The article is a little vague as to what this proposal might mean. It would seem that the idea is that the government should absorb the impact of some energy price increases at present but that the cost will be recovered when energy prices inevitably fall. At that time consumer prices will be maintained to repay money paid by the government now. In other words, the government will, in effect, provide a hedging mechanism to smooth consumer energy prices.
In principle, I have no problem with us. In practice, I do of course have an issue, which is that what this clearly implies is that the consumer energy market has completely failed and that as far as consumer pricing is concerned if such a scheme is to be put in place then government-regulated prices will be in operation into the foreseeable future, in which case the reason for private sector activity in the sector has to be questioned.
A problem caused by price fixing is to be solved by permanent price fixing. It’s as if he’s the perfect heat seeking missile for the wrong answer…..
“but that the cost will be recovered when energy prices inevitably fall. “
What?
It is Government policy, under Net Zero, to price electricity and gas beyond the reach of usage, thereby achieving Net Zero.
There is no reason to expect the price of energy to ever fall, and it is policy to ensure that it does not.
Lions, and heads on pikes, it’s the only answer.
I’m channelling my inner Crassus, so I’m feeling that crucifixion is the answer.
What Tim said.
That’s the coder, not the host, although I don’t think they’d disagree.
The man is deluded:
“Sorry, I sometimes just do not realise the scale of specialist knowledge I have that others do not share”
rotfl