The taxpayer faces a £4bn bill if a "big six" energy company goes under

5 questions answered.

Under newly proposed plans by Ed Davey the tax payer could foot the bill if one of the big six energy companies goes bust. We answer five questions on the proposed contingency plans.

What is Ed Davey proposing?

Energy Secretary Ed Davey is proposing to intervene quickly should one of the big six companies - EDF of France, E.ON and npower of Germany and Scottish Power, owned by Iberdrola of Spain, Centrica and Scottish & Southern Electric – go bust.

The "worst case scenario" plans, outlined in an Energy Department consultation paper open for comments until March 15, could result in household bills rising by between £7 and £32 a year on average over the period, equivalent to a maximum contribution of £4bn on the basis of 25.5m households in the UK, according to The Telegraph.

The provisions would enable the Government to intervene and continue to fund any company about to go bust and control the cost passed onto the consumer and maintain market sustainability. The rest of the industry would be expected to maintain supplies should this happen.

What is the likely-hood one of the big six companies could going bust?

It is not thought to be very likely that one of these companies would go bust any time soon and their commitment to the UK is not being questioned. It is thought the government is brining in these extra precautions because it does not want to have a repeat of the banking fiasco in the energy sector.

Does the government not already have provisions in place?

It does in the form of the 2011 2011 Energy Act which has already introduced a special administration regime to provide protection for the National Grid and the electricity and gas distribution networks it operates, as well as for the rail and water industries. However, Davey feels these provisions are not robust enough to cope with the mayhem that would ensue in the market if one of the big energy providers went bust.

What has the Department of Energy said?

An Energy Department official told The Telegraph: “It is extremely unlikely that any of the large energy suppliers in the UK would become insolvent. None the less, the Government believes that it is prudent to have in place a framework that will ensure the continued operation of a major supplier until its customers can be transferred to other partners.”

What do the energy companies think about these new provisions?

EDF has said it is broadly supportive of the proposals, while others are yet to comment

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496