Blog

On 17 March 2016 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its Provisional Decision on Remedies in its investigation of the energy market. The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by five former GB energy regulators (Stephen Littlechild, Sir Callum McCarthy, Eileen Marshall, Stephen Smith and Claire Spottiswoode). Their 11 April response to that consultation is available with other CMA publications and responses here.

 

1.         The investigation of the energy market by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has found that the wholesale market is competitive and vertical integration is not a problem. Unfortunately, however, there still remain serious flaws in its analysis of the domestic retail market. These are associated with its concept of “weak customer response”, its calculations of excess charges and excess profits, its assumption about “efficient costs”, and its failure to analyse the full impact of previous regulatory interventions. These flaws lead the CMA to some inappropriate remedies. Moreover, this flawed analysis has serious implications for the future work of the CMA with respect to markets generally.

2.         The CMA finds that “weak customer response” constitutes an Adverse Effect on Competition (AEC). This is because many customers do not choose to switch tariffs or suppliers to reduce their energy bills. The CMA claims that savings available but not exploited by customers average £164 per year. But the CMA’s analysis overrules customer preferences and switching costs. It makes the unrealistic assumption that all customers would be happy to switch to online direct debit fixed-period tariffs. Realistic assumptions that respect customer preferences – for example, that assume switching supplier but not tariff type - yield much smaller savings available, averaging £65 per year. This is consistent with normal customer behaviour in a competitive market.

3.         In order to calculate the detriment associated with this “weak customer response”, the CMA proposes a “direct approach” and an “indirect approach”. The “direct approach” claims that the Six Large Energy Suppliers (SLEFs) have imposed excessive charges on customers averaging £1.7bn per year from 2012 to 2015, rising to £2.5bn in 2015. And yet aggregate SLEF profits amount to about £1bn per year, and the CMA calculates that “excess profits” average £241m per year. How the CMA reconciles these calculations is never satisfactorily explained.

4.         The CMA’s “direct approach” calculation is based on a dubious comparison between the prices charged by the SLEFs and the prices charged by two much smaller new entrants. This comparison ignores many relevant considerations. It is more than £1bn per year greater than the estimate yielded by the CMA’s alternative “indirect approach”, which is itself based on implausible assumptions. Neither approach yields a credible measure of customer detriment.

5.         The claim that the SLEFs have earned excessive profits of £241m per year over 2007 - 2014 is based on another dubious calculation. Instead of using their actual costs and capital employed, it uses lower costs and capital employed that it assumes to be needed by a hypothetical capital-light firm. Even thus inflated, excess profit of £241m per year amounts to less than £5 per year for each energy account, or less than 1 per cent of an average dual fuel bill of nearly £1200 per year.

6.         The CMA calculates that four of the SLEFs have inefficient indirect costs of up to £420m per year in total compared to the other two SLEFs. But cost differences are not a sign of market power in real competitive markets, which do not require three quarters of total output to be produced at the same level of cost. The Competition Commission never relied on such a contentious argument.

7.         The CMA finds that Ofgem’s various regulatory interventions since 2009 have had an Adverse Effect on Competition, primarily because they have limited the range of products available in the market, and limited innovation. This is a serious but justified finding. However, the CMA fails to consider the market-distorting effects of these interventions on customer engagement, price differentials and profits. Hence it underestimates the beneficial effects of removing them and overestimates the need for further remedies.

8.         As to proposed remedies, the CMA now accepts that its previously considered price cap on Standard Variable Tariffs (SVTs) would have serious adverse effects on competition and on customers. However, it now proposes a price cap on Prepayment Meter (PPM) tariffs, but does not explain why this would not have similar serious adverse effects. Nor does it consider the likelihood that suppliers would react by increasing prices to other customers. It does not attach weight to the overwhelming adverse financial impact on the one small supplier that has specialised in providing innovative service to PPM customers.

9.         The CMA proposes that suppliers should be required to hand over data concerning their “disengaged” customers so that other suppliers can approach them. It also proposes that suppliers, in designing their tariffs, should have a new obligation to have regard to the ability of customers to compare value for money. Such proposed obligations do not sufficiently take into account customer preferences, practical implications and lessons of recent regulatory history. Like the proposed price control, they run counter to the Government’s latest non-binding “Steer” to the CMA, which encourages the CMA to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses.

10.        In response to concerns about mis-selling, Ofgem introduced some very severe conditions on direct marketing. The CMA’s failure to examine the adverse consequences of these means that it has not considered a remedy that could enable more and better engagement, including with Third Party Intermediaries (TPIs) and with vulnerable customers.

11.        The CMA’s analysis is thus seriously inaccurate and incomplete. It does not provide a proper understanding of the domestic retail energy market, nor a sound basis for further regulatory interventions. On the contrary, rather than seeking the most considered, responsible and defensible analysis of the market, the CMA seems to have sought out assumptions and interpretations to maximise the extent of customer detriment. This is not the stance taken by the former Competition Commission (CC), and will not increase trust in the CMA.

