New Ofgem report for environmental programmes is grossly misleading
Good Energy is bewildered at having been given the ‘worst’ score among suppliers for environmental programme compliance by Ofgem. A result of fundamental flaws with the scoring and a punishment for diligence.
Today Ofgem has published its supplier performance report for environmental programmes. Good Energy has been given the worst score for non-compliance, with a total of 48 purely on the Feed in-Tariff (FiT).
As a company that has always been an advocate for greater transparency in the energy market, we are infuriated that the report has been scored this way. There are several flaws with the report’s scoring —
- It is not adjusted for customer numbers. Good Energy has one of the largest FiT customer bases of all suppliers with over 150,000, but 15 errors among 15 customers is scored the same as 15 in 150,000. We have taken the liberty of assessing what the table for faults on FiT administration might look like if they were on a ‘per 10,000 customers’ basis below. These figures are based on assumptions and working back from available data — we know how many FiT customers we have, but not exactly how many other suppliers have. We also have not included the other supplier names, as it is not our role to do so. But Ofgem does have this data so could produce an accurate version of this table, on which suffice to say we perform significantly better.
- The method incentivises bad behaviour. A supplier which has high standards and looks to report mistakes in the data it holds — as Good Energy does — will receive higher marks for non-compliance than those that don’t bother. Meaning that data is potentially not updated and will leave consumers confused, and with a false impression of actual performance.
- There is no proportionality. All incidents are scored according to their severity. However, Ofgem has given the same scores to minor administrative errors on the one hand, and on the other, missed payments totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds, for which the consumer could end up paying. Nobody would equate these clearly disparate transgressions, but looking at the report, it’s hard to tell the difference.
- The combination of the schemes into one report compounds the lack of proportionality. Many suppliers in the market have been reported to have not paid their Renewable Obligations or share of the Feed-in Tariff. Good Energy not only emphatically pays its renewable obligations and share of FiT, it goes above and beyond those obligations in working directly with many renewable generators across the UK. Yet the report implies we have a poor record on this somehow.
We responded to a consultation on the report last year and were very clear about its fundamental flaws.
Good Energy was the first 100% renewable electricity supplier in the UK, created the blueprint for the Feed-in Tariff, and is rated by Which? to have the highest green rating of any energy supplier. It is frankly ludicrous that Ofgem’s scoring should suggest we are the poorest performer for its environmental and social programmes.
We would also point out that in Ofgem’s own independent audit of our FiT administration service, we are one of very few suppliers to have consistently received the highest rating, with the latest issue of this report available here. So this new report contradicts Ofgem’s own prior assessment.
We will be contacting Ofgem to demand they change this hugely misleading approach, which risks the reputation of a company that was created 20 years ago to tackle climate change, and has done more to support renewables than any other.
| Supplier | Faults per 10,000 customers |
| 1 | 20,000 |
| 2 | 10,769 |
| 3 | 9,143 |
| 4 | 3,333 |
| 5 | 778 |
| 6 | 107 |
| 7 | 103 |
| 8 | 68 |
| 9 | 34 |
| 10 | 15 |
| 11 | 24 |
| 12 | 6 |
| 13 | 15 |
| 14 | 11 |
| 15 | 10 |
| 16 | 10 |
| 17 | 7 |
| 18 | 4 |
| 19. Good Energy | 4 |
| 20 | 4 |
| 21 | 4 |
| 22 | 4 |
| 23 | 3 |
| 24 | 3 |
| 25 | 2 |
| 26 | 1 |
| 27 | 0 |
| 28 | – |
