Energy firms failing poorer consumers

The “big six” energy suppliers have been exposed in an official Government report as paying far less than expected towards a high-profile drive to help Britain’s poorest households.
The scheme, the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP), sets carbon reduction targets for the companies with the aim of cutting fuel bills for low-income households and reducing their emissions.
Suppliers, currently under scrutiny for sharp rises in their bills, and power generators were expected to contribute hundreds of millions of pounds towards installing energy-saving measures, such as insulation.
However, the total financial contribution from the energy companies has been “far lower than anticipated”, an independent report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change found.
The plan was that the energy companies would meet more than 80pc of the cost of CESP, estimated at £377m when it launched. Local authorities, community groups and customers able to pay for the measures were supposed to shoulder the remainder of the cost. However, these partners told the report’s authors that energy companies contribute as little as 10pc of direct costs.
In just three of 11 case study schemes examined did the energy companies contribute 65pc or more of the cost. In one scheme the contribution was 45pc; in six others it ranged between 20pc and 31pc and in the last it was just 10pc. One of the energy companies, which was not named in the report, admitted that its normal contribution was around 15pc to 30pc.
The landlords also complained that they normally met the costs of extra work often needed on top of the direct cost of the measures, further increasing their financial burden.
The report’s authors said that the “competitive” nature of CESP, which encourages energy companies to meet their obligations in the cheapest way possible, might be responsible, as the companies went for partners who would share more costs.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association hit out at energy companies, saying that they were allowed to “dictate terms and cherry-pick homes which are easy to improve, leaving vulnerable families out in the cold”.(telegraph)