That has long been one of my bones of contention.

The only 'choice' we have with utilities is who to pay to.

We cannot, for instance, choose to buy soft water when in London. And when you see how energy companies have, in recent years, all put up prices at approximately the same time, by the same amount, you also see how little meaningful choice there is.

Also, as I've mentioned before, I dislike this business whereby it's the consumer's responsibility to be an expert in everything they buy – not least because you can no longer rely on customer service to be honest.

I've yet to be convinced that there is anything wrong with the idea that essentials such as power should be available to all at a fair rate that acknowledges the importance to the whole country of that product/service, and where any profit is then ploughed back into that product/service. Remarkably, in the last couple of years, even posters on the [iTelegraph[/i forums have started saying that privatisation of utilities 'hasn't worked'.

As has been said, part of the reason prices are high is the folly (largely under Labour) of building wind turbines via huge subsidy in order to prop up German (and Danish) manufacturers. Another example of Germany using the EU to its domestic advantage and an easy government sop to the deluded elements of the green lobby who seem to seriously believe that wind power is the answer to our energy needs. The whole thing is a bizarre joke at the expense of taxpayers and the countryside / seascape. Urban trendies f**king the country up - just as they do in every field.

[url=http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/ed-milibands-critics-think-his-energy-pledge-will-make-lights-go-out-they-are-wrongGood piece on the energy companies etc here.[/url

So we don't need greener and alternative energy?

I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better.

I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here:

"As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. In the USA in 2005 it was estimated that the monetary cost per unit of energy produced for new wind power installations would be similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powerLink[/url

Quote ="Mintball"I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better. I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here: "As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. '" That's all well and good until you look at electricity prices in the retail sector. May 2013's average market prices for the domestic consumer... Denmark 0.29525 € per kWh UK 0.17078 € per kWh www.energy.eu/ So yes the Danes may be producing more cleaner energy but they are paying 73% more than us for it. Which kind of defeats the object of Ed's policy really. Actually, looking at that data our electricity prices are pretty average for Europe, being 12th highest out of 28. For gas we are the 2nd lowest price in the whole of Europe with only Romania being cheaper.

Quote ="Mintball"I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better. I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here: "As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. '" That's all well and good until you look at electricity prices in the retail sector. May 2013's average market prices for the domestic consumer... Denmark 0.29525 € per kWh UK 0.17078 € per kWh www.energy.eu/ So yes the Danes may be producing more cleaner energy but they are paying 73% more than us for it. Which kind of defeats the object of Ed's policy really. Actually, looking at that data our electricity prices are pretty average for Europe, being 12th highest out of 28. For gas we are the 2nd lowest price in the whole of Europe with only Romania being cheaper.

I'm bemused as to why renewable, clean energy should cost more?

Additionally: [url=http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-prices/ed-miliband-freeze-energy-prices-labour-conference-lab13/response from [iWhich?[/i[/url.

Some of it (not all) will be down to the fact that the infrastructure for delivering conventional energy is largely fully depreciated and has long since made a return on investment, where as the price of clean energy will incorporate a cost of the fairly recent substantial investments made to generate it.

Fair enough. But surely that means that the cost should fall over the coming years?

He must be doing something right given the foaming at the mouth front page of the Daily mail today

In theory yes, but what timescale "the coming years" reflects is obviously the key. It all depends on the expected time it takes for the initial investment to be recouped - might be 10, 20 even 50 years in some cases.

It was a bit, wasn't it?

A lot of the public response by the energy companies is kneejerk. But behind the scenes the energy companies, especially the foreign owned ones, will be carrying out a more sober assessment of Labour's policies. They're unlikely to conclude that investing in additional generating capacity in the UK is a more attractive proposition today than it was yesterday.

He could have gotten away with pledges to tighten up the regulatory system. The energy companies would still grumble, but as long as they know the rules of the game they can usually live with it and make sensible decisions.

Its the shock of the price fix that well send them running to the hills (or more accurately diverting investment to the rest of Europe). A decision to fix prices two years ahead, when nobody has any idea what the market conditions will be at that time, removes any stability from the industry. If they can announce a price fix now, what might they announce next?

