Recommendations & Conclusions
16 items
2
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Ofgem’s failure to ensure that energy suppliers were financially resilient resulted in costs to energy consumers and taxpayers when these energy companies failed. To encourage new suppliers into the market and encourage price competition and innovation, Ofgem took a ‘low bar’ approach to licencing new retail energy suppliers. Between 2010 …
Read more
Ofgem’s failure to ensure that energy suppliers were financially resilient resulted in costs to energy consumers and taxpayers when these energy companies failed. To encourage new suppliers into the market and encourage price competition and innovation, Ofgem took a ‘low bar’ approach to licencing new retail energy suppliers. Between 2010 and May 2022, at least 73 new energy suppliers entered the market. However, over the same period, at least 65 suppliers exited the market. Between July 2021 and May 2022, 29 energy suppliers (including Bulb) failed, affecting nearly four million households. This has resulted in an estimated cost of £2.7 billion to use the SoLR process to transfer customers over to new energy suppliers, in addition to the estimated cost of £3.02 billion of taxpayer funding for placing Bulb in SAR and supporting its wholesale energy requirements up until 31 March 2023. Government expects to recover £2.96 billion of the taxpayer funding for the Bulb process from Octopus in September 2024. If Octopus repays the £2.96 billion in full, the government will be left with an estimated shortfall of £246 million (including a charge for accrued interest) which the government expects to recover from energy consumers. Ofgem asserts that it has introduced measures to test the financial resilience of energy suppliers and the standard of service they provide more effectively, and that these will apply to all suppliers in future. Ofgem considers 6 Bulb Energy that monitoring and assessing the financial and operational resilience of suppliers is the best means to address the risk of supplier failure and hence reduce the burden on taxpayers and energy consumers. But this needs to be balanced with the need to promote healthy competition between suppliers. Recommendation 2: By the end of the year, Ofgem and the Department should write to the Committee, setting out the steps they are taking to promote healthy competition in the energy market while only granting licences t
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that Ofgem has implemented a package of measures since 2021 to strengthen supplier financial resilience, including customer credit balance ringfencing and capital adequacy requirements taking effect by Q1 2025. Ofgem is also undertaking a Non-Domestic Market Review and published a statutory consultation …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
We are concerned that substantive risks and uncertainties remain to the recovery of the £3.02 billion of taxpayer funds currently committed to the funding of Bulb Energy. The government provided a package of temporary taxpayer funding to enable Octopus to complete the acquisition of Bulb via the Energy Transfer Scheme. …
Read more
We are concerned that substantive risks and uncertainties remain to the recovery of the £3.02 billion of taxpayer funds currently committed to the funding of Bulb Energy. The government provided a package of temporary taxpayer funding to enable Octopus to complete the acquisition of Bulb via the Energy Transfer Scheme. Octopus is required to repay the taxpayer funding along with the accompanying interest applied to it. Teneo’s most recent estimate is that Octopus is expected to repay £2.8 billion to the government by September 2024. But this could be deferred to September 2025 if wholesale energy market conditions worsen. Prior to the government’s approval of the Energy Transfer Scheme, Ofgem identified risks around Octopus’s low levels of investor support and its over-reliance on customer credit balances for cash to fund its businesses activities. Octopus’s financial risks were difficult to assess as a result of its rapid growth which had left the business in a weaker financial position compared to other large suppliers. To mitigate these risks and to protect the taxpayer from potential loss of value from its investment, Bulb has been placed in a legal ringfence within the Octopus group until taxpayer funding is repaid. The final amount to be repaid, and therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, will not be known until the SAR ends. Recommendation 3a: Within 12 months, the Department should write to the Committee with details of what lessons it has learnt from the SAR and how it is using these to monitor and ensure the successful recovery of temporary taxpayer funding. b) At the conclusion of the Bulb SAR, the Department should write to the Committee with details of the final cost to the taxpayer, including how much has been repaid by Octopus and any shortfall that it plans to recover from consumers.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and clarifies that the Bulb Special Administration Regime (SAR) will conclude in autumn 2025 or 2026, when final costs and repayment details will be known. The department commits to providing a written update on estimated outturns and timelines by the end of …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
