Ofgem's move on the "big six" is very welcome

Finally breaking the stranglehold.

Energy regulator Ofgem has today announced plans designed to shake-up the market for British consumers by forcing the "big six" utility companies to publish the prices at which they buy and sell electricity up to two years in advance.

Together, British Gas, E.ON, SSE, Npower, EDF and ScottishPower account for 80 per cent of the electricity generated in the UK, giving them an extremely dominant position in the market.

"Ofgem's proposals will break the stranglehold of the big six in the retail market and create a more level playing field for independent suppliers," said Andrew Wright, senior partner for markets at Ofgem, “…who will get a fair deal when they want to buy and sell power up to two years ahead."

The proposals are the regulator’s attempts to provide more price transparency in the long term futures market, which has traditionally limited sales to smaller energy suppliers, only allowing them to purchase energy in the near-term spot market.

By requiring the "big six" to publish their long term prices and not allowing them to refuse reasonable requests by smaller suppliers to buy energy, it is hoped that the proposals will make it easier for new entrants to take on the established players and ultimately improve price transparency for customers.

“An increased role ...for independent suppliers and generators is precisely what will help drive the competition that delivers better value for consumers and businesses," said energy secretary Ed Davey.

This latest move follows other recent measures by Ofgem to improve the energy market, such as its efforts to reduce the number of complex offers advertised by utility companies and forcing them to offer consumers the best available tariff.

Often accused by the British public of charging inflated prices and being responsible for appalling customer service, the "big six" have long been a source of much rancor for consumers, when in fact a recent study has found that British households pay below-average prices for their electricity compared with other consumers elsewhere in the EU.

Despite this, once a reputation has taken hold among the population, it is very hard to shake, so these reforms will undoubtedly be welcomed by householders up and down the country.

Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Brierley is a group editor at Global Trade Media

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump's dangerous nation

From North Korea to Virginia, the US increasingly resembles a rogue state.

When Donald Trump was elected as US president, some optimistically suggested that the White House would have a civilising effect on the erratic tycoon. Under the influence of his more experienced colleagues, they argued, he would gradually absorb the norms of international diplomacy.

After seven months, these hopes have been exposed as delusional. On 8 August, he responded to North Korea’s increasing nuclear capabilities by threatening “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. Three days later, he casually floated possible military action against Venezuela. Finally, on 12 August, he responded to a white supremacist rally in Virginia by condemning violence on “many sides” (only criticising the far right specifically after two days of outrage).

Even by Mr Trump’s low standards, it was an embarrassing week. Rather than normalising the president, elected office has merely inflated his self-regard. The consequences for the US and the world could be momentous.

North Korea’s reported acquisition of a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on an intercontinental missile (and potentially reach the US) demanded a serious response. Mr Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric was not it. His off-the-cuff remarks implied that the US could launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, leading various officials to “clarify” the US position. Kim Jong-un’s regime is rational enough to avoid a pre-emptive strike that would invite a devastating retaliation. However, there remains a risk that it misreads Mr Trump’s intentions and rushes to action.

Although the US should uphold the principle of nuclear deterrence, it must also, in good faith, pursue a diplomatic solution. The week before Mr Trump’s remarks, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, rightly ruled out “regime change” and held out the possibility of “a dialogue”.

The North Korean regime is typically depicted as crazed, but its pursuit of nuclear weapons rests on rational foundations. The project is designed to guarantee its survival and to strengthen its bargaining hand. As such, it must be given incentives to pursue a different path.

Mr Trump’s bellicose language overshadowed the successful agreement of new UN sanctions against North Korea (targeting a third of its $3bn exports). Should these prove insufficient, the US should resume the six-party talks of the mid-2000s and even consider direct negotiations.

A failure of diplomacy could be fatal. In his recent book Destined for War, the Harvard historian Graham Allison warns that the US and China could fall prey to “Thucydides’s trap”. According to this rule, dating from the clash between Athens and Sparta, war typically results when a dominant power is challenged by an ascendent rival. North Korea, Mr Bew writes, could provide the spark for a new “great power conflict” between the US and China.

Nuclear standoffs require immense patience, resourcefulness and tact – all qualities in which Mr Trump is lacking. Though the thought likely never passed his mind, his threats to North Korea and Venezuela provide those countries with a new justification for internal repression.

Under Mr Trump’s leadership, the US is becoming an ever more fraught, polarised nation. It was no accident that the violent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of the 32-year-old Heather Heyer, took place under his presidency. Mr Trump’s victory empowered every racist, misogynist and bigot in the land. It was doubtless this intimate connection that prevented him from immediately condemning the white supremacists. To denounce them is, in effect, to denounce himself.

The US hardly has an unblemished history. It has been guilty of reckless, immoral interventions in Vietnam, Latin America and Iraq. But never has it been led by a man so heedless of international and domestic norms. Those Republicans who enabled Mr Trump’s rise and preserve him in office must do so no longer. There is a heightened responsibility, too, on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, the president. The Brexiteers have allowed dreams of a future US-UK trade deal to impair their morality.

Under Mr Trump, the US increasingly resembles a breed it once denounced: a rogue state. His former rival Hillary Clinton’s past warning that “a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons” now appears alarmingly prescient.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear