get consumers to engage in the market. We’re pleased to see that it will be testing a number of approaches. One of these is a consumer database listing anyone who has not switched energy supplier in three years. These people could then be contacted by other suppliers with their deals and tariffs.

We have concerns that this database could lead to an increase in nuisance marketing from energy companies, so we will working with Ofgem to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Ofgem has also announced a price cap on bills for customers on prepayment meters. The price cap will be introduced in April 2017 for more than four million customers helping them save £75 a year on their energy bill. It’s hoped that the price cap will protect some of the most vulnerable gas and electricity customers who are least likely to switch.

In terms of the future regulatory model, Ofgem continues its move towards a principles-based approach to regulation. What this means is that the regulator will encourage companies to focus on performing for their customers, in terms of delivering services that customer want, rather than jumping through regulatory hoops.

One way we suggest they could do this would be to look at developing customer challenge groups (CCGs). CCGs are independent and challenge each company on how it’s engaging and listening to its customers, including reflecting their priorities.

Make a switch

Nine in 10 households are still customers of one of the ‘big six’ gas and electricity companies (British Gas, EDF, Eon, Npower, Scottish Power and SSE). And one in five customers in England have been with their supplier for more than 10 years. So if you think you’re paying too much for your energy or are fed up with poor customer service, don’t put up with it, make a switch.

Update: 7 February 2017

The energy regulator, Ofgem, has announced a temporary price cap for energy customers on prepayment meters.

The regulator’s announcement follows last summer’s conclusion of the Competition and Markets Authority’s energy market investigation, which found that some of the most vulnerable energy customers are those on prepayment meters.

Energy customers who are on prepayment meters often have fewer tariffs to choose from than those who pay by direct debit, cash or cheque, and these tariffs are usually more expensive too.

The cap levels vary for electricity and gas depending on where you live and the type of meter you have. But, the price cap is expected to be in place until 2020 and will be reviewed every six months.

Ofgem believes that this price cap will help around four million households to save an average of £80 per year. This price cap will come into force on 1 April.

Our Managing Director of Home and Legal Services, Alex Neill, said:

‘While prepayment meter customers are going to get their prices capped this year, millions of other vulnerable energy customers are likely to face inflation busting price hikes.

‘This is why energy companies need to do much more to engage their customers to switch to a better deal this winter. If suppliers fail to do this, the Government and regulator need to step in on behalf of energy customers.’

Will this price cap help you or your friends and family? Do you think more needs to be done in the energy market?

Comments
Guest
Chris Charge says:
22 October 2016

Why do Energy companies not charge per unit as measured on the meter rather than use ridiculous formulae to conceal easy comparison between suppliers.
I would make them show comparison of their unit rates on a like for like basis.
It couldn’t be to confuse customers ….could it ?

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

The energy you use – units of electricity, cubic metres of gas – form only around 45% of the cost shown on your bill. The rest are transmission and connection maintenance, government levies, admin and company costs. Not a formula but an assembly of different costs.

Guest
Philip Jordan says:
22 October 2016

Great if you can get the HMG to increase fair sustainable Energy price competition, but even more important to get them to significantly & urgently address the glaring inequity caused by their refusal to build public housing & ensure that this & all new/existing buildings are to Enerphit/Passivhaus standards
e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/22/three-bed-house-500-energy-bills-how-you-can-slash-costs & as part of this similarly solve the lack of well paid jobs for those who are not graduates,
as well as graduates (currently also suffering crippling levels of government caused debt). Remember it’s all very well getting CAB Citizens Advice ref Energy Saving but this apparently includes yet more debt?! Meanwhile too, it seems Local Government’s HECA action is similarly hamstrung by HMG austerity?!

Guest
Pete says:
22 October 2016

All energy suppliers should be owned by the government not by overseas company and there should be
single price for single or duel fuel!

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

Would you really want to put so much power over your domestic expenditure in the hands of the government, Pete? Could you trust it not manipulate the prices for political purposes? At least if I don’t like the companies that supply my energy products I can switch and mix-&-match to my heart’s content. Your idea smacks of communism to me.

Profile photo of Beryl
Guest

Most government departments are already sub contracting out to private companies who are benefiting from taxpayers money. Civil servants are turning up at their offices every day in the role as custodians, paying our money to others to carry out the work for them ……………..and they are being paid for the privilege!

Guest
Richard G says:
22 October 2016

To keep the price down, we need many private energy companies to compete, but they should be restricted to offering a single tariff to all. No more special discounts to big customers, paid for by higher charges to the little guys. No plethora of confusing deals. Let us have an open and honest competition for our custom.

Guest
Gordon Murray says:
22 October 2016

Fracking is an unacceptable practice. All fossil fuels need to be phased out rapidly. Nuclear (unless we move to Thorium based reactors and develop effective means of neutralising nuclear waste) has to be phased out rapidly, it’s far too dangerous. Energy should be derived from renewables. Scrap Trident and free up the 220 billion from that piece of madness to speed up our transition do renewables. 100% renewable infrastructure to be implemented by 2020. Decentralised grids. Oh ye cheaper energy prices, followed by free energy in the next decade.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

Gordon – I cannot see how on earth you are going to replace all the non-renewable energy capacity between now and 2020. That’s something like 90% of our energy supply, or worse because demand is growing faster than capacity. So that’s no gas, anywhere, for anything – power stations, home heating, heating for schools, hospitals, shops, offices, and so on. And for electricity – no oil, or gas, or coal combustion, and no nuclear power. So we are left with some hydro-electric power, wind power and solar power plus, in the distant future, some wave and tidal power. Wind power is a useful augmenter of our energy requirements but is neither available nor programmable to suit demand. Solar power is even less efficient and reliable but we could have a rule that says that all air-conditioning plant must only be run on solar energy. Commerce and industry seems to be reluctant to harness solar energy so the major contribution is coming from households and a few solar panel arrays. Probably fewer than half the homes in the UK are suitable for solar energy production due to location or orientation or both, and nobody who lives in a flat or a listed building can participate, and since the lights and heating come on when the sun goes down there is an obvious mismatch between demand and availability.

Anyway, I don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm for renewable energy so I look forward to reading how you think this could be achieved – and you can extend the timeframe if you like because I think even you would agree that 2020 is likely to be a bit tight from a standing start.

Guest
Stuart says:
22 October 2016

The “green” energy lobby has had far too much influence on our governments & has proved to be totally ineffective . It costs every single person in the Uk over £160 a year each to produce & that is not acceptable.
Nuclear energy plants should have been built years ago, but unfortunately the government at the time dithered & listened to all the doom mongers. We are now not capable of building our own nuclear power stations & to even consider help from China is sheer folly.
Fracking would give us at least 50 years of self producing gas & should go ahead immediately & this government must not repeat the mistakes made about nuclear energy, otherwise we are & will be dependent on Russia for our gas for years to come – which may actually be short if the Russians get fed up of our silly sabre rattling & economic threats.

Guest
brian killick says:
22 October 2016

Why by now every house has NOT had solar power roof collectors on baffles me? For what this GOV is paying the Chinese to ( Not? ) build nuclear .( Why China?) I think just about every house could be fitted with solar power:
for the same price? Safer, cheaper ( In the long run) . But I suppose Less Divi for them that can afford shares ?
SO, we , especially us O.A.P’s ! Keep getting ‘ Ripped’ Off !!!

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

Brian – You posted your thoughts at 21:36. I presume you had the lights on while you were doing so, or was the sun shining where you are? Where do you think the power that we all need will come from when there is no sunshine – we have very little effective and economical energy storage capacity that doesn’t involve a fossil fuel. By all means let householders install solar panels and feed any surplus power into the electricity grid, but let’s not kid ourselves that that will keep the shops going, and the factories and offices working, or keep the street lights on, or keep the electric trains running.

For the record, EDF is building and will be running the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station; China General Nuclear Power Group [CGN] and China National Nuclear Corporation [CNNC] will be part-financing the project alongside EDF. The government will not be paying the Chinese to build any nuclear power stations. The construction costs will be amortised into the unit prices for electricity delivered into the grid for which the UK government has, on our behalf, kindly allowed EDF to charge an attractive premium.

Profile photo of HUD_Engineer
Guest

What a travesty the solar pv scheme is. That’s not to say that other energy schemes are being managed any better, but I’m mightily relieved that such appallingly inefficient use of resources in this scheme isn’t more widespread. From a green perspective, no politician or householder can hold their head high with this scheme, but it does appeal to financially well off individuals who know that 48p/unit is not affordable electricity generation. Solar farms would be far better, either in the UK for energy security, or perhaps Africa, where nations would welcome some economic stimulus, and we could feel better when it comes to thinking about the best return on the energy invested in making solar panels.
On the subject of other terrible schemes, we have just had a smart meter fitted. We learned too late that you can just say No, and you may want to. In our small, modern, house, the signal barely reaches the kitchen, and it cannot pick up the gas meter signals even held up by the meter cupboard door. If your gas boiler isn’t on a service contract, you may want to consider that the meter installers state it is your problem if the boiler doesn’t relight after the new meter is fitted. After less than a week, the meter is now ignored. An incredibly wasteful investment that the Germans managed to make an easy economic case for not doing themselves. I hope it turns out to be better than the folly it appears to be at present.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

One of the disappointments of moving home was inheriting a smart meter because I was going to refuse, in principle. Perhaps the government might have had the courtesy to ask if consumers were happy to pay the vast cost of the roll out of these meters. I had no objection to people paying for them and maybe getting a small discount for the savings made by their energy supplier(s). I would not mind them going to those who are struggling to pay their bills, but I still question the wisdom of imposing them on us all unless we refuse.

My view on the feed-in tariff is that the payment should be the same as it costs to buy electricity. I would not object to modest grants for solar installations.

I wonder what other schemes the government will lend their support to.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

I suspect that the government of the day, having jumped on the post-Rio bandwagon, wanted to show its progressive outlook and commitment by setting up an entire government department devoted to energy and climate change. The first thing it had to do, of course, was to work out where it could best interfere in order to show itself off in the most favourable light. So any passing hare-brained or crackpot scheme was seized upon to demonstrate that the government really cared about the future of the planet. Hence the wasteful, and ridiculously expensive, smart meter policy, plus the even more environmentally-damaging manufacture of [mainly imported] solar panels and the grossly profligate enrichment of a well-off element of the population with large south-facing roofs. I would add light bulbs to the list, but that was an EU initiative – although it was zealously implemented in the UK by the DECC as soon as the ink was dry on the directive. More by the enterprise of manufacturers developing better LED’s, rather than through any government determination, we have, at last, arrived at the right place with light bulbs, but at a considerable economic and environmental cost in the meantime.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

I agree, John. I do hope that history records how badly these issues have been handled.

