how many utility companies do we need???

mumbles_one

Having watched many TV debates on utility bills and the number of "plans" they offer I keep waiting for someone to ask this question:

"What is the optimum number of utility companies we need to provide the cheapest services???"

If there was only one company and one price would it be cheaper than it is now??? I seem to remember that years ago there was only one provider for each utility. Were utilities cheaper then??? ( in comparison to today)

Is it right to think that if there was only one company it would have better "buying" power in the world markets and could get supplies at a cheaper price ???

PasturesNew

There is only one water company in each region .... and that's horrendously expensive... so, no, without any competition they have free rein to take the pee.

backfoot

PasturesNew wrote: »

There is only one water company in each region .... and that's horrendously expensive... so, no, without any competition they have free rein to take the pee.

Isn't it their job to take the pee?

chris1973

The growth of things like Green Incentives, such as Feed In Tariff's is also likely to have a negative effect on the cost of Energy, more so in the future as more and more people sign up for their 25 years' worth.

When you sell Electricity for approx 10p - 15p per KW/H but pay a Feed In Tariff of 40p+ for each KW/H generated to Solar Panel owners then the shortfall has to be made up from somewhere.

undaunted

PasturesNew wrote: »

There is only one water company in each region .... and that's horrendously expensive... so, no, without any competition they have free rein to take the pee.

? Horrendously expensive........ I'm pretty sure water around here offers far better value than gas or electricity does. It's also far cheaper than bottled water in the shops for example.

As to energy companies I think more effective regulation is needed rather than more or fewer companies making any immediate difference. (obviously one private company rather than state owned would be unacceptable & a license to rip us off even more than they do now however)

macman

backfoot wrote: »

Isn't it their job to take the pee?

Indeed it is. And in the case of Thames Water, then to sell it back to you again.

mumbles_one

What I was looking for was evidence that shows having more than 1 and less than 1000 is better than having just one or two. There must be a mathematician out there who can analyze the energy supply model and give a definite number of utility suppliers that would give the best competition versus price.

we don't have more than one road network??? because its too costly.

Why can't I have a smart meter that allows be to buy gas/electricity from whatever company on a unit by unit basis ??? That way I could immediately change supplier just by throwing a switch in my living room . Why not ???the cables and pipes are the same. If it was possible to switch companies at the consumer box or in real time via internet then any supplier raising prices would immediately find themselves selling no electricity and out of business.

grahamc2003

mumbles_one wrote: »

"What is the optimum number of utility companies we need to provide the cheapest services???"

Having more than one electricity and one gas company is a relatively new concept. 30 years ago, the cegb did everyithing to do with electricity - generated it, maintained the grid, delivered it and billed customers via local electricity boards.

I don't remember in those days any people complaining about the high cost of electricity - in fact people were very (overly) prolific in their use of it. Even electic room heating was widespread, normal and affordable.

So I have no doubt at all that these days, electricity is far more expensive in real terms, and there are some easily understandable reasons for that.

For the comparison of whether it was cheaper to have a monopoly (cegb) compared to a supposedly competitive free market with tens/hundreds of market participants, you would have to ignore some large costs which are simply dumped on our bills (i.e. the now substantial 'green' costs).

Excluding those, I'd say it's still more expensive in real terms. Much of the costs these days (even excluding the green costs), and nothing to do woith the central requirement of getting electricity to your plugs, but are to do with the so called competitive procedures (contract negotiation, switching, incentives etc etc) which absorb more and more of our ex-green cost bills.

While I generally support free markets, I think experience has shown the electricity industry was far better off as a monopoly, rather than the attempt at a free market the electricity supply industry now is.

C_Mababejive

We only need three. The Gas Board, The Electric Board and the Water Board.

Thats how it used to be.

The public bleated and wailed,now its worse.

The public are their own worst enemy.

We also used to have an integrated rail company called British Rail...the public wailed,the powers that be fixed it,creamed off mega profits and left us with overpriced carp.

Pincher

In principle, the more the merrier, because the uncompetitive players simply disappear. On the other hand, the 3G license auction was a good money spinner for the government. Why don't we limit the number of licenses, and strike off the worst performing company, whose slot can be auctioned off.
By performance, I don't mean financially.


Complaints Tracking


Ultimately, any service deficiencies like ignoring switching requests become complaints, to the company itself or to an industry ombudsman. If we examine the anatomy of a complaint, the ombudsman always comes in at the end, with all the records controlled by the utility company. We should take a leaf out of eBay's dispute resolution procedure. The user logs the complaint through the ombudsman system, which tracks progress without human intervention. Whereas previously, the utility company simply ignores the complaint, hoping the user would just give up, they are now being measured on response time. Quick resolution earns Brownie points. This means the ombudsman has an automated complaints profile across the industry. The number of unresolved complaints is instantly available.

The very existence of the tracking system should ensure the number of complaints needing arbitration decrease, saving human resource for the ombudsman. I expect most complaints will be in favour of the utility company in the future, as reasonable complaints will be resolved without dispute by the company, and only really awkward cases will go forward to arbitration.



Performance review Panel


Obviously, we need a panel biased towards consumer protection.
They decide which company loses its license, if any.

BenNevis

Pincher wrote: »

In principle, the more the merrier, because the uncompetitive players simply disappear. On the other hand, the 3G license auction was a good money spinner for the government. Why don't we limit the number of licenses, and strike off the worst performing company, whose slot can be auctioned off.
By performance, I don't mean financially.

Excellent idea on the face of it. But if you make every energy supply company pay a huge fee for its licence won’t that mean that only a few big companies will have the clout to pay the fee, and decent little companies (like Ovo) would never be able to start up?