Big London Energy Switch

[sncaffarey]

Hi everyone,

I'm helping to run The Big London Energy Switch with both Lambeth and Southwark Councils (and 19 other London councils).

The scheme helps you make a quick and hassle-free switch to a cheaper energy provider. It's independent of energy providers, and the commercial switching providers. It is genuine consumer power in action.

The more people that register for The Big London Energy Switch, the greater the buying power will be, and the lower the price that may be offered. It works by the process of an energy auction where we will ask the energy providers for their cheapest offer and then pass that deal on to you.

How to register? You can register your interest in taking part by going to http://www.biglondonenergyswitch.org.uk and leaving your details. When the auction is ready to go live, we will contact you ? only at that point will you need details of your energy supplier and a recent bill. There is nothing to lose by registering and you can change your mind at any time, so join up now, tell your friends, family and colleagues!

[Huguenot]

What's in it for you guys? Who is paying your salary?

[sncaffarey]

I'm a local resdent (Camberwell) but I work for London Councils - the group that represents London's 33 councils. We've been given a bit of central government money from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to help promote this scheme, and I just think it's genuinely a win-win. I'm registered with the scheme, as are most of my family and friends. Many of the boroughs are doing their own promtional activity of various kinds, and I personally helped set up the website that allows people to register. Anyyway, I hope some people see it on here and join up.

[Huguenot]

Makes sense - bizarre that taxpayer money should be used to disrupt an open market though?

Wasn't there a story about one of these schemes that achieved fantastic rates for buyers?

[Jeremy]

Huguenot - this is facilitating the open market, not disrupting it.

[malumbu]

Just renationalise the whole lot. I preferred it without any choice.

It's a rubbish market by the way. When you buy food for example you can make an informed choice. It just totally confuses me and after I spent good time researching the pros and cons, and went for BG (who credit to them explained their price structure) they immediately put their prices up. And up. And up.

And if we renationalised production we'd actually own it. Like the Germans and French do, even though their markets have been liberalised.

And for every savie consumer, you get one who isn't - perhaps elderly, so they subsidise our cheaper energy.

It wasn't like this in the CCCP.

[The Minkey]

I signed up to the Which Energy Switch a couple of years ago. Do you know how successful or not it was?

[Burbage]

sncaffarey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm a local resdent (Camberwell) but I work for

> London Councils - the group that represents

> London's 33 councils. We've been given a bit of

> central government money from the Department of

> Energy and Climate Change to help promote this

> scheme, and I just think it's genuinely a win-win.

Well, to coin a phrase, you would, wouldn't you? Effectively it's a nice chunk of additional taxpayer-funded bureacracy that's unlikely to cover its costs and which will do nothing in terms of sustainability.

That doesn't make you wrong. You might, even be right. But I certainly can't tell that, and I strongly doubt you can, either, unless you're spectacularly good at geopolitical, meteorological and economic forecasting. The information currently on the website merely implies a fixed term (length unspecified) contract would be entered into by an unknown number of participating households who would also be required to provide details of their household to organizations that remain to be fully confirmed for purposes that are yet to be wholly disclosed.

And what for? The idea of a collective-bargaining auction does look appealing. Or, at least, it did in the late nineties before the dotcom crash knocked the money out of the last lot. But this one's based on very arguable assumptions. "In due course you will receive a personalised offer which will make clear exactly how much money you would save if you make the switch." it glibly says, without so much as hinting that, by "exactly", they mean "roughly" and by "would" they mean "could". For even though the rates will be doubtless 'fixed' (albeit in a seemly raft of bands and standing charges and effective taxes for paying with proper money), consumption certainly isn't. So the actual saving (should there be one, which isn't guaranteed, despite the implied bargaining power) will be be dependent on all manner of things, not excluding the weather, the birth rate, pandemics, homelessness, and death.

It also seems to be a dual-fuel deal, and that'll add enough leeway and confusion to the concept of a 'best' rate, that it stands a very good chance of not just not being the best deal, but being distinctly average. For even the 'best' rate won't be the best for everyone, given that even a single rate is an unseemly rafts of tariff bands, standing charges, and payment method taxes. If we further consider the implications of the fixed-term nature of the deal in terms of wholesale prices, exchange rates, inflation and the fact you'll be signing up to a tariff that might get trumped the very next day and can't be got out of, it's looking less like the deal of the century and more like a bit of a fiddle.

And for this, the taxpayer's already been stung for more than half a million quid (?686,655, according to your website, being what amounts to a "bit of money")?

On balance, therefore, I'm not surprised to see the occasional fragment of scepticism being churned up in the course of this valiant quest to pretend to subsidise the taxpayer with their own money while, in passing, handing a couple of private firms a deal that'll save them a small fortune in adverts and doorstepping. There again, I'm hardly ever surprised by anything.

I'm sure it's all done with the best of intentions, and will give a good number of people at least the peace of mind that they won't have actively chosen the worst deal. But, to me, it looks a little oversold.

[edhistory]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's in it for you guys? Who is paying your

> salary?

Who?

John K

[sncaffarey]

Withstanding the fact that I don't have sufficient influence to renationalise the energy industry, or spearhead a geopolitical shift of the kind mentioned, there's still a very good chance that in these days of increasing energy prices, similar schemes have saved people a not-insignificant amount off their bills. Like any energy switch, of course it's a good idea to do it again in a couple of years to see if you're still on the best deal, and anyone registering with the scheme will be free to change their mind (and not switch), or of course decide to switch suppliers again later on whenever they wish to. They will not be tying themselves into a lengthy contract.

I have nothing personally to gain from this - no alternative motive - though I appreciate the idea of any taxpayer money being spent on this is an instant red-rag to some. We're just seeking to try to make it easy for consumers that might not be as savvy as to have already switched - and a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to help people - particularly the elderly, vulnerable and those in fuel poverty.

[Burbage]

"here's still a very good chance that in these days of increasing energy prices, similar schemes have saved people a not-insignificant amount off their bills".

But, with respect, is that a chance you'd wager half a million of your own money on? With no way of telling the odds, or any evidence that anything like it has worked, it doesn't look very wise. Especially without so much as cherry-picked anecdotes from stock-photo customers.

As others have pointed out, if the market worked, then there wouldn't be rip-off tariffs for the unwary to fall into, or a regulator so incapable of stopping them. The problem here isn't so much the spending of public money on a scheme that has no predictable or provable benefit or that it replicates a bunch of similar services, but that it should even be considered necessary.

"...or of course decide to switch suppliers again later on whenever they wish to. They will not be tying themselves into a lengthy contract."

The FAQ page clearly implies (4th Q at the time of writing) that only fixed-term contracts are being negotiated. There is, admittedly, some room for confusion with fixed-rate but as they tend to be the same thing, I doubt that's the case here. "Lengthy" is a matter of taste, but I'd be astonished if a fixed-term contract was entirely compatible with "whenever they wish".

I have not, admittedly, bothered to watch the video, so perhaps there's some visual trick around it. But given that anything that's been deliberately not written down has been deliberately not written down for a reason, and that such reasons have never been good, I doubt I've missed much.

I am intrigued, however, at the apparent opportunity for bidders to make further offers to participants their offers, offering them a new opportunity to call, write or ring without technically breaking the rules on pestering punters that it took so long to set up. It looks very much like someone's seen the clampdown on commercial harassment as a gap in the market and has gone pitching it to councils as an idea. Perhaps that's exactly what's happened.

"a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to help people - particularly the elderly, vulnerable and those in fuel poverty."

It is, of course, right to consider those in fuel poverty. But fuel poverty isn't necessarily down to a shortage of online switching wheezes or even a paucity of of leaflets. It's mostly down to a lack of money. And as those with outstanding bills aren't being allowed to play and, at a guess, those with outstanding bills are likely to be disproportionately represented among the fuel-poor, it seems slightly cruel.

It's not just money that will prevent participation, in any case. It will also be the discouragement offered by landlords and their agents who, it seems, remain blithely, if not unknowingly, unaware of the new rules on their obligations to deal with switch requests (or, for that matter, the much older rules on Maximum Retail Prices for energy). And the threat of a potential cost to the tenant, especially where key-meters, HMO's or both are involved, might not help. But I don't suppose those can be effectively tackled. Not without a degree of thought or a callous disregard for the feelings of landlords which, so far, only Newham has dared display.

Besides, as we know from countless tedious speeches, insulation and efficiency are the only sustainable routes out of fuel poverty. Yet, despite the serial relaunching of an almost effective insulation grant/loan/subsidy scheme, take-up has been oddly low, especially in London, possibly due to its abject failure to tackle the serious problems posed by leasehold and rented accommodation. The latest resurrection has a bit more of a chance, but only because it's now possible for landlords to improve their properties and pass the cost onto their tenants' via their pre-pay meters. Effectively, short-term tenants will be paying back medium-term loans on investments that are only likely to have long-term benefits, and those for someone else. I know the aim is for the energy savings to outweigh the payments in the interim, but that relies on the palpably dodgy assumption that those in fuel poverty have average patterns of energy consumption and won't reduce consumption (and thus savings) to offset the additional cost.

So, as far as I can see, this scheme is more likely to cost the fuel-poor more in the long run, as any damage to the margins will be landed on non-participating customers. Given that they're already paying over the odds, thanks to the schemes for paying small-scale generators (or the landlords and financiers behind them) an astonishing mark-up, I don't see how it helps. It might have increased (albeit very very slightly) the proportion of renewables in the energy mix. But you don't need more than a modest grasp of arithmetic to work out that it's benefited relatively few people while costing everyone else. Including all those, by definition, in fuel poverty.

I will, of course, take your word that much else is being done to help the most vulnerable. But it's all having to be done, and more will need doing in future, as a direct result of flaws in every successive act, regulation, guideline or initiative. It's self-perpetuating make-work and, as far as I can see, it doesn't even help very much. It's just deferring problems in the hope that something will turn up and, if life has taught us anything, it's that something never does. In the same way as energy will never "be too cheap to meter".

"I appreciate the idea of any taxpayer money being spent on this is an instant red-rag to some"

I'd hate to think you thought you might have appeared to have mistaken my impeccably researched and carefully considered argument for some sort of rant.

But, in case you had, I am not angry. Merely irritated by the unceasing slew of distractions, of which this is one, to the obvious, serious and fixable problems with our energy strategy, policy and market. In short, I'm tired of public bodies choosing to be gullible just because it's easier.

Anger could only be justified if, for example, it turned out that the funding for this particular initiative was coming out of the 'renewable obligations' tacked on to our already-outrageous bills. Confusing a stealth tax supposedly devoted to actual investment in sustainable renewable generation with yet another sop for a broken and carbon-dependent energy market would be utterly inexcusable.

But I'm sure that couldn't happen in the wake of the light-bulb scandal, in which, you'll remember, the renewables levy ended up being spent on the mass-mailing of shoddy, unsolicited, unwanted and heavily-branded lamps to every household in a breathtaking display of wasteful cynicism on the part of the billing companies and of flatulent complicity on the part of everyone else.