I'd like to think that there's been a bit of a genuine change, and realisation that 'something must be done' (sorry for the dreadful