12.        If the CMA’s approach were applied to other markets, the potential for finding weak customer response and excessive prices, costs and profits would be enormous. The CMA’s energy market recipe is not to let the competitive market process work but to intervene to impose what it thinks would or should be the outcome if the market were “well-functioning” and if almost all competitors had “efficient costs”. The logic of this argument would imply intervention in every market where new entrants were challenging incumbents – that is, in every market that was not in or near a state of perfect competitive equilibrium. This does not seem a sensible direction for UK competition policy.

 

Prof Stephen Littlechild is a Fellow in Privatisation, Regulation and Competition, at Cambridge Judge Business School, and Emeritus Professor at the University of Birmingham. He is a member of the IEA’s Academic Advisory Council.

Comments (1)
What a scandal that the (political)market for humility and common sense seems to have completely broken down in this area. Surely there needs to be an independent investigation, in competition with Littlechild et al.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts

Search

Len Shackleton
29 April 2016
comments

  On 27 April 2016, the JustShare group held a debate on the Trade Union Bill at St James's church in Piccadilly. The article below is based on Prof Shackleton’s contribution.  ...
Ryan Bourne
28 April 2016
comments

Today, the IEA publishes ‘In Focus: The Case for Privatising the BBC’. My chapter examined instances of bias in BBC coverage. In that essay, I readily admit that all broadcasters are...
Steve Davies
27 April 2016
2 comments

To the non-economist, all goods and services are the same in terms of their basic nature, however much they vary in superficial details. Economists, however, have known for a long time that this is...
Ryan Bourne
26 April 2016
2 comments

Conventional commentariat wisdom has it that the EU referendum pits those concerned about economics versus those concerned about immigration. But a quick perusal of the leading intellectual voices...
Diego Zuluaga
25 April 2016
comments

At the end of last year, the IEA published Forever contemporary, its monograph commemorating the life and intellectual legacy of Ronald Coase. The shadow of this longest-lived of Economics Nobel...
Diego Zuluaga
22 April 2016
2 comments

Eurosceptics claim that UK sovereignty is hopelessly hampered by EU membership. This is inaccurate. Most key state powers such as taxation, welfare, healthcare, education, planning and much...
Philip Booth
21 April 2016
9 comments

The government is currently considering responses to a submission on whether it should take action on ticket touts. We do not live in an under-regulated country and it does not seem to me that the...
Len Shackleton
20 April 2016
comments

The gender pay gap continues to attract passionate attention on both sides of the Atlantic. It has been known for many years that the size of this gap is associated with the relative proportion of...
Philip Booth
19 April 2016
comments

The City is split when it comes to Brexit. Certainly, the larger City institutions with significant EU business tend to side with Remain. However, smaller companies and those with a more global...
Christopher Snowdon
18 April 2016
1 comment

Last year, Exeter became the latest city in Britain to introduce a local currency. Totnes, Bristol and Lewes had already done so. Supporters of the Exeter Pound, which can only be exchanged at...
Razeen Sally
15 April 2016
comments

“Social market economy” is a vague slogan in European political debate. The term originated in Germany. But what does it really mean? Most people think it means a mixed economy, combining...
Len Shackleton
14 April 2016
comments

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ is the rather clumsy question – its wording has been fought over – with which...
Len Shackleton
13 April 2016
2 comments

The Prime Minister’s decision to open his tax returns to public scrutiny, while understandable, sets a precedent we may come to regret. However entertaining it is to see our leaders squirm...
Ryan Bourne
12 April 2016
comments

"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.” This quotation has been attributed to a whole range of undesirable people, from Goebbels to Lenin. But in the case of the discussion of...
Sarah Skwire
11 April 2016
3 comments

In the 1920s, the average housewife spent about 11.5 hours per week on laundry and ironing. By 1965, that had dropped to just under 7 hours. In 2014, that average housewife (and her spouse...
Philippe Legrain
7 April 2016
comments

It is normal to feel sympathy for the 15,000 employees of Tata Steel who are set to lose their jobs if the Indian company cannot find a buyer for its heavily lossmaking UK operations. “This...
Philip Booth
6 April 2016
4 comments

Benjamin Wrench recently wrote a paper titled Risk and Reward: why the EU separates risk from reward and what this means for the City. This blog post is a rough transcript of Prof Booth’s...
Ryan Bourne
5 April 2016
4 comments

"How much do you earn then?” You get asked this a lot when you do media work discussing pay. Last week the topic was the introduction of George Osborne’s National Living Wage...
Diego Zuluaga
4 April 2016
1 comment

A blog post by the OECD linking the rise of finance to lower economic growth and higher inequality made the rounds recently. The post summarises the findings of a recent report by the rich-country...