[Kosh]

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:25 pm  

Him wrote:

Not really, until all tariffs are made simpler and easier to compare then people will still be put off from switching. The threat of customers leaving to go to a competitor is the best way to lower prices or improve service.
Instead of forcing companies to put people on their lowest tariff, I'd restrict the number of tariffs a company can offer and tightly control/simplify the tariffs.
Do away with 2 tier pricing (or at least make tier 1 the same price and consumption across all companies).
Do away with monthly/yearly/leaving fees or standardise them.
Give consumers more information about their usage ie what they use in summer, what they use in winter, and an average over the whole year.

Then I think it gets much easier for people to compare companies and tariffs. Right now, it's an absolute nightmare and takes hours to compare just a few.

I'm with Scottish Power. They have all of three pricing plans - Standard Rate, Fixed Rate, Online Discounted. That's it.

Not sure how it could be made much simpler TBH.

And Cameron's latest wheeze will have only one highly-predictable outcome. Every energy company will remove every price plan apart from their most expensive one, which will de facto become their cheapest. And we'll all have no option but to accept it.

Terrific.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:03 pm  

Richie wrote:

No, because "lowest tariff" doesn't mean "lowest tariff across all suppliers" it means the lowest tariff that supplier has.
What it means is that if for example you signed up to an off-peak usage plan that for example had higher rates for peak times and lower for off-peak, but actually used lots of peak power and little off-peak power and would have paid less on a different pricing structure, you should be put onto that plan by the power company.
Tariffs are still going to be different between suppliers, and within a single suppliers different tariffs will be different for different people.

Aaaaaaah, so are you saying the companies will HAVE to contact a customer and inform them that they are being shafted and that they will be immediately moved onto the more convenient and cheaper tariff??

Sounds great in theory, but something tells me that if they have to do this sort of thing for millions of customers, then those nerds who change their priceplan every few months, while chasing the cheapest deal, are ultimately going to be the big losers, because as my overly expensive bill comes down, somebody elses is going to have to go up to fund my price saving.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:05 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Aaaaaaah, so are you saying the companies will HAVE to contact a customer and inform them that they are being shafted and that they will be immediately moved onto the more convenient and cheaper tariff??

Correct, although choosing the wrong deal doesn't necessarily equate to "being shafted"

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Sounds great in theory, but something tells me that if they have to do this sort of thing for millions of customers, then those nerds who change their priceplan every few months, while chasing the cheapest deal, are ultimately going to be the big losers, because as my overly expensive bill comes down, somebody elses is going to have to go up to fund my price saving.

Correct. It's a subsidy on idiocy.

[DaveO]

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:07 pm  

Richie wrote: Well, "lowest" is different according to your circumstances, and there's hardly anything wrong with a company offering additional discount for a longer term commitment / charging a premium for a lack of term commitment. That is not what Cameron said. He said he would force companies to give their customers the companies lowest tariff. What would the effect of this be: "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". from here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19997139 In other words Cameron's idea removes the kind of market you allude to in your post. What this episode illustrates though is the market that does exist is a sham and is only there because the companies manage to rip people off precisely because some people do not qualify for a companies lowest tariff. The other glaring problem is if say British Gas came out with the lowest industry-wide tariff for Gas then given they would be compelled to offer that tariff to all their customers. The logical result of that is the entire gas consumer population would switch to British Gas and all the other suppliers would go bust! This farce and the rail franchise one ought to have the Labour party considering the re-introduction of clause 4!

Richie wrote: Well, "lowest" is different according to your circumstances, and there's hardly anything wrong with a company offering additional discount for a longer term commitment / charging a premium for a lack of term commitment. That is not what Cameron said. He said he would force companies to give their customers the companies lowest tariff. What would the effect of this be: "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". from here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19997139 In other words Cameron's idea removes the kind of market you allude to in your post. What this episode illustrates though is the market that does exist is a sham and is only there because the companies manage to rip people off precisely because some people do not qualify for a companies lowest tariff. The other glaring problem is if say British Gas came out with the lowest industry-wide tariff for Gas then given they would be compelled to offer that tariff to all their customers. The logical result of that is the entire gas consumer population would switch to British Gas and all the other suppliers would go bust! This farce and the rail franchise one ought to have the Labour party considering the re-introduction of clause 4!

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:29 pm  

Cameron was an utter fool to bleat this one out.

There is no reason I can think of in principle why utilities alone should be compelled to offer their "best price" to every customer. That is, if you accept that these are just businesses like any other.

I believe that Cameron whinged because the thought occurred to him, while standing at the despatch box, that in fact energy is a distress purchase, everybody needs to keep warm and to cook etc., and so why should they be fleeced by suppliers in the name of greedy profits.

Well Dave, this is what you get if you sell off the family silver. Maybe once you've cracked this one, you can make sure every train traveller gets the same price cheapest ticket too.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:37 pm  

I honestly think that he'd been briefed recently on the voluntary code of practice that the suppliers have signed up to in which they state that they will write to each customer once a year and inform them of what is their cheapest tariff, leaving the decision up to the customer as to whether or not to change - they fulfill their promise just by informing you once a year.

I think that in his mind while he was struggling for a good news response to beat the opposition down with, the utilities discussion came to mind and he decided that rather than being a voluntary code he'd rather like to make it law.

And then he opened his mouth and some different words came out that afterwards, with proper consideration, actually meant something completely different so that his pleb underlings have had to do a bit of sidestepping since.

Its all born of the crazy point-scoring exercise that passes for "debate" in the Commons - why on earth they just don't put an hour aside every Tuesday for all the MPs to have a punch up across the woolsack is beyond me, it would achieve far more and be a lot more entertaining on TV than watching public schoolboys trying to win the school debating medal for shouting the loudest.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:38 pm  

Richie wrote:

No, because "lowest tariff" doesn't mean "lowest tariff across all suppliers" it means the lowest tariff that supplier has.
What it means is that if for example you signed up to an off-peak usage plan that for example had higher rates for peak times and lower for off-peak, but actually used lots of peak power and little off-peak power and would have paid less on a different pricing structure, you should be put onto that plan by the power company.
Tariffs are still going to be different between suppliers, and within a single suppliers different tariffs will be different for different people.

A bit off topic but this is something I've been wondering for a while, so hopefully someone can explain.

How is it that the energy companies know what proportion of energy I've used at on and off peak times, yet they don't have a clue how much I've used in total without me first telling them?

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:40 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...
Its all born of the crazy point-scoring exercise that passes for "debate" in the Commons - why on earth they just don't put an hour aside every Tuesday for all the MPs to have a punch up across the woolsack is beyond me, ..

Maybe because the woolsack is in the House of Lords?

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:47 pm  

Off topic, but Cameron is a dreadful public speaker and this just smacks of a flustered policy announcement, like Osborne's Greggs tax, announced by a PM desperate to say something that Daily Mail readers will lap up

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:59 pm  

I listened to PMQs (as I usually do) and was struck more by his pathetic reply to Chris Bryant's question:

Bryant asked: "Why won't the prime minister publish all the texts, emails and other formers of correspondence between himself and his office, and Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson and News International … so that we can judge whether they are relevant? Is it because they are too salacious and embarrassing for the prime minister or is it because there's one rule for the prime minister and another one for the rest of us?"

Cameron told MPs they should remember that Bryant had "stood up in this House and read out a whole lot of Leveson information that was under embargo that he was not meant to read out, much of which turned out about me to be untrue."

He went on: "And he has never apologised. Do you know what, until he apologises I am not going to answer his questions."

Sorry but if that is the best the leader of our nation can manage, then the petulant little 2@ should sit down and shut up