Energy and Environment Retail market

  • Which? briefing - Price to Beat: achieving a balance between competition and consumer protection in the retail energy market (PDF: 335Kb)
    13 May 2015

    Which? has called on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to explore options for implementing a Price to Beat, as part of its inquiry into the energy sector. Which? believes that consumers need a credible, independent benchmark against which to compare prices. This paper sets out the continuing barriers to consumer engagement and explores a number of options for implementing a Price to Beat.

  • Which? response - Ofgem consultation on Third Party Intermediaries - exploration of market issues and options (PDF: 283Kb)
    16 August 2013

    Which? welcomes Ofgem's TPIs work stream and the exploration of different regulatory options for the sector. It is clear that a framework is needed to ensure that consumers are protected, to give greater clarity for TPIs and create parameters for growth.

  • Which? Response - Statutory consultation on Ofgem's RMR domestic proposals (PDF: 258Kb)
    23 July 2013

    Whilst there is much to welcome in Ofgem's RMR proposals, such as simplifying bills and improving the switching process, Which? continues to support the introduction of a single unit price (SUP).

  • Which? Response - Ofgem consultation on creating the right environment for demand-side response (PDF: 286Kb)
    12 July 2013

    Which? supports Ofgem's approach to look across the whole supply chain. However we believe that the current market arrangements must work for consumers first. DSR offers must then be designed for consumers, with robust protections in place.

  • Which? Response - Ofgem's RMR domestic proposals (PDF: 282Kb)
    21 December 2012

    Ofgem’s RMR proposals and the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to ensure consumers get the ‘lowest tariff’ contain a serious risk of allowing competition to remain weak. By going a little further and implementing recommendations 1-6 from our report, The Imbalance of Power, Ofgem can resolve some of the practical issues with delivering the current proposals and deliver a framework that enables consumers to play their role driving effective competition that keeps prices in check for everyone.

  • The Imbalance of Power - Which? Report (PDF: 4334Kb)
    20 December 2012

    A Which? report, The Imbalance of Power, lays bare the full extent to which the retail energy market is failing consumers.

  • Ofgem's Retail Market Review: Domestic proposals - Which? Response (PDF: 428Kb)
    23 February 2012

    Which? agrees with many of the proposals in the RMR. However, we do not believe that Ofgem’s proposals for tariff reform go far enough in promoting the objective of a simple energy market that benefits all consumers, and not just a minority of well-informed and well-resourced engaged consumers.

  • Retail Market Review (RMR): Findings and initial proposals - Which? Response (PDF: 397Kb)
    01 June 2011

    Which? welcomed Ofgem’s proposals to simplify tariffs and improve access to the market for smaller suppliers. However, the Review neither sets out what a well-functioning market would actually look like, nor what might happen if consumers do not respond effectively to Ofgem’s interventions.

  • Second Reading of the Energy Bill - Which? Briefing (PDF: 520Kb)
    06 May 2011

    Which? argued that the Energy Bill must be improved to protect consumers. The Green Deal must include safeguards against mis-selling and a redress mechanism. Which? also wants tariffs to be clearer and the smart meter roll-out to be subject to an independent code of practice.

  • Proposed modification of standard license condition - Which? Response (PDF: 97Kb)
    18 January 2011

    Which? supported the proposal that gas and electricity customers should be given at least 30 calendar days prior notice before price increases come into effect so they have time to switch suppliers. Which? outlined its concerns about the information contained in the notification and the form it will take.

  • Terrible energy tariffs - Which? Briefing (PDF: 42Kb)
    10 November 2010

    Which? research showed that consumers are confused by the number of energy tariffs available. In advance of the 2010 Energy Bill, Which? called for energy suppliers to be required to have minimum standards for tariffs and an itemised summary box on all marketing materials.

  • Amendments to license condition - Which? Response (PDF: 74Kb)
    21 July 2009

    The proposed revisions to the marketing, information and notification of price changes licence conditions and implementation timeframe of these did not go far enough to address the findings identified in the Probe and protect future consumers.

  • Review of 65 working day notice period for energy price changes - Which? Response (PDF: 57Kb)
    06 March 2009

    Which? argued that current arrangements were unbalanced in favour of energy suppliers and consumers should have adequate advance notification to allow them to shop around and switch.

  • Review of debt blocking arrangements - Which? Response (PDF: 57Kb)
    19 February 2009

    Set out general concerns with the lack of clarity of the ultimate objectives of debt blocking arrangements, and the rationale and evidence base for the proposals.

  • Addressing unfair price differentials - Which? Response (PDF: 56Kb)
    23 February 2009

    Questioned why Ofgem had not used the Competition Act (1998) to address unfair pricing differentials, the rationale for the enforcement and sun-set clause proposals.

  • Energy supply probe: Initial findings - Which? Response (PDF: 279Kb)
    01 December 2008

    Welcomed the assessment of UK energy markets failing consumers, due to poor transparency and inadequate information by energy suppliers; supported many of the remedies and hope for a rapid reform of the UK energy markets.

  • Merger of EDF and British Energy - Which? Response (PDF: 98Kb)
    19 November 2008

    Stated that the merger of EDF SA with British Energy plc. was incompatible with the common market and would significantly impede effective competition, requiring remedies.


PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader software.