The introduction of low energy lighting was handled appallingly. It would have been better to have provided encouragement rather than banning the inefficient lamps, so that consumers would want to change. Some even stockpiled the old bulbs.

I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed and I am more concerned about the rate of use of fossil fuels and pollution of the environment. Negative population growth could solve a lot of problems, in time, but how do we sell that to the general public?

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

“I am still to be convinced that climate change is due to human activity to the extent that has been claimed ” – me too! Having said that, I favour a precautionary approach, in case we are either causing or accelerating its effects.

Even before global warming was a big issue, I was well aware of the more general adverse affects of profligate energy use on our environment. Hence, I have always favoured the efficient use of energy.

Guest
Peter Veale says:
23 October 2016

ERRONEOUS TRANSFERS

Make erroneous transfers a criminal offence.

Guest
Mike Parker says:
23 October 2016

There is overwhelming scientific and practical, on the ground, evidence that Co2 emissions are contributing to global warming. It is logical, as scientists advise, to cease prospecting for new fossil fuels to burn. Which? would be best to campaign for the the building of as many near carbon neutral houses as possible ( great for the new owners long term running costs), and the systematic upgrading of all old houses heat loss prevention.
Nuclear is too expensive, will take too long to arrive, is extremely expensive for running costs, compounded by often hidden and removed from the equation, security and virtually infinite waste disposal costs. There are already areas in existence that show a balanced mixture of renewable, plus reduced consumption, can comfortably provide for all society’s energy needs. It helps also to avoid believing what you can read in certain tabloid newspapers.

Profile photo of TomT
Guest

I am mystified that the government is applying a carbon tax to my green electricity energy that is 100% supplied by a verified renewable energy supplier.
‘OK the gas I receive is at the moment only 5% green but that could become a lot more green very quickly if our government were more interested in increasing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through waste. Using the huge amount of organic waste that we generate to create useful gas instead of accessing even more ancient buried gas via enablement for fracking is the sensible option. Solving 2 problems without creating another and building a sustainable future not least by leading the way to support technologies and industries that provide sustainable jobs. Government has a duty to provide for OUR long term interest not just their own short term political party survival. That is the real problem undermining all these issues.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

As long as we are not burning organic waste that is compostable, I do agree that we should be moving towards green energy. Rather than relying on individuals to move to green energy, perhaps the answer is to make it a requirement to move in that direction. Diesel fuel now contains biodiesel and petrol contains ethanol, which is a renewable energy source.

Guest
Dave James says:
24 October 2016

I think now is the time to take our energy companies back and run by British companies instead of being handcuffed by foreign companies

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

No one has to buy their energy from a foreign-owned supplier. There are several UK-owned companies – British Gas and The Co-operative Energy to name but two. In the twenty-first century the British people seem to like to have a choice.

Guest
Steve Bolter says:
25 October 2016

This is not what I meant when I said energy is a priority. This is just tinkering at the margins.
I meant decarbonising the economy .
Improving thermal insulation in buildings and making equipment more energy efficient.
Making better use of direct solar for light and heat, including solar panels for hot water.
Increasing the amount of very low carbon electricity by investment in renewables, from rooftop solar to offshore wind, and in nuclear ( Not just Hinkley, but other potentially better designs too ) Using low carbon electricity to generate hydrogen for use as a vehicle fuel and to run heat pumps.
To replace diesel (and the petrol) in vehicles with batteries or hydrogen tanks.
Lack of such investment would not only make the price of oil and gas escalate, it would also fire global climate change which will wreck the economy and living standards.
What is the point of worrying about getting a few pounds of this months energy bill and neglecting to take steps to prevent energy and other costs escalating over the next decade.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Steve – a long time ago-in the 70,s a man with a Morris Minor traveller , you know, the one with the lacquered wood on it ,fitted a device that ran on water ( actually separated hydrogen ) he called the RAC who came out to look at it . I stopped my BT van and went to look too and yes , he got in and drove it , so did the RAC man after he checked it out under the bonnet .It was in all the local newspapers at the time ,speculating on the demise of the big petroleum companies , after a couple of weeks —silence , no more was heard from him or his car. Now think, what does the US use to control the world ? –thats right the Petro-dollar . Too much BB riding on it Steve.

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

From what I know and what I’ve seen, the promise of cars using water as a fuel is usually the domain of crackpot inventors and/or snake oil salesmen.

In short, chemistry and combustion science teach us that water is a combustion product – not a fuel.

Obviously you can use another primary energy source to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen and then use the separated hydrogen as a fuel. Nonetheless the idea of running a car on water makes no technical sense; it is about as sensible as the claims that were made for cold fusion a few years ago.

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

Indeed. It’s the question schoolboys always ask: “If water is Hydrogen and Oxygen, why can’t you use it to run engines?” but water is, as you say, actually a sort of fire ‘ash’, which needs a lot of energy input to separate the component chemicals. So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

It’s simple to use electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen, preferably using electricity from solar power rather than fossil fuels. The problem has always been safe storage of hydrogen. When I was a student there was much talk about use of palladium, which is effective at adsorbing hydrogen. Unfortunately, palladium is rather too expensive for use in vehicles.