HM Treasury, the Department and Ofgem’s preparedness for the failure of a major energy supplier like Bulb, did not include the full range of activities needed to oversee a Special Administration Regime (SAR). Between 2018 and 2021, HM Treasury, Ofgem and the Department tested various scenarios to understand how a …
Read more
HM Treasury, the Department and Ofgem’s preparedness for the failure of a major energy supplier like Bulb, did not include the full range of activities needed to oversee a Special Administration Regime (SAR). Between 2018 and 2021, HM Treasury, Ofgem and the Department tested various scenarios to understand how a SAR might work in practice if a major supplier failed. However, this scenario testing and the subsequent guidance and templates focused on starting a SAR and the immediate steps needed to appoint a special administrator. They did not extend to some of the later stages of running a SAR, such as the energy purchasing strategy or how to structure and run the sale process. The Department did not anticipate that volatile energy prices, or uncertainty arising from new regulations being proposed by the Department and Ofgem in response to supplier failures, would result in low interest from potential buyers. This led to the sale process taking 10 Bulb Energy 7 months to complete, longer than originally intended. The SAR achieved its primary objective of ensuring the continuity of energy supply to Bulb’s customers. However, as only the initial stages of the SAR were rehearsed, some of the risks and issues encountered during the SAR were unforeseen. The government and administrator recognise the importance of detailed planning in the event of a future SAR to enable all those involved to better understand the potential risks and how to mitigate them and allow decisions to be taken quickly. Recommendation 4: By the end of 2023, the Department and Ofgem should update their procedures for handling a supplier failure to ensure that they cover the entirety of the SAR process. This should clearly outline the key decision points during the SAR, the energy purchasing strategy, the sale process and exiting the SAR.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that DESNZ, Ofgem, and stakeholders have developed and tested comprehensive governance arrangements and planning materials for managing large energy supplier failures, including a joint SAR handbook, an MoU, and regular wargaming exercises. This planning covers the entire SAR lifecycle, including exit.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Recommendation
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Government’s approach to managing financial risks posed by fluctuations in energy prices does not adequately take into account recommended practice for privately financed energy suppliers operating in the sector. Ofgem requires energy suppliers to adopt an energy forward purchasing strategy, meaning they are required to have an energy price hedge …
Read more
Government’s approach to managing financial risks posed by fluctuations in energy prices does not adequately take into account recommended practice for privately financed energy suppliers operating in the sector. Ofgem requires energy suppliers to adopt an energy forward purchasing strategy, meaning they are required to have an energy price hedge in place to reduce the risk and impact of rising energy prices. Hedging is an energy purchasing strategy where energy suppliers contractually agree with a wholesale supplier or financial institution to purchase gas or electricity from the wholesale energy market for a specified price on a fixed future date. Suppliers buy energy in advance to match the expected demand of their customers. Energy suppliers that failed were insufficiently hedged or lacked access to funding for the collateral needed by their wholesale energy providers to 8 Bulb Energy maintain the contracts for the advance purchase of energy. HM Treasury’s guidance on Managing Public Money advises minimal use of hedging for government. But it does not contain guidance relating to situations where the government has intervened to provide taxpayer support to a private company, where following the public sector approach to hedging would make it stand out from the practice recommended by Ofgem and applied by competitors in the same market. This could risk having a negative impact on the wider energy market. HM Treasury accepts that in such circumstances, a pragmatic approach is required, and that minimal hedging is permitted where necessary. Recommendation 6: In the next 12 months, HM Treasury should set out what information Accounting Officers should consider in making commercial decisions about companies that have been taken into the public sector from a sector where the accepted market practice involves the use of hedging or forward purchasing agreements. Bulb Energy 9 1 Government financial support to Bulb Energy Limited