The energy companies' response is typical of a bunch of robber barons, unused to having themselves held up to scrutiny. The city won't like it either, they'll have fewer opportunities to make money on swaps and short-selling. Well fook 'em, if they want to invest money, let them invest in embryonic companies, that may stand a chance of creating employment.

In the case of wind because you also need to build conventional power stations to generate electricty for the 75% of the time the wind is too weak or strong for the wind-turbines. Even when the wind blows there is relatively large capital investment per unit of production - each wiind turbine producing a piddling amount of electricity. Then there the problem that the wind may not blow when demand is their in the grid and that means if you are not to waste the dribbles you need to develop and invest in storage technologies. In short wind energy is not a viable way to keep our current economic system / infrastructure afloat.

The only immediately available green energy generators that could do that are nuclear fission reactors. They bring with them a degree of controvesy and potential strategic risk.

But how many of them have their own gas supplies?

But only in the US.



It's not been any sort of "fix" in recent years when the companies have all put their prices up at the same time, and by approximately the same amount, fortunately.

And it's no sort of a "fix" to make the tariffs so complex that it makes it difficult for people to find the 'best' deal. After all, simple tariffs would not be possible, so they've not been deliberately made opaque.

I don't know where you got the 75% downtime from, the figures I've read suggest the opposite, i.e. the turbine being active for approx 75% of the time, often more.
Regarding the wind being too strong ... as the wind speed increases, the pitch of the blades on a modern turbine automatically offer gradually less resistance until, in a very (!) high wind, the blades don't rotate at all. But that very high wind is very rare indeed, on most commercial turbines the wind has to be well over 120mph before the wind is too strong.
At the opposite end of the scale, it is true that on a very calm day, a wind farm can be at a standstill due to lack of wind.
It's rare for this to be the case over the entire country at the same time but it is still true that wind turbines are not the [usole[/u answer to our energy requirements ... no-one says they are, but they can be and are a useful part of the mix.
And, a 7mW turbine, producing enough electricity for 2,000 homes isn't really piddling, is it?

Many people would argue that nuclear fission is not a "green" generator.

Don't be misled by Bernard Ingham's ill-informed bluster.

Mmm, I seem to remember prices being regulated under Thatcher and Major, so how is it different now?

Energy companies want grandfathered pricing for 40 years when developing power stations to make them worthwhile, why can't they make the same arrangements for 20 months on the otherside?

The one notable absence of doom mongers is EDF, a French company who make money in their own country where they have price regulation.

Mandelson's now joined the band of Miliband critics. That should be reason enough for Ed to continue. So far all the moaners and frothers are waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy eclipsed by those in favour and last time I looked, energy companies do not get a ballot paper in a general election

Aye, The Prince of Darkness won't like a shift to the left.
It's as clear a signal of separation from Blairism and New Labour as we are going to see, I reckon.

This price freeze may last for about a year by the time they've got through a potential judicial review and then through parliament. Something like this will need an act of legislation, probably in the form of a change to the Energy Act. That will take time to do.

Given that the quoted average household energy bill is ~£1300 and price rises are on average 9% per year recently, then it will "save" the average household £117 for the year.

The problem is, what happens after that ? Where is the safeguard to stop energy companies waiting until the price freeze ends and then hiking up prices massively to recoup their "loss" ? We might well find that saving £10 a month for a year leads to paying an extra £20 a month the year after, which will hit the poorest even harder.

I guess that's the time for the replacement for OfGen to flex its muscles.

You are making a lot of assumptions there but the policy would be rather pointless if the time in which prices were frozen wasn't used to sort out this countries energy policy because at the moment those 9% price rises are just not sustainable. Leaving the provision of energy to market forces is not working.

I agree but who needs enemies when you have friends like him? It also won't do Miliband's standing with people who can vote much good because despite the idea being popular its just another stick to beat Miliband up with over his overall competency. If Mandelson is still a member of the party the chairman needs to drag him into his office and tell him to keep his trap shut.