MSE News: Guest Comment: The problem with energy firms

A._Badger

backfoot wrote: »

You didn't mention the Gas and Electricity Boards?

Flanders and Swann dealt with that.

backfoot

A._Badger wrote: »

Flanders and Swann dealt with that.

I'm not old enough to know

As you dodged the question, I guess you can't pinpoint specifically any real problems with the pre- privatisation operation and efficiency of the Gas and electricity companies.Especially,when compared the current fiasco.

Just lumping them in with a whole load of others will do !

A._Badger

backfoot wrote: »

I'm not old enough to know

As you dodged the question, I guess you can't pinpoint specifically any real problems with the pre- privatisation operation and efficiency of the Gas and electricity companies.Especially,when compared the current fiasco.

Just lumping them in with a whole load of others will do !

Well, as you're 'not old enough to know'; I guess that means 'you're not old enough to know'.

There was a reason the state utilities were privatised and it wasn't (whatever Guardianistas like to pretend) a vile capitalist plot by 'Fatcher' to do-down the oppressed masses.

It was because they were appalling to deal with and hopelessly inefficient. That view has pertained right across the world, where the inherent inefficiencies of state-run monopolies have been confronted and replaced, in many cases, with free market alternatives.

The only British state-run monopoly that worked reasonably well, in my memory at any rate, was water (I suppose, in fairness, the National Grid, too). And water has suffered for just the same reason all the other denationalised industries have suffered - it was privatised in a way that allowed cartels and near-monopolies to be created.

The answer isn't to return to some 1948 nightmare - we've been there and done that and it's distressing how many people advocating it don't know that it was tried in the past - and failed.

backfoot

Thanks for the generalisations. I knew those already. :T

A._Badger

backfoot wrote: »

Thanks for the generalisations. I knew those already. :T

Thanks for the sarcasm. It's wasted.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

A._Badger wrote: »

Well, as you're 'not old enough to know'; I guess that means 'you're not old enough to know'.

There was a reason the state utilities were privatised and it wasn't (whatever Guardianistas like to pretend) a vile capitalist plot by 'Fatcher' to do-down the oppressed masses.

It was because they were appalling to deal with and hopelessly inefficient. That view has pertained right across the world, where the inherent inefficiencies of state-run monopolies have been confronted and replaced, in many cases, with free market alternatives.

The only British state-run monopoly that worked reasonably well, in my memory at any rate, was water (I suppose, in fairness, the National Grid, too). And water has suffered for just the same reason all the other denationalised industries have suffered - it was privatised in a way that allowed cartels and near-monopolies to be created.

The answer isn't to return to some 1948 nightmare - we've been there and done that and it's distressing how many people advocating it don't know that it was tried in the past - and failed.

I don't know about the other utilities but telephones were pretty inefficient before privatisation. It could take as long as six months to get a phone line installed. Also, the only hansets available were the ones that you got from the monopoly (BT) and I think you had to rent them from them. Billing options were limited (I think it was quarterly payments only for a long time) and there was no-one to switch to if they put their prices up. Not even any choice of tariffs. Even dealing with the Inland Revenue was tricky if you needed them to call you back. This is because calls were cheaper in the morning (before 1 PM I think) so they would never phone up until after that time. Even now BT can shape things - though to a lesser degree. When they put back the cheaper calls until after 7 PM a while ago others followed.

rogerblack

Firstly - green energy.

It is a laudable goal, however the current structure seems to be there solely to create a pointless new industry that is inherently inefficient.

The notion that it makes sense to subsidise people to put panels on their roofs is not inherently insane.
But the subsidy level should not be set to encourage this - but to encourage larger installations, where the labour costs are _much_ lower.

I can buy MCS panels installed sited on my roof for around 3000 pounds per kW.
I can buy non-approved panels, and inverter, and put them in a field for around 1000 pounds/kW.

If you could simply get paid the retail rate per kWh - that would be a viable investment!
But the most non-MCS approved panels can get is about 15% of the retail price!

The subsidies reinforce inefficiencies in the markets.

Secondly - the industry abandoned the clear and well understood 'standing charge' in favour of poorly understood 'first and second rate units'.

This is confusing madness.
There should be a clearly presented standing charge, and a unit rate - only.

Or even better - eliminate the standing charge, and compete on the unit rate alone.
This would both make switching easier, bills easier to understand, but also not penalise those who save energy by making them pay the most!

Butti

The market isn't working because it isn't a market, its a cartel in all but name. 6 companies hold over 95% of the customers and as soon as one raises its prices the rest follow.

I'm with a company that isn't one of the six. I have no idea what to do with my account.

B

markharding557

I don't think nationalization is the answer either but a strong,strict regulator is and that means one with the power to impose price regulation.
ofgem and who ever are impotent and useless.

backfoot

A._Badger wrote: »

The only British state-run monopoly that worked reasonably well, in my memory at any rate, was water (I suppose, in fairness, the National Grid, too). And water has suffered for just the same reason all the other denationalised industries have suffered - it was privatised in a way that allowed cartels and near-monopolies to be created.

A._Badger wrote: »

Thanks for the sarcasm. It's wasted.

No sarcasm at all, just pointing out that you had grouped the ESI and Gas Industy together with other state owned corporations and assumed they were all inefficient.

When challeneged on the specifics you just repeated the mantra.You couldn't point to any real problems with the Industry related to this thread.

Not surprising because you clearly don't have any experience of the organisations concerned. For some reason you give a plaudit to the National Grid as being exempt from such criticism, pre privatisation.

Aaah but, the National Grid didn't even exist as a separate entity then.

What basis do you have for saying that the transmission element of the CEGB was any more efficient than say, one of the 12 Area Electricity Boards?

Sounds to me like you are making it up as you go along.:rotfl: