Mayor puts quick win ahead of major gains in Energy for Londoners
A delayed report into how ‘Energy for Londoners’ should be set up was finally published last night [1] ahead of Caroline Russell quizzing the Mayor today on why it was being held back.
Caroline has lobbied the Mayor for a not-for-profit energy supply company – that would be publicly owned – to rival the ‘rip-off’ prices of the big six.
However the Mayor’s feasibility report prized quick delivery over opportunities to create revenue, environmental considerations or investment in local energy generation.
The white label option chosen by the Mayor was rejected by Bristol and Nottingham, cities that both have publicly-owned energy companies. Manchester and Birmingham are also gearing up to run their own energy companies.
Caroline Russell says:
This is short-term thinking from the Mayor. The scope of the study was biased to prioritise quick delivery over other benefits. It also clearly shows that a fully-licensed company is the best option and provides the best deal for Londoners.
It’s disappointing the Mayor is considering using an existing energy company and branding it as his own. Other major cities have firmly rejected this for its obvious shortcomings.
A fully-licensed Mayoral energy company would make a real difference to Londoners, providing residents, schools, hospitals and businesses with affordable, low carbon energy.
In the short term white label is cheaper but the best long term benefits come from doing the job properly. His own study backs this up.
Notes to editors
[1] Energy for Londoners Feasibility Study, Sept 2017
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/energy_for_londoners_feasibility_study.pdf