If they havn't set minimum reservers then they will just pay themselves all the extra profit and still collapse.
UK Energy
A place to post links and discussions around the UK's energy production, National Grid, energy consumption, and green energy news.
See https://grid.iamkate.com/ for the UK's current energy production and sources.
Created 23/07/23
Agreed. I think we have to face facts that regulatory capture in the UK is complete. OFWAT do fuck all to regulate water suppliers, OFGEM do fuck all to regulate energy suppliers. They're claiming that increasing permitted profit margin will avoid the problems we had last year with suppliers going bust, when in fact that was because they were trying to play the game of short-term energy trading instead of hedging properly.
OFGEM do fuck all to regulate energy suppliers.
They regulate the market in favour of the energy providers not the consumers.
So they are doing their job well, it's just we were foolish to think they worked for us.
Working as intended. Much like any "self regulated industry"
So how does this work?
OFGEM wants a competitive market with many competing (and often smaller) energy suppliers. However they saw that last time around these would operate on tiny tiny margins that weren't resilient to wider shocks in the energy market. So they failed on a massive scale and effectively everyone had to pick up the slack hence the adding £83 to bills bit. The answer as they see it is to allow them to operate on larger margins so they can become resilient over time? If they still fail they fail but they should have the requisite reserves such that the whole market doesn't take a hit as a consequence of one supplier failing? Is that about it? Basically?
Sounds similar to the aftermath of the banking crisis in 2008. They operated on risky faulty assumptions with little margins that weren't resilient to a huge shock. As a result we had to bail them all out. What happened on the intervening years is that that market has been told to build up massive reserves to be resilient to another shock. Banks and building societies and asset management companies go through stress testing each year and effectively wargame these scenarios. Quite often the FCA tell them to up their reserves. If OFGEM does the same I can kinda see the logic to this and don't actually mind. It stands to reason that to be resilient you need to invest. That has to come from somewhere right?
But is that too narrow a reading? What do others think? The article is fairly light on details.