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation, stating that entities classified to central government are bound by existing guidance in 'Managing Public Money', and for public corporations, hedging is considered on a case-by-case basis, with guidance continuing to discourage hedging due to cost.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (the Department) and HM Treasury on Bulb Energy.1 We also took evidence from Octopus Energy Group Limited (Octopus), Ofgem and one of the three appointed special …
Read more
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (the Department) and HM Treasury on Bulb Energy.1 We also took evidence from Octopus Energy Group Limited (Octopus), Ofgem and one of the three appointed special administrators from Teneo Financial Advisory Limited (special administrators also referred to as Teneo throughout this report). Transfer of Bulb into SAR and eventual sale to Octopus
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government, misinterpreting the introductory conclusion as a recommendation, states that the 'recommendation is implemented' and describes various existing and ongoing government schemes like the Energy Price Guarantee, cost-of-living payments, and the Warm Home Discount, to support households with energy costs.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
In October 2022, Ofgem reviewed the proposed sale deal to assess whether Octopus had suitable financial and operational capabilities to ensure consumers’ interests were protected. As part of its review, Ofgem concluded that there was a risk that Octopus’s systems and processes were not robust enough to handle the scale …
Read more
In October 2022, Ofgem reviewed the proposed sale deal to assess whether Octopus had suitable financial and operational capabilities to ensure consumers’ interests were protected. As part of its review, Ofgem concluded that there was a risk that Octopus’s systems and processes were not robust enough to handle the scale of new customers. It also identified risks around Octopus’s low levels of investor support and rapid growth which had meant that it had a weaker financial position compared with other large suppliers. It concluded that while Octopus could manage the operational risks identified, the financial risks were more difficult to assess. We therefore asked Ofgem whether it had sufficient information on the financial suitability of Octopus. Ofgem told us that it had examined key areas of the Octopus business, including whether the company could cope with the operational changes of taking on Bulb, such as having sufficient capacity within its systems and processes to handle the scale of the new customers. Ofgem told us that it still had questions about whether Octopus could cope operationally but said that it was subject to ongoing monitoring. Ofgem told us that while the sale posed some risks, its view was that there would inevitably be risks with almost any transaction within the current energy market. It explained that it was continuing to monitor the financial performance of the company and Octopus’s progress to be in a more financially resilient position, and that “we are satisfied with what we are seeing”.13 We similarly asked Octopus how it would ensure that the temporary taxpayer funding was repaid and the risks surrounding this. Octopus told us that the ringfencing of Bulb meant that any profit and cash generated would remain in Bulb. Octopus also explained that, in the event of any losses and Bulb needing funding, it was for the Octopus Energy Group to fund it. We asked Octopus how the wider Octopus Energy Group was performing. Octopus responded that i
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and confirms that Ofgem has implemented a package of measures since 2021 to strengthen supplier financial resilience and improve the retail energy market, including capital adequacy requirements from Q1 2025, and that Ofgem and DESNZ will continue to …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Between 2018 and 2021, the Department, HM treasury and Ofgem tested various scenarios for the failure of a large energy supplier to identify how a SAR might work in practice. We therefore asked what lessons they had learned from this experience.18 The Department told us that it reviewed annually its …
Read more
Between 2018 and 2021, the Department, HM treasury and Ofgem tested various scenarios for the failure of a large energy supplier to identify how a SAR might work in practice. We therefore asked what lessons they had learned from this experience.18 The Department told us that it reviewed annually its plans in the event of a SAR, and that questions surrounding resourcing and preparedness were part of these reviews.19 The Department explained that the last rehearsal took place in the summer of 2021, and was undertaken jointly with HM Treasury and Ofgem, and that this covered the point of supplier failure, the decisions around what to do, and all the approvals and funding arrangements that would need to be put in place to enable a SAR to actually be initiated successfully.20 The NAO found, however, that this scenario testing and the subsequent guidance and templates focused on starting a SAR and the immediate steps needed to appoint a special administrator. They did not extend to some of the later stages of running a SAR, such as the energy purchasing strategy or how to structure and run the sale process.21 HM Treasury told us that while there was a lot of positive work undertaken to prepare for the SAR, “a plan never matches with the reality”. It explained that there were a few things that were different to what it had expected or planned for, including the large number of small supplier failures in the summer before Bulb collapsed, which affected the capacity of the market to absorb the customers coming through the SoLR process. It also told us that there were particular problems around hedging and residual assets which it had not foreseen.22