Profile photo of Patrick Taylor
Guest

Just part of a Wikipedia article on the matter

Forklifts
A fuel cell forklift (also called a fuel cell lift truck) is a fuel cell-powered industrial forklift truck used to lift and transport materials. In 2013 there were over 4,000 fuel cell forklifts used in material handling in the US,[125] of which only 500 received funding from DOE (2012).[126][127] The global market is 1 million fork lifts per year.[128] Fuel cell fleets are operated by various companies, including Sysco Foods, FedEx Freight, GENCO (at Wegmans, Coca-Cola, Kimberly Clark, and Whole Foods), and H-E-B Grocers.[129] Europe demonstrated 30 fuel cell forklifts with Hylift and extended it with HyLIFT-EUROPE to 200 units,[130] with other projects in France [131][132] and Austria.[133] Pike Research stated in 2011 that fuel cell-powered forklifts will be the largest driver of hydrogen fuel demand by 2020.[134]
Most companies in Europe and the US do not use petroleum-powered forklifts, as these vehicles work indoors where emissions must be controlled and instead use electric forklifts.[128][135] Fuel cell-powered forklifts can provide benefits over battery-powered forklifts as they can work for a full 8-hour shift on a single tank of hydrogen and can be refueled in 3 minutes. Fuel cell-powered forklifts can be used in refrigerated warehouses, as their performance is not degraded by lower temperatures. The FC units are often designed as drop-in replacements.[136][137]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

“So small fusion generator in the boot might enable it to run off water, but nothing else would.”

Personally I’d fancy one than could run off discarded househould items like food waste 😉

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

That was the idea used in Aardman’s Arthur Christmas animation, where the S1 futuristic ‘sleigh’ derived its fuel from milk and cookies.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Did you watch the YouTube video Derek , it wasnt by some “tinkerer ” it was built by a science degree guy in the US and showed you all the cylinders in the boot (trunk ) the production plant was in his garden ,it was small and ,as he lived in a sunny part of the US he used solar panels as, yes , it required electrical input to do the conversion so might not be so economical in the UK. You cannot buy a fusion generator in the US BUT you are allowed to build one and thats what he did , it also needed platinum but again he made it out of another metal that was corrosive resistant . Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ? I am sure those of my era can remember the photos /or seen the large containers that were used on top of cars in WW2 to power them when petrol was short , there were a lot of innovative guys then , if you pick up a file nowadays you could be in trouble.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

I recall seeing pictures of vehicles with large gas tanks on the roof but I don’t know what gas was used. I think one episode of Dad’s Army featured something like that on top of their van. I can also remember pictures of a vehicle towing a trailer with some sort of plant mounted on it generating producer gas.

Where there are public tramways it surprises me that nobody has fitted up a van or lorry to collect the current in order to drive an electric motor to power the vehicle for a section of its route. I suppose getting held up by the tram in front while it sets down and picks up passengers is a drawback, but it could be useful for early morning deliveries to shops and businesses in city centres being both silent and non-polluting.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

John – it was street gas -visit-lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

A big bag of town gas on the roof of your car might have been a slight H&S hazard when you chucked your fag-end out of the window during a blackout. Bit like the Hindenburg. Was there any Health and Safety during the WW2 – seems a bit pointless.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

I can’t believe such things were ever more than an experiment; some worked, others didn’t and were quietly withdrawn. The only specific health and safety provisions during the Second World War were probably the air raid warnings, the issue of a free gas mask, and a cheap stirrup pump for putting out incendiary bombs. And the prophetic messages from Herr Hitler and Dr Goebbels, of course.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

Nowadays, manufacturers of small petrol generators offer conversion kits to allow them to run on gas (LPG) and there are several benefits of doing this. Of course they don’t have to go under low bridges.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

The more you think about gas bags on vehicles the more stupid the whole idea seems. I would have thought basic stability was an immediate problem. To make the whole outfit safe would probably have increased the weight of the vehicle, therefore the power required to propel it, so a bigger gas bag would have been required, and a longer wheelbase [or a trailer] to keep it within the kinetic envelope for a moving vehicle and below bridge heights, and so on ad infinitum. Wind resistance would be an additional problem and when the bag was nearly empty it would be flapping about on the roof like a sail!

There are some gas powered single-deck buses in Norwich but the gas is stored in tanks enclosed by a fairing on the roof, the wheelbase being long enough to enable a sufficient supply to be carried for the day’s operations.

I have now gone so far off-topic I can’t find a way of getting back to domestic energy.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Malcolm , it wasnt pointless when you were rationed in the amount of petrol you could buy ,have a look at the amount you were allowed in WW2 . Edinburgh corporation used them, Harrogate and a whole lot more round Britain . And then we had the very inventive –methane gas with some quite “unusual ” ways of obtaining it ( if you know what I mean ) .

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

duncan, I was referring to H&S not the gas bag. In a tongue-in-cheek way.

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

Yes we should get back to the topic but some of the diversions certainly add colour to the discussion. My Convo Nav says that we can rejoin the main road soon.

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

Duncan

I’m not sure what youtube video you are referring to – so I cannot watch it.

“Now if I said I was building a fusion generator how long would it be for me to get a “visit ” -banging on door at 2 am -heavies outside , unmarked van, dragged out , drugged , taken to “parts unknown ” , or is it legal ?”

I’m sure fusion research and development is legal. If, however, your fusion project required – or would produce – radioactive substances (in higher than exempted quantities) you would need to comply with appropriate health and safety rules/legislation.

