ONE of Ofgem’s board members has quit after accusing the energy regulator of prioritising companies over customers.
Non-executive director at Ofgem Christine Farnish said she had resigned because the “regulator didn’t get the balance right and gave too much benefit to companies at the expense of consumers”.
She said: “It’s a judgment call. Answers aren’t particularly palatable but you want the interests of consumers to come first.”
Her departure came as Ofgem decided to change the way it calculates the energy price cap, in a move which analysts have warned could add hundreds of pounds to household bills.
READ MORE: Lord Frost: Offshore windfarms are 'medieval' technology
Farnish’s resignation is yet another blow to the regulator, which has come in for heavy criticism from consumer groups, MPs and the National Audit Office over its handling of the energy crisis.
Ofgem said at the beginning of August that it was changing the methodology for the cap to enable suppliers to recoup the full costs of buying energy for their customers at current very high prices.
The regulator insisted the changes were needed in order to prevent more suppliers going bust, after the costly failure of about 30 companies since the start of January 2021.
Martin Young at Investec warned the tweaks could push the energy cap to around £4200 a year in January, increasing from a previous estimate of £3725.
The cap is currently £1971 a year based on a typical household’s consumption.
Other analysts have since revised their forecasts higher in light of the combination of the change to methodology and further increases in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem confirmed the methodological changes at the same time as it announced it would update the price cap every three months rather than just twice a year.
This also led to criticism from fuel poverty campaigners.
Farnish is a former chair of Consumer Focus as well as a previous non-executive director at water regulator Ofwat.
READ MORE: Inflation reached 10.1 per cent in July as cost of living soars
SNP MSP Natalie Don said the decision showed how "out of touch this regulator has become".
She continued: "Ofgem don't seem to understand that a price cap is meant to limit prices not act as a tool for the naked profiteering that the energy companies are engaged in.
"The comment from the former director reflects how many people feel, that the regulator has put the self-interet of the energy companies well ahead of the interests of consumers.
"It is estimated that around one third of Scottish residents could find themselves in fuel poverty due to these excessive rises."
Don added that she "welcomed the resignation" as it would put more pressure on the UK Government to do more to protect energy consumers.
She added: "We need action now before more people fall into debt and face the awful choice between eating or heating.
"This fiasco merely higlights why Scotland needs the power of independence to protect everyone in energy-rich Scotland from the profiteering of energy companies."
An Ofgem spokesperson said: “Due to this unprecedented energy crisis, Ofgem is having to make some incredibly difficult decisions where carefully balanced trade-offs are being weighed up all the time.
“But we always prioritise consumers’ needs both in the immediate and long term.
“The rest of the board decided a shorter recovery period for energy costs was in the best interest of consumers in the long term by reducing the very real risk of suppliers going bust, which would heap yet more costs on to bills and add unnecessary worry and concern at an already very difficult time.”
Ofgem has faced criticism after dozens of smaller suppliers have shut down in the past 18 months, adding more costs to household bills linked to the transfer of their customers to other companies.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel