Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/571465
UTILITY WEEK | 18TH - 24TH SEPTEMBER 2015 | 17 "Archimedes' screw" turbines to generate power using water from the River Don and will supply electricity for 300 homes in perpetuity. Fish and eel passages have also been built to open up another stretch of the river and are part of a long-term plan to get salmon back up to Sheffield, where they can spawn. If you have an asset or project you would like to see featured in this slot, email: paul.newton@fav-house.com Pipe up Andrew Beasley T he CMA's initial findings as part of its energy mar- ket review told us something we really already knew – that a lot of the customers of the big six suppliers (70 per cent, in fact) are currently on the stand- ard variable tariff (SVT), traditionally the highest cost tariff. Customers default to this tariff aer any fixed-rate deal they might have signed up for ends. And then they stay there, paying sometimes hundreds of pounds a year more than they need to on energy, for years and years. On the back of this focus on the SVT issue, this sum- mer saw a slew of high profile media reports about fixed- rate energy deals from both big and small suppliers expiring at the end of August. Commentators exhorted customers to make sure they shopped around since, oth- erwise, they too would end up on their supplier's SVT. There are two main problems with the SVT – its cost and its enduring nature. SVT's are oen £200 or £300 a year more expensive than a more competitive deal. And once a customer is on an SVT, they can theoretically stay on it forever without ever needing to agree to continue on it. This, of course, is very different from the insurance industry, where a yearly renewal is required. It's all too easy for a customer to lapse on to an SVT and then stay on it. Indeed, the CMA investigation highlighted that that's exactly what happens, as many customers on SVTs were still with their incumbent historical supplier. Therefore, the customers who have been with a supplier longest are the ones who pay the most. If those are the two problems, then the solutions are relatively clear – reduce the cost of the SVT or ensure that customers can't stay on it for too long. At Flow Energy, we took the decision to reduce our SVT to the same level as our cheapest fixed rate deal. This means that, when a customer comes to the end of a fixed rate deal, and they don't decide to fix again with us, they automatically move onto an SVT that is as competitive as our cheapest deal. Ensuring that customers can't stay on an expensive SVT is the other solution. This would require a system similar to the one used by the insurance industry, where a yearly renewal is offered. Considering the high cost of SVTs, it's reasonable to suggest that this is where a big chunk of retail energy profits come from. That can't continue. Charging cus- tomers more who effectively don't know they're being charged more is not the way to build trust. It's time for all suppliers to take a long, hard look at how they treat their most long-standing customers. Andrew Beasley, managing director, Flow Energy "The initial findings of the CMA highlight again the way in which energy suppliers penalise loyalty." SVT's are often £200 or £300 a year more expensive than a more competitive deal Operations & Assets