Most design concepts for large scale fusion power reactors use the deuterium/tritium fusion reaction. This releases energy and neutron radiation. Lithium is then fed in the reactors radiation shielding, where it can capture neutrons; this produces more tritium (radioactive hydrogen) and alpha radiation (which is much easier to contain than neutron radiation). Deuterium can, of course, be obtained from the distillation of water, e.g. by hydro plants as featured in “the heroes of Telemark” ww2 drama.

Incidently, those familiar with the real history of those events, may recall the episode in which the Norwegian commandos commander a wood-gas powered car in order to reach the local ferry, which they then sabotage.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

I must have been sucking too many MInt Imperials at the time and the fumes went for me but I can only relay what I actually saw as did the news reporters . The inventor wasnt young and if I was taken in so was the RAC. I notice a demonstration in the US on Youtube of a car running on hydrogen using a demonstrable separator as a separate unit not attached to the car , the hydrogen is then, under pressure pumped into his storage containers powered by solar energy and a particle separator ( as used in nukes) .

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

Yes, hydrogen has been an effective motor fuel for many years. Just tricky to decant and store 🙂 But it’s the whole “making cars run on water” thing that the snake oil folk have been doing for decades. Surprisingly, it still crops up and takes even educated people in.

There are thousands of sites and hundreds of YouTube videos purporting to show how it works, and some of these sites talk about the ‘Illuminati’ and how inventors of these technologies are murdered if they don’t accept huge sums of money to stop production. What I always find rather amusing is how those who go on about conspiracies and state agencies fail to spot the logical fallacies inherent in what they’re saying. If there are hugely expressive governmental agencies following every move and every communication made then how is it possible that there are, quite literally, billions of words about these ‘secret’ organisations freely available and claiming all this?

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

I was watching a James Bond documentary a few years ago and I’m sure he was trying to recover a revolutionary energy device from some criminal gang who had stolen it. It was lost again. But surely someone must know how it was made?

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

Ian – The best Snake Oil is only available on the internet now and there is an infinite supply it would seem. It is no longer hawked or peddled door-to-door, but it is sometimes promoted in publications, home exhibitions and car shows, and is commonly seen at open air markets and car boot sales. It is no longer the exclusive province of salesmen and many women are now involved in pushing such concepts [alongside fancy goods and novelties in most cases], even using on-line auction sites for customer reassurance. I hope this helps.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

You wont find out how it was made if its a nuke -GCHQ has blocked the websites on how to build one.

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

Let’s just hope there aren’t any books on the subject then… 😉

Guest
Linda Brown says:
26 October 2016

Smart metres are they reliable has anyone had problems cos we have

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Whats installed in a “smart meter ” is a network computing device which links it with the Internet and therefore control over it is remote , shutting down your electricity , changing your price paid for per unit use , etc , it also means its hackable . A woman sued in the US because ( she said ) it made her ill -she lost, It radiates RF at wi-fi frequencies . Whats the “problems ” Linda ?

Profile photo of HUD_Engineer
Guest

Our smart meter display mostly just reports the electricity. It once showed a gas display, but that was 5 minutes in two weeks. We were told we would be getting a new display unit soon, because the current ones they supply aren’t any good. No further news, and no messages offering promotional low price energy either. If we had read up more before, we wouldn’t have had it fitted. The display will shortly be unplugged to save electricity, and forgotten about.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

I like the last sentence HUD.

Guest
Trevor Swistchew says:
26 October 2016

Energy is far too highly priced
Years ago the lie was put out that Nuclear Power would be dirt cheap
what a lot of crap that was In 2016 folk ought to be getting power almost free if all the stuff about Fuel Efficiency are true
I am very angry at the Huge Corporations who DO NOT offer the LOWEST TARIFFS they ought to be heavily fined by Ofgem for that yet it does not take a genius to see that Privateers run 100% of UK Power
Time for Fair Play in Energy .
PM TAKE NOTE
IT IS YOUR DUTY TO CREATE FAIRNESS IN THE UK NOW
YOU ARE IN POWER GET IT DONE

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

Trevor, the last time I looked a number of the “big 6” offered very competitive fixed price fixed term tariffs. The new small entrants also can (some of them) offer competitive prices because they buy energy at current prices, while wholesale prices are low. The bigger companies buy several years forward to even out sudden changes. When wholesale prices rise the small companies, who can’t easily buy forward, are likely to become uncompetitive. Cash in while you can.

Guest
Beryl says:
28 October 2016

Malcolm that doesn’t guarantee the consumer receiving the benefit of any advanced wholesale price purchases.

Shareholders, not consumers are more likely to be the overall winners in any extra profits made by private companies. Smaller companies, on the other hand, may offer a superior and more efficient service as well as competitive prices, which counts for a lot when you consider some of the energy pricing problems experienced with the ‘Big 6’ by contributors to Which?Convo.

The introduction of smaller companies, generated more competition in the energy market and prompted the ‘Big Six’ to reconsider their monopolistic pricing strategies with more people switching to alternate suppliers offering better service and deals.

The U.K government should now be focusing on updating and improving the country’s antiquated rail system with a view to reducing the congestion and emissions on the roads. Building more motorways will just encourage more vehicles to use them creating more toxic pollution. Any available money should now be invested in creating a more efficient and affordable rail system so that people will be encouraged to use their cars less, which would in turn, also help to reduce the ever increasing obesity and diabetes problem by cutting down on NHS expenditure.

