Energy companies vs Cameron

 
Gas ring flame

I asked the boss of one of the UK's biggest energy companies what would happen if they were forced by the government to give all their customers the lowest tariff they offer.

"It is very simple" he said. "If we could not adjust charges depending on how people pay, we would have to raise our basic price".

Which probably explains why the energy minister did not conspicuously endorse David Cameron's statement of yesterday that energy companies would be forced by law to put all their customers on their cheapest deals.

However the prime minister has highlighted an issue which many would say needs addressing - which is why customers can pay such wildly different amounts for their power.

Why doesn't competition lead to the vast majority of customers demanding and achieving the best deals?

There seem to be three connected flaws in the market.

First, that customers - even sophisticated business people - find their bills very hard to understand. The combination of fixed and variable payments for power is confusing for many.

Second, there is no standardised structure for a basic energy bill, so it is hard - without the aid of price comparison websites - to compare the charges of different companies, especially when there are hundreds of different power packages extant.

And finally, many households are frightened that if they move energy suppliers, there will be mistakes and glitches, and they also don't believe that lower prices offered by a rival will last very long. So they stay put. Some 40% to 60% of customers never switch.

The "Big Six"

A bit like banking, six big companies dominate the industry. And none of them is a young challenger offering a completely different kind of approach to pricing and service.

A prominent entrepreneur told me that energy companies' pricing practices make it impossible for someone like him to create a venture that might gain a foothold. He had worked on entering the market and had given up.

Why?

Well the big power companies do offer very competitive terms to new customers, prices that are impossible for a new entrant to match. And they can offer such cheap deals, he said, safe in the knowledge that most of their customers are too scared or lazy to shop around for the cheapest deal.

So, in his view, the most useful reform the government could offer would be to force all the companies to offer a single basic, easy-to-understand and easy-to-compare tariff, so that more of their customers had the confidence and ability to change providers.

 
Robert Peston, economics editor Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Has government hurt education exports?

Higher education is a big British export success, but are government policies stunting its growth?

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -10

    Comment number 124.

    Leave the system as it is.

    Stupid/lazy people will carry on paying the higher tariffs as they won't shop around and in doing so will subsidise the rest of us who do.

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 9.

    Despite this media storm over gas prices, if I look at the only evidence to hand, my gas bill, I think its pretty reasonable.

    I'd hope if we can increase shale gas production sufficiently we see less price rises though.

    We have some of the cheapest gas prices in Europe, should count ourselves lucky.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 99.

    Much is made of the "big 6" energy companies. Strange how very little is made of the "big 4" Petrol companies or the "big 4" supermarkets.

    Food & Fuel are just as important commodities to live & exist as Elec & Gas are, so why do Petrol & Supermarkets get away with charging what they want and offering NO discounts for the poor or elderly?????

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 109.

    Is the provision of energy to the UK domestic market, a public service?

    If it isn't, why isn't it, regardless of the methods employed to provide it. Who pays the bills?
    Why should the people paying for the service have to put up with people ownings their basic needs and creaming off a profit that usually is income, since it exceeds inflation?

    If the answer is pension funds, we have dichotomy

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 118.

    Companies are like ants or zebras. They join the population like another individual but have more regulation and responsibilities but no access to welfare. They still live in the Darwinian world of survival of the fittest. If they loose their job or get ill they are on their own but still have to pay redundancy and UBR.
    Any attack on the wages/profit will increase our bills.

 

Comments 5 of 180

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.