3 ms·

In the UK, we have a similar system, and for a decent time it actually did deliver low energy prices for us. The way this worked was that a new energy provider

In the UK, we have a similar system, and for a decent time it actually did deliver low energy prices for us. The way this worked was that a new energy provider could easily set up and offer low tariffs, backed by private investment and a gamble that long-term prices would stay low. Of course, when prices rose, that gamble failed... and who picked up the bill? Why, the taxpayer, of course! [1] The overall effect of this game was that more astute consumers, who tended to switch to the lower-cost providers, were ultimately subsidised by the less-astute consumers who stuck with the traditional players. Or to put it another way, the rich were subsidised by the poor. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028

VBprogrammer 3y ago
> Or to put it another way, the rich were subsidised by the poor. I agree with most of what you've said but I don't agree that this conclusion follows. If anything when I was less well off I was far more inclined to put up with the hassle of changing providers every few months to minimise the costs than I am now. I do think there were some efficiencies generated, it's just hard to figure out if a nationalised entity would have gotten there eventually. The online only account management for example probably saves a bunch over call centre staff and sending people around to read the meter.