It was an easy goal

Rather than taking the form of a high-level meeting between Taylor and the CEOs of major energy companies, the meeting at the Intercontinental Hotel was more like a public meeting of 20 represented companies.

It was more like a public relations exercise organized by the government – designed to make the public aware that the government was ready to face big business and to defend the interests of consumers and small businesses that had too much paid for energy while increasing the income of their customers. the major energy companies in the sector.

Taylor, who said he was open to comment, was not about to change his message.

Until now, the ultimatum was that energy companies take charge of acting on prices before the end of the year, before the government imposes a default cap . The deadline of January 1, however, seems to have been postponed to July and it is no longer a question of price.

The companies have agreed to provide customers with standard and easily comparable rates by July 1 to allow for easy comparisons. They will make a "voluntary deposit" on January 1 on this exercise after the meeting that Taylor has described as constructive and productive.

The government will also leave open the option of the ultimate dividing line of forcing companies to divest badets in order to increase competition – what is called the big stick.

The industry had the wisdom to let the government score an easy goal and earn goodwill.

This is what counts for an energy policy for the coalition, which has abandoned a comprehensive set of long-term measures that also deal with emissions.

After the meeting, Taylor made little reference to introducing a default price.

If it is possible that the price charged is higher than the default price or the reference price, it should be accompanied by a convincing explanation explaining why.

Loading

It was this default price mechanism that was of great concern to energy companies who argued that this would discourage investment in next-generation badets.

But in-depth discussions between retailers and energy providers on pricing have legal implications in terms of collusion. The subject seems to have been largely ignored.

Providing customers with access to information that allows them to better compare the different discounts granted by energy companies will only drive down prices if customers have access to them.

And since most have already done so, the effect on electricity retailers' revenues should not be particularly significant. Indeed, the reference price that will allow comparisons would have been an idea generated by the industry.

But publicly, it works well for the government.

According to Taylor, the goal of the exercise is to end the confusion of customers when they enter into a contract with an electricity company. He wants customers to be able to compare apples to apples and the loyalty tax will disappear by July.

He said these companies were making record profits – the kind of rhetoric usually heard with reference to the banking sector.

The industry had the wisdom to let the government score an easy goal and earn goodwill.