Five questions answered on the wholesale gas price fixing allegations

Regulators are investigating claims wholesale gas prices have been manipulated by major gas companies. We answer five questions on the gas pricing fiasco.

What exactly are the allegations being made? 

Major energy companies are being accused of manipulating the wholesale price of gas in the same way banks have manipulated libor. 

Energy companies buy gas at wholesale price then sell it onto to homes and businesses. On the 26 September gas companies are alleged to have made unrealistic bids at a time when data was being collected to set the wholesale price, they area alleged to have done this in order to suit their own situation rather than making a realistic bid.

Who discovered this alleged price-fixing? 

The whistle was blown by Seth Freedman, who worked at ICIS Heren, a financial information company that publishes energy price reports.

The Guardian report that Freeman flagged up a set of suspiciously low trades he believed were designed to depress ICIS Heron’s ‘day ahead’ price on the 28th September. One trader told Freeman in regards to the range of prices quoted on the 28th September:

There's a feeling among some people that somebody's taking the piss a bit on the day-ahead index.

ICIS Heren also told the BBC it had:

Detected some unusual trading activity on the British wholesale gas market on 28 September 2012, which it reported to energy regulator Ofgem in October.

Does wholesale price manipulation affect consumer prices?

Not directly as the price is being manipulated to be lowered. Wholesale gas price makes up an average of 45 per cent of consumers bills so lowering it shouldn’t affect bills. However, it is still a damaging discovery as Freeman has explained: 

There's certainly a link. They [the power companies] are telling you: Look, in order to make our profits and cover our costs and so on, we have to give a price to retail customers which reflects the cost to us.

But if you can't trust the market at a wholesale level, it becomes a crisis of confidence. People at retail level are just thinking, "I don't trust these companies" - and it needs to be scrutinised.

What has been the response of energy providers?

The big six energy providers have all released statements denying the claims. However, some of these ‘big six’ are currently being investigated by the Financial Services Authority and Ofgem. 

What has government said?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey will make a statement in the House of Commons today, but he has already said he is extremely concerned about the allegations. 

The Treasury Secretary, Greg Clark, spoke of the seriousness of the allegations to the BBC, saying:

Any scintilla of doubt that the participants cannot be trusted has a tremendously important effect.

I think it's very straightforward. When someone breaks the law, they should be punished, and when it's as serious as this, they should be punished very severely. And it's as true for stealing through financial manipulation as it is, frankly, for breaking and entering.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.