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

Totally agree about the railways, Beryl.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

Forward buying helps to even out the ups and downs in prices. Many people want relative stability which is, I suppose, why fixed term fixed price deals have become popular. Personally I would do away with them as they are subsidised by those who don’t move off variable tariffs.

Railways should certainly be improved for freight. For passenger journeys you still need transport each end to get you to a from your final destination, and many, particularly families, find it cheaper to travel in a car than to buy multiple tickets. Less “routine” travelling has to come at some point by reducing the need to commute.

Guest
trevor Swistchew says:
26 March 2017

Malcolm what is required in the world is long term affordable energy not just Cash in while you can that is no answer to the huge rip off prices rising all the time
Energy ought to be run by the State and FAIRLY PRICED
There is no room for PRIVATE GREED re Energy costs

Profile photo of DerekP
Guest

“Energy is far too highly priced”

I really don’t agree.

Personally, my energy costs are quite small relative to the amount I spend on food.

Profile photo of John Ward
Guest

If the government’s levies and obligations are stripped out of the energy bills I believe it is the case that energy prices are lower in real terms than they were before privatisation. Given that many homes now have superior insulation and energy-saving measures installed consumers’ energy costs are even lower in real terms. That’s not to say that further waste and inefficiencies should not continue to be eliminated but profits are not particularly high at around the 3-4% mark; the numbers are big because turnover is so high for the Big Six.

Guest
Beryl says:
28 October 2016

There’s plenty of evidence that demonstrates the ‘Big 6’s’ reluctance to pass on energy price reductions in the past. See: the guardian.com – Big Six Companies Slammed For Not Psssing on Price Cuts.
The introduction of the smaller energy companies has generated more competition in the market.

People using trains instead of cars will almost certainly enjoy a more healthy lifestyle by walking to and from train stations where possible, helping to reduce obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, decreasing the burden on our already stretched NHS. 30 mins a day is recommended by most health practitioners.

Guest
Beryl says:
28 October 2016

Apologies for typo! ……….Not Passing on Price Cuts sounds better.
I am surprised the moderator didn’t pick up on this occasion 🙂

I have also lost the ‘edit’ facility as well as my original avatar and my password is blocked. Woe is me 🙁

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Beryl have you any blockers on your browser ?

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

More likely Beryl’s log on didn’t work properly. Happened to me today.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

I did wonder about the spelling Beryl! Out of interest I’ve just changed two family houses to new energy suppliers who were almost the cheapest (the cheapest were two new little known companies). Both were among the “big 6”.

A lot of people don’t live near a railway station so trains need a blend of transport types. But why do we need to travel so much? My concern is that commuting by road or rail either causes excessive pollution or requires huge resources for only two parts of the day.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

That shouldnt effect her avatar nor the indicator that she is a regular by hovering over her name

Guest
Beryl says:
28 October 2016

I am not aware of any blockers on my browser Duncan. I lost a connection when clicking the ‘send’ indicator and an “Oooooops” message appeared telling me there had been an error. I repeated the same message again but now have to go through the rigmarole of signing in each time I post a comment.

Profile photo of Lauren Deitz
Guest

Hi Beryl, this all seems very strange – from what I can see you don’t appear to be logged in at all :-s

I recall that this happened before, earlier this year. Beryl, did you fix it by unblocking the cookies for Which? Convo. Maybe you could try updating the browser you use or clearing the cache. I’ll pick up with our developer if this still doesn’t work for you – sorry!

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Oooooops message Beryl- it cant be ? — no it woudnt be —– that you are using the dreaded Windows 10 -are you Beryl ? If so this is the biggest bit of NON-informational “advice ” you get from -tell the customer nothing MS . IF -it is the case then Which/your browser etc has nothing to do with it but MS has everything to do with it . Hope you are going to say the oooooops ! is not a Microsoft dumb notice ??

Guest
Beryl says:
28 October 2016

It does seem rather odd my original avatar appears in the ‘recent activity’ section but then transmutes itself into a different one in the ‘topic’ section. You are right Lauren, I do recall the same thing happening once before when all cookies were turned off but I have just checked and they are all well and truly switched on. The mystery deepens 🙂

Profile photo of Ian
Guest

One little issue in here is that you might appear to be logged in but in fact you’re not. If you try to log out, then log in again all might be well.

Profile photo of Lauren Deitz
Guest

Today the energy regulator, Ofgem, announced a price cap for prepayment meter energy customers. This comes following the CMA’s two year long investigation into the energy market, which found that prepayment meter customers were some of the most vulnerable energy customers. The price cap will come into force on 1 April.

Commenting on this, our Managing Director of Home and Legal Services, Alex Neill, said:

“While prepayment meter customers are going to get their prices capped this year, millions of other vulnerable energy customers are likely to face inflation busting price hikes.

“This is why energy companies need to do much more to engage their customers to switch to a better deal this winter. If suppliers fail to do this, the Government and regulator need to step in on behalf of energy customers.”

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

@ldeitz, The large majority of customers seem to be not bothered, according to research, about changing suppliers even knowing it is easy and can make significant savings. Those who need help are the people who are unable to do this for themselves.

I would scrap those fixed price fixed term energy deals that are subsidised by those on standard variable tariffs. SVTs should then reduce significantly in cost and one reason for switching would go. Would Which? support this?

You cannot expect a commercial company to recommend a customer changes to a competitor, can you. This would need to be publicised by an independent party such as Ofgem. But you cannot force customers to switch.

How could Which? help people engage with their energy costs? Perhaps replace some of their current adverts with a worthwhile one to highlight the benefits of switching and the Which?Switch service.