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and confirms that comprehensive governance arrangements and planning materials, including a SAR handbook, MoU, call-off panel, appointed administrators, and regular wargaming exercises, are already in place and regularly tested to ensure preparedness for a large energy supplier failure.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
We asked Teneo to explain what lessons could be learned from the SAR process. Teneo told us there were two main lessons, the first of which was around the importance of planning at an early stage. It explained that this included planning even before the appointment of the special administrators …
Read more
We asked Teneo to explain what lessons could be learned from the SAR process. Teneo told us there were two main lessons, the first of which was around the importance of planning at an early stage. It explained that this included planning even before the appointment of the special administrators to identify what needed to be taken control of and stabilised, and how. It explained that this planning should be undertaken by all those invovled in the special administration, and from its perspective would involve undertaking operational planning at a granular level to ensure that the potential risks and how to mitigate them were understood from the very start of the SAR. Teneo also told us that the second key lesson was around the importance of collaboration and keeping all involved parties up to date (including the relevant Departments, the regulator, and the administrator) on the strategy for the implementation of the SAR. It explained that this would allow decisions to be made and views taken quickly.23 Ofgem told us that planning and collaboration were also key lessons from the SAR. In addition, it explained that the major lesson it had learnt from the SAR was the importance of having a corporate structure 18 Qq 52, 67, 72; C&AG’s Report para 1.6 19 Q 73 20 Qq 72, 73 21 C&AG’s Report, para 1.6, Figure 9 22 Qq 18, 73, 119 23 Qq 48–49, 51 14 Bulb Energy set up within energy companies that would allow the administrator access to everything needed to be able to make sure that the company could be run and financially managed properly. It told us that it was working to introduce this through new regulations.24
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation on lessons learned from the SAR process, noting that 'lesson learned' activities were undertaken in 2022 and 2023 to shape ongoing preparations, and that lessons will continue to be consolidated into contingency planning, with a benefits analysis to …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
The government has an obligation to ensure continuity of energy supply to customers in the event of an energy supplier failure. We asked Ofgem what it had learned from recent supplier failures and whether it had reviewed the mechanisms in place for protecting energy customers. Ofgem told us that it …
Read more
The government has an obligation to ensure continuity of energy supply to customers in the event of an energy supplier failure. We asked Ofgem what it had learned from recent supplier failures and whether it had reviewed the mechanisms in place for protecting energy customers. Ofgem told us that it kept the default process, the SoLR, under regular review and that the primary issue it saw with the process was the delay in transferring customers from the failed supplier to the new supplier. It explained that issues such as the resolution of any billing of financial issues, or the resolution of service concerned, became more difficult during this transition period, so it planned to establish clearer milestones up front with companies to make sure that happened more smoothly.25 We similarly asked whether the SAR process led to a lower cost for consumers overall than the SoLR process and, if so, did this mean that it needed to review and improve the SoLR process. HM Treasury told us that the easiest way to ensure continuity of supply to customers was via a SoLR rather than the SAR. The Department told us that while the SAR looked attractive, superficially, it actually left the state and the taxpayer financially exposed during the administration process. It explained that the SoLR process was more efficient and quicker where, at its best, there can be competition so that the loss to the consumer is minimised as much as possible, because there is value in customer books.26 Managing financial risks during the SAR - Hedging
