Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Walrus inconsistencies | Main | Close down DECC »

Quote of the day, consumer care edition

The Department allowed inflation indexation [of contracts] because consumers are thought to be better placed to absorb the impact of high inflation than generators.

DECC explains its approach to looking after energy consumers


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (15)

Q21 Chair: We will come back to that. Littered through the Report are references to the contractors and the consumers. I think the one that offended me the most was when you say you were looking after the interests of consumers on page 38, paragraph 3.20. As part of your developing the new scheme and bringing in an inflation index, you say there that, “The Department allowed inflation indexation because consumers are thought to be better placed to absorb the impact of high inflation than generators.” I just want to think how on earth you can justify those extra costs to my constituents. I think you should come and face them, and tell them that you think that looking after the generators was more important than looking after their interests. Right the way through this Report, the idea that the consumer interest was uppermost in your mind just does not shine through.


Oct 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

The new Free Market at work.

Oct 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterturnedoutnice

I think it's explained lower down.

Hugo Robson: With the costs, in any case we were looking at an existing renewables obligation scheme, which is index-linked to RPI. The move into the contract for difference was also looking at preserving that indexation for generators. We introduced it to consumer price indexation as opposed to retail price indexation. We think that is a good indicator of what general inflation within the country is.

I tried to run it through Google Translate, but it thought the source language was Mandarin. Probably right, but no help with the translation.

Oct 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Remember when all the painful laws regarding renewable energy were being debated? The word "certainty" was used a lot. Investors needed "certainty" to make the investment in renewables to meet mandates. I think a synonym for "certainty" in this context is "guaranteed profit". Investors and generators knew this, consumers conveniently did not.

Oct 3, 2014 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean

It is painful reading. Clearly DECC is stuffed with overpaid incompetents who speak a strange "Sir Humphrey" language and who have no concept of the real world. They are unable to answer a single question without obfuscation. As before, DECC should be closed down before they do more damage. These witnesses should be behind bars, where they can't do more harm to this country.

Oct 3, 2014 at 2:49 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

DECC official: "We need to do something really stupid to comply with a really stupid law"

Investors: "You understand the concept of a 'blank cheque'? Sign here. Thanks. hehehehe"

Oct 3, 2014 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

There is a common agreement that the public pay for government through what are called "taxes". As such, there are whole rafts of procedures for getting public vetting of how much government tax, who gets taxed and this then is part of the political discussion of elections so we say "party A is going to tax more than party B".

So, we have this public oversight and accountability which keeps taxes down and prevents irresponsible spending.

So, how do you bypass this system?

You put the tax on the electricity bill and call it a "charge". It's a tax by any other name, but it doesn't go into the budget, it doesn't get challenged in parliament, there's no discussion at elections ... and basically the free loading fraudsters and scammers who invented the renewables con, get to live at public expense without any serious scrutiny of what an utter waste of money the whole thing is.

But put it on taxation - and every paper would be talking about the cost of this TAX

And of course, business isn't that easily conned.

The only reason it was done this way was to bypass normal democratic accountability.

Oct 3, 2014 at 3:22 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

Well done the Public Accounts Committee - this oral evidence document is almost as good as the "Climategate emails" The document is a rich source for shining a light on the malpractice against consumers that is DECC. Clear examples of working against the overall benefits to society.

Stephen Lovegrove: Looking a long way ahead, the electricity generating scene in the UK is likely to be dominated by nuclear, which is base load, and you can’t turn it up and down very much; and very intermittent renewables, which are absolutely understood. We spent a lot of time with National Grid talking about that.

Translation - we will mess about with base load to accomodate intermittent renewables ......

Oct 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Thomson

Stephen Lovegrove -September 2013 - The Permanent Secretary for the Department of Energy and Climate Change spoke at the green think tank CONCITOs annual conference in Denmark

"The UK is committed to realising a dynamic, revitalised energy market that: secures the trust of investors and the public; ensures fair returns for investors and fair prices for consumers, and ultimately, through the deployment of low carbon technologies, reduces the impact of rising wholesale prices on bills."

Looks like the Public Accounts Committee has seen through his BS

Oct 3, 2014 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Thomson

Does anyone else get the impression that one year from an election at which UKIP will be strongly opposed to renewables, that the MPs are desperately looking for any way to get out of the mess they made for themselves?

It was all hunky dorey so long as all the parties agreed that they should scam the public, but now that UKIP have given the public have a choice, that scam is looking like a vote loser.

Oct 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

This is the enabling legislation that allows Davey to ignore consumer interest any time he can construe a green interest exists:

It's Miliband's 2010 Energy Act. My comment on the previous thread about Hugo Robson's job title seems to be borne out by the evidence he gave. He knows how to play the tunes on that fiddle......

Oct 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

Look, I am a danged furriner, but hope you will allow me to make a modest comment.

They have got to be kidding. "Consumers are thought to be better placed (by whom??) than generators." Apparently, costs just disappear by government fiat. Nobody has to pay them any more.

As our Greek/Australian princess, Effie, would say:

"How embarrassment."

Oct 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Sack the (self-snip) lot of them.

Bunch of arrogant, overpaid, Hooray-Henrys.

Oct 3, 2014 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

"We have to destroy the consumers in order to save them".

Oct 4, 2014 at 9:46 AM | Registered Commenterdavidchappell

Nice one, David.

Another site that I inhabit has a series of "liberty quotes" that come up alongside every head post.

This should be one of them.

Oct 4, 2014 at 7:34 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>