We need, I believe, to focus our energies on finding ways to help those unable to help themselves. Ofgem currently have a document out for consultation with this issue included. Are Which? taking part in this consultation and making workable proposals?

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

The reason that energy pricing is a mess is because companies are allowed to keep customers paying higher prices unless they take regular action to check prices and switch tariff or supplier when necessary.

Efforts to encourage more people to switch will cost money, and I do not condone use of public money to provide a partial solution when the better approach is to stop the companies from exploiting their customers. I would like to see Which? using its resources to tackle the problem and push for proper regulation in the energy industry rather than helping us play catch-up – which is hardly likely to help those in greatest need.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

“energy pricing is a mess”. Not in my experience. The majority of people, according to research, who don’t move suppliers are well aware of the savings and what to do but don’t feel the need. I want our efforts devoted to helping those who are genuinely unable to select the right tariff.

With the present tariffs you only need to check once a year to see if a better fixed-price tariff appeals to you. I have done that for several years; it takes very little time or effort and using Which?Switch you can easily see the whole range of annual charges to select from.

Would you support removing subsidised tariffs and making a standard variable tariff the norm?

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

Maybe not in your experience but Ofgem and Which? are rightly unhappy, I don’t want to spend public money dealing with a problem that has been created by the energy industry.

I’m on a fixed tariff and before this it was one arranged through a collective switching scheme. For the time being I can cope with jumping through whatever hoops are necessary but I want us to think about those less fortunate than ourselves.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

I am not sure what you mean by “a problem that has been created by the energy industry”. They offer a range of tariffs that we can choose from. Ofgem oversee this industry and consult regularly on changes – such as tariff range, pre-pay meters, dealing with vulnerable customers. So any “problem will be created by a range of interested and influential parties, including consumer groups. Does Which? engage in such groups?

“think about those less fortunate than ourselves” is something I have regularly emphasised. We should concentrate on helping those unable to get an appropriate tariff. However, energy companies will not have, and should not be given, the sensitive information about customers they would need to target those genuinely needing help. That is the job of the state.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

When we criticise energy companies for our energy bills, we must remember also to criticise government. They currently add £64 to them to support low carbon generation. At today’s prices that will rise to around £129 by 2020. The Public Accounts Committee have criticised them for inaccurate forecasting and controls. When we see that we might be giving a £1 bn a year to Drax to burn wood pellets, it is understandable.

The PAC are concerned about value for money. I wonder how the proposed Swansea lagoon would meet current criteria? I seem to remember a payback period being over 100 years. However it would provide totally emissions-free energy from tidal change. Sometimes we have to look at the best bigger picture and stop burning stuff?

Profile photo of wavechange
Guest

It’s necessary to take into account the environmental impact assessment of proposed schemes as well as economics. I have not read this, but it was easy to find: http://democracy.swansea.gov.uk/documents/s14927/APPENDIX%20C%20-%20LIR.pdf?LLL=1

I live within a mile of a site that had been investigated for its potential use for fracking. Having looked into the concerns I would be happier that we look at balanced use of different forms of renewable energy so that we can indeed reduce or dependence on fossil fuels. I think we were wrong to focus heavily on wind power. What most of us can do is to cut down unnecessary use of energy.

Maybe the government deserves criticism for its predictions and actions in recent years but doing nothing is not an option.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Malcolm I am obviously picking you up wrong here so please correct me ,your first two sentences following on from each other —energy bills—we must also criticise the government —“They ” currently add £64 to support low carbon generation . According to CCC.org -quote- households are currently paying around £45 ( 2015 figures ) on their electricity bills to support reduction in power sector carbon intensity . The last time I mentioned Scottish green energy and the complaint that the subsidy from Westminster to Holyrood was being removed this led to much praise of that move on this website anybody disagreeing with it was attacked vigorously. I am just trying to square a circle here malcolm and the logic escapes me if you combine the two statements they seem to oppose each other ? . This statement is plastered all over the -2015 newspapers including the Guardian

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

We should criticise government when they do things badly, which was the PACs stance. I’d include £11bn (and rising no doubt) to fund smart meters. We will not cut down on electricity if we promote electric vehicles.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

I like your diplomatic approach duncan. I took these figures from the government select committee.
Framework was £64 of household’s annual energy bill

The Framework sets yearly caps on the forecast costs of three government schemes to support low-carbon generation that are funded by consumers: the Renewables Obligation, Feed in Tariffs, and Contracts for Difference.

The Framework requires the Department to take early action to reduce costs if forecasts exceed the cap. The cap is £4.9 billion for 2016–17 rising to £7.6 billion for 2020–21. In 2016 Framework costs constituted £64 of the typical household’s yearly energy bill.”

I don’t recall the comments on Scottish green energy.

Guest
RALPH N. says:
9 February 2017

Since the private companies where formed, the consumer has been ripped by them.
It needs someone who is not a member of parliament who does not have gains from Energy Companies, and is neutral, understands what it is like worrying to pay your way, heating one room, having to where coats in their home to keep warm, we are the third richest country in the world, so why treat our own population this way, other countries do not.

As soon the big six are broken up and there is a proper plan arranged to help everyone the better.

Profile photo of JacquelineStaples
Guest

I have just changed my supplier again thrid time in 6 months i went with Economy then Utilita came and promised lower prices, what a lie gas went up by at least £18.00 a fortnight elec by£15.00 i was beside myself i am on benefits as i am disabled, i have now gone back to Economy my elec down to max £9.00 a fortnight gas now thet have put me on right tariff will be about £15.00 a fortnight i am over the moon with them they have been really good they did have me paying 26p a day standing charge but i played up merry hell now i pay no standing charge as that is what they promised when i signed back with them. So well done Economy keep up good work i would highly recommend them.

Guest

I am writing to ask anyone who is thinking of changing suppliers in order to get better rates to please first consider going to the GREEN ENERGY SUPPLIERS. These companies, first and foremost, in fact absolutely vitally, only use clean, non-polluting, renewable sources for their power. When it comes to their tariff structure and charges, everything is crystal clear and transparent, theres no complicated algorithm that calculates your usage at 3am if your house faces north and you bought an ice-cream in the last month. Their pricing structures are so refreshingly simple its actually disappointing you don’t have to get out your slide rule any more to make sense of your billing. It ids a completely different experience to the major players in this field who deliberately make everything as complicated as possible so as to confuse and bewilder the customer and to let them veil their hidden charges. THE FACT IS THAT ECOSUPPLIERS ARE GENERALLY CHEAPER OR THE SAME PRICE> If everyone switches to renewable then we will force the major suppliers to divest from fossil fuels and start sourcing power from environmentally friendly sources if they want to stay current and relevant. Everyone knows the danger that fossil fuels present, we must move away from their usage asap. the climate situation is now catastrophic and the repercussions are moving far faster than the computer models predicted. Last year in May /June 2016, Germany was producing so much green energy that customers received negative billing, in other words they had minus figures on their bill due to the amount renewably sourced power that the country was producing. Everyone cites fossil fuels as being cheaper to source than renewables. This is a misnomer and is intentionally misleading. Fossil fuel gets immense amounts of governmental subsidies, without those immense subsidies it would be so expensive that we couldn’t use it. Funding and subsidies to the renewable power industry is pathetic by comparison and has been cut further . Even up the playing field in regard to massive subsidies and see which is cheaper, which is non-polluting, which is going to allow the world to continue turning with us still enjoying the ride. Because if we don’t move to renewables then we really don’t have much of a future and my grandchildren and yours will be amongst the last humans. Think about that. Please consider switching to GREEN ENERGY SUPPLIERS, its fairer for all living things. Remember that next line there’s an oil leak, or a tanker goes down, or we’re off to war allegedly to overthrow some despot we put in power a couple of years before who is thinking of selling to them Baddies and not us Goodies [whoever they may be , check a recent newspaper for a list current of bad guys and our latest enemies].

Guest
James says:
13 March 2017

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/03/12/2256215/millions-of-smart-meters-may-over-inflate-readings-by-up-to-600

“Millions of Smart Meters May Over-Inflate Readings by up to 600%”
Hi. Please can WHICH look into the above story. If this also applies to the UK, there could be a big problem.

Profile photo of malcolm r
Guest

Energy suppliers are frequently criticised for the prices they charge. This seems to partly be driven by some consumers unwillingness to change to a better deal. As there are around 48 suppliers out there a switching site such as Which?Switch should help someone find a good current deal.

However, the basic criticism is that suppliers charge “too much”. I would like Which? to examine the prices they all charge in detail and then explain just where they believe prices could be reduced. We would then have something on which to base the “too much” claim, and Which? could approach the CMA to demonstrate where the market is unfair for the majority of customers.

There are others, such as on pre-payment, in rented accommodation on a landlord’s meter, for example where other measures may be needed.

Putting a cap on prices from commercial companies implies that someone knows the details of their business and can show that excess profits are being made – if they are. Some say for the majority of suppliers as they simply resell a product (that someone else generates or buys) their profit margin should be around 1 to 1.5%. This would apply to many of the small suppliers who invest nothing in plant or infrastructure. Do Which? (and others) agree with this. Would this make for viable companies to keep competition alive?

For those who invest money in generation and gas purchase I believe the profit margin of around 4-5% is what a healthy company should be expected to return. Do Which? (and others) agree?

I have the view that where energy companies offer fixed term fixed price tariffs at significantly less than their standard variable tariff, one is cross subsidising the other. I do not see the point in this, nor why fixed price tariffs should be artificially low. I would abolish them and now, without the cross subsidy, have a standard variable tariff at lower cost that will reflect the natural variations in energy costs; this should be the default tariff that most consumers use with no necessity to switch each year. The structure of svts can be varied to suit different users; we would also retain time of day tariffs for all-electric users with a high off-peak requirement. I have asked Which? several times for their view, but without a response.

To summarise, I’d like to see Which? present well-researched and realistic proposals as to how tariffs could be constructed in future that we can then debate.

Profile photo of duncan lucas
Guest

Its very hard to get up to date statistics on gas imports but the UK,s need is increasing as time goes on . Now while many might not like me quoting figures from Gazprom the total of natural gas imports to Europe was 80 % of 178.3 billion cubic meters . Of coarse Germany being the hub and re-exporter (at a profit ) imported nearly 50 billion /Italy/Turkey -25 billion each – UK- 18 billion -all 2016 figures. Now why do I post that ? because this country would rather pay more for imports from other countries than buy from Russia.Russian Natural gas border price in Germany -US $ /per Million Metric Thermal Unit – March -2017= 5.81 (Index Mundi ) .com -commodities . Some Eastern block countries get better rates.