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation, stating that Ofgem has already implemented a package of measures since 2021 to strengthen supplier financial resilience and improve the retail energy market, including SoLR payment adjustments and new capital adequacy requirements from Q1 2025, with continued monitoring.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Hedging is an energy purchasing strategy where energy suppliers contractually agree with a wholesale supplier or financial institution to purchase gas or electricity from the wholesale energy market for a specified price on a fixed future date. Suppliers buy energy in advance to match the expected demand of their customers.27 …
Read more
Hedging is an energy purchasing strategy where energy suppliers contractually agree with a wholesale supplier or financial institution to purchase gas or electricity from the wholesale energy market for a specified price on a fixed future date. Suppliers buy energy in advance to match the expected demand of their customers.27 Ofgem and HM Treasury told us that energy suppliers that failed were found to have hedged insufficiently or lacked access to funding for the collateral needed to provide a letter of credit to their creditors or wholesale energy providers to maintain the contracts for the advance purchase of energy.28 We asked Ofgem about the advice it provided to the Department and Teneo on adopting a partial hedging strategy when purchasing wholesale energy for Bulb’s customers. Ofgem explained that it would expect a “normal, prudently run” energy company to be using hedging as part of its energy purchasing. Ofgem explained that the advice it issued was from a commercial perspective and within its remit as the regulator for the energy sector.29
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and clarifies that, for future reclassified public sector companies, existing Managing Public Money guidance on hedging will apply. For public corporations, hedging will be considered case-by-case, but the guidance will continue to suggest it usually does not represent …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
16
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
The government directed Teneo to make minimal use of hedging when purchasing energy for Bulb’s customers, except when operational and market conditions required it. During the SAR, Teneo purchased its energy using a combination of day-ahead and week- ahead purchases. We asked HM Treasury if it would use the same …
Read more
The government directed Teneo to make minimal use of hedging when purchasing energy for Bulb’s customers, except when operational and market conditions required it. During the SAR, Teneo purchased its energy using a combination of day-ahead and week- ahead purchases. We asked HM Treasury if it would use the same approach to hedging if a SAR was needed for a failed supplier in the future or if it would look to make any changes. HM Treasury clarified that Managing Public Money did not prohibit the use of hedging and recognised that hedging may be appropriate under specific circumstances. HM Treasury 24 Q 52 25 Qq 18, 113 26 Q 115; C&AG’s Report, para 4 27 C&AG’s Report, Glossary 28 Qq 43, 95 29 Q 43 Bulb Energy 15 told us that the difference in approaches between private and public sector on hedging was based on the recognition that hedging was a form of insurance provided by a private sector provider which would need to generate a commercial return. Given that the cost of raising capital is lower for government than that of a private sector provider, it asserted that it was generally poor value for money for government to use such agreements.30 The Department told us that this strategy would be different from what other companies in the market would be doing, for example, companies would be using hedging to buy energy three months ahead or longer.31 HM Treasury recognised that a pragmatic approach was needed, and in the case of Bulb during the SAR, 50% of electricity and 70% of the gas requirement for Bulb was hedged using week-ahead agreements.32 The NAO report found that in November 2021, Ofgem advised the Department that Bulb should adopt at least a partial hedging strategy. This was based on Ofgem’s concerns that Bulb’s purchasing strategy would be considerably different from other energy firms, who would have used hedging to buy forward the majority of their energy further in advance and would only need to buy extra energy on the day-ahead market to respond to c
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and states that, for future reclassified public sector companies, existing Managing Public Money guidance on hedging will apply. For public corporations, hedging will be considered case-by-case, but the guidance will continue to suggest it usually does not represent …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Octopus was the only bidder for Bulb energy during the sale process. Ofgem told us that this was in part due the unhedged position of Bulb, meaning it did not have any contractual arrangements with a wholesale energy supplier to purchase energy in advance. It explained that the lack of …
Read more
Octopus was the only bidder for Bulb energy during the sale process. Ofgem told us that this was in part due the unhedged position of Bulb, meaning it did not have any contractual arrangements with a wholesale energy supplier to purchase energy in advance. It explained that the lack of hedging, combined with the volatile high energy prices, made Bulb unattractive to bidders especially since some suppliers were experiencing difficulties in accessing appropriate long-term arrangements to develop a full hedge for Bulb.35 These factors contributed to the sale process taking 10 months to complete.36 We asked Teneo if it thought that there would have been more bidders if Bulb’s hedging position were different. Teneo told us that all the bidders knew of Bulb’s unhedged position and that the government was open to addressing it as part of a purchase deal. Octopus told us that the transaction to purchase Bulb was difficult due to Bulb being unhedged, but that the administrators (Teneo) were open to suggestions about ways in which it could construct a transaction, that enabled it to take the business out of administration. Octopus also told us that to limit the risks posed by the unhedged Bulb, it constructed a deal that would limit the company’s exposure to the cost of buying energy as it would have been very expensive and not possible to fill a hedge in one go.37 Corporate finance and insolvency expertise in government
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation, highlighting that Ofgem has implemented measures since 2021 to strengthen supplier financial resilience and improve the retail energy market, including capital adequacy requirements from Q1 2025. Additionally, it states that future public sector entities will follow existing Managing …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
This was the first time a SAR had been used and so we asked the Department and HM Treasury whether they had the skills and experience necessary to successfully deliver the SAR at the outset of the process. The Department told us that despite the exercises and war-gaming to prepare …
Read more
This was the first time a SAR had been used and so we asked the Department and HM Treasury whether they had the skills and experience necessary to successfully deliver the SAR at the outset of the process. The Department told us that despite the exercises and war-gaming to prepare for the SAR, the process was “highly novel, complex, first of 30 Qq 86, 94–95; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.16, 2.19 31 Q 95 32 Q 86; C&AG’s Report, para 2.19 33 C&AG’s Report, para 2.15 34 Q 99 35 Qq 24, 89; C&AG’s Report, para 2.10, Figure 9, Glossary 36 C&AG’s Report, para 12, 3.2 37 Qq 24, 27, 29, 31 16 Bulb Energy a kind” which meant that it needed expert advice.38 By 31 January 2023, the Department had spent £53 million in fees for professional advice relating to the SAR process for Bulb. Of this, the Department spent £49.9 million on Teneo’s fees and £2.8 million on its own advisers. Teneo told us that it expected its fees to be £60 million by the end of the SAR, and this was part of the costs for the SAR reflected in the NAO report. We therefore asked the Department whether, with hindsight, there were areas where it could have saved money on fees or where it had potentially overpaid.39 The Department told us that it scrutinised the fees being charged by Teneo carefully, and that it hired another professional advisory firm to help with the review of these fees. We asked whether it had been possible to benchmark the fees. The Department and HM Treasury told us it was aware that the legal fees it had paid were below commercial rates, but that there was no simple reference class they could use, but that it would take this away as a point to consider. They also told us that the that Teneo had a legal obligation to the High Court to keep costs reasonable and as fair as possible.40
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observations, stating that UKGI and HM Treasury will review the Government Corporate Finance Profession's forward plan by Autumn 2024 to raise awareness of specialist skills across government for supplier failure scenarios, alongside the Profession's ongoing work to develop technical …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Recommendation
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
The Department told us that it was continuously developing its in-house skills in areas such as insolvency and restructuring. HM Treasury told us that every department needed to have corporate finance and insolvency expertise and that it had seen an increase in the levels of corporate finance work being undertaken …
Read more
The Department told us that it was continuously developing its in-house skills in areas such as insolvency and restructuring. HM Treasury told us that every department needed to have corporate finance and insolvency expertise and that it had seen an increase in the levels of corporate finance work being undertaken by government in the last two years. In its view, all of these activities were an important part of continuing to build capability. HM Treasury also told us that it was working to have more collaboration between it and UKGI to train civil servants in corporate finance and to offer them qualifications so that they are better able to deal with these types of activities.41 The upskilling and training of staff across the Civil Service in corporate finance is led by UKGI through the Government Corporate Finance Profession whose purpose is to promote skills development, knowledge sharing, networking, collaboration and career development in corporate finance and governance.42 HM Treasury explained that it, the Department and UKGI sat on the Bulb Operating Board which allowed it to benefit from the expertise of UKGI, which they brought in to help with difficult things such as intercreditor disputes and how to structure a deal to protect taxpayers’ money. HM Treasury further explained that UKGI had a highly impressive and specialised set of talent that provides advice which allowed a Department to be an intelligent customer.43 38 Qq 63, 64, 78 39 Qq 23, 78; C&AG’s Report Figure 3 40 Qq 78, 79, 82 41 Qq 64, 69, 70 42 Q 70; About us - Government Corporate Finance Profession - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 43 Qq 69, 70 Bulb Energy 17 3 Wider energy market and impact The financial resilience of the energy market
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepted the recommendation, stating that UKGI and HM Treasury will review the Government Corporate Finance Profession’s forward plan by Autumn 2024 to raise awareness of specialist skills and continue to update knowledge-sharing tools.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
20
Recommendation
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
Between July 2021 and May 2022, 29 energy suppliers, including Bulb energy, failed in large part due to lack of financial resilience during periods of market volatility. We asked Ofgem whether the failure of Bulb meant that the energy market was not working as intended, and what could have been …
Read more
Between July 2021 and May 2022, 29 energy suppliers, including Bulb energy, failed in large part due to lack of financial resilience during periods of market volatility. We asked Ofgem whether the failure of Bulb meant that the energy market was not working as intended, and what could have been done to prevent the worst of the damage caused. Ofgem recognised that the energy market had been under “enormous stress” both domestically and internationally, with energy prices being 15 times what they were in August 2022 which had resulted in interventions across Europe. However, Ofgem suggested that the need for interventions may have been mitigated if there had been better financial regulation of energy companies in place. Ofgem told us it was developing a new system that would provide assurance that the retail energy sector was in a much stronger place. Meanwhile, Ofgem told us that energy companies were required to manage their risks through hedging against the price cap. The NAO report highlighted that this helps energy companies manage any risks from increasing wholesale energy prices. It also explained that it was monitoring the financial resilience of energy suppliers through the use of stress testing in which energy suppliers were financially assessed based on how the company would manage under different energy pricing scenarios. Ofgem also told us that it considered that ensuring suppliers were financially resilient remained the best way to prevent future mass energy supplier collapses.44
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepted the recommendation, stating it is already implementing a package of measures, including new capital adequacy requirements from Q1 2025, to strengthen the energy retail market's financial resilience and protect consumers.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Conclusion
Seventy-Fourth Report - Bulb Energy
Accepted
To follow on from Ofgem’s new monitoring of financial resilience of energy suppliers, we asked if it was looking to provide other new regulations, such as ringfencing customer credit balances. Ofgem told us that it had decided not to require energy companies to ringfence customer credit balances, but that it …
Read more
To follow on from Ofgem’s new monitoring of financial resilience of energy suppliers, we asked if it was looking to provide other new regulations, such as ringfencing customer credit balances. Ofgem told us that it had decided not to require energy companies to ringfence customer credit balances, but that it had introduced ringfencing for the renewable levies and obligations as that was money that energy suppliers collected and passed back to government as part the relevant schemes. Ofgem told us that it was considering how to implement a new regulatory requirement to protect assets that related to hedging contracts when suppliers fail, as these assets were currently the subject of creditor claims from providers of finance, rather than being retained for customers’ benefit. Ofgem explained that protecting these residual hedges would help offset the cost of SoLR when customers are transferred to another energy supplier.45 Failure of the energy market and government interventions
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and states that Ofgem has already implemented a package of measures since 2021 to strengthen supplier financial resilience. These include SoLR payment adjustments, credit balance ringfencing in certain circumstances, and capital adequacy requirements taking effect from Q1 2025, …
Read full response →
HM Treasury