As Islington Council launches London’s first not-for-profit energy company Caroline Russell says the Mayor has ‘missed out’ on becoming London’s energy supplier.
Angelic Energy offers customers and alternative to the ‘big six’ and savings of up to £277 a year on gas and electricity bills by buying energy from Robin Hood Energy Ltd – a fully-licensed company owned by Nottingham City Council.
Caroline Russell has argued that the Mayor of London should set up a fully-licensed energy supply company like Robin Hood Energy Ltd, or Bristol Energy, instead of a white label option which the Mayor favours in his draft Environment Strategy. [1]
Caroline Russell says:
Islington are doing a good thing but it’s a shame that they’ve had to go to Nottingham to buy the energy. I’ve been urging the Mayor of London to set up a fully licenced energy supply company for the whole of London so that boroughs could buy their energy from him.
This would mean all the profits would be invested for the good of Londoners while helping them stay warm and keeping on top of their bills.
It would also provide a massive opportunity to reinvest in generating more renewable energy.
Notes to editors
[1] The Mayor’s feasibility study into different energy models showed his decision is based on the speed of delivery over revenue generation opportunities, energy efficiency; environment ambitions and local generation investment. Although he does not rule out a fully-licensed company in the future.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/energy_for_londoners_feasibility_study.pdf
Mayor of London’s answer to Caroline Russell’s question.
Energy for Londoners - fully licensed energy supply company
Question No: 2017/3960
Caroline Russell
The Energy for Londoners feasibility study, published September 2017 says "The main advantage of fully licensed supply over the other two options is that EfL would have complete independence, able to capture the full value of customer energy spend for regional reinvestment, set tariffs contracts and product terms, install smart meters, and purchase power from local generation. It offers the greatest scope for creating local skilled jobs, and as the traditional route to market for an entrant, it is also the most proven path with the greatest level of support and experience from consultants and service providers.
For this reason, fully licensed supply offers EfL greater flexibility and greater revenue compared to White Label Plus."
Given the clear benefits of a fully licensed energy supply company, will you reconsider your preference for a White Label option in your draft Environment Strategy?
Written response from the Mayor
The independent feasibility study evaluation of routes to market (page 16, table 1.4) shows that my desired environmental and fuel poverty outcomes for Energy for Londoners can be delivered equally effectively under both a white label plus and a fully licensed route.
However, a fully licensed supply route would not deliver my goals as quickly and would take at least 9-15 months longer than a white label plus to set up. Discussions with stakeholders have supported these conclusions.
With more than 335,000 London households living in fuel poverty, we cannot delay action. A quicker way of delivering fairer energy bills for Londoners is to tender for the delivery of an energy supply company by partnering with an existing supplier that shares our aims. Partnering with an existing supplier would also expose the GLA to significantly less risk, both financial and regulatory, at a time when the market is changing rapidly.
I do not however rule out the option of transitioning to a fully licensed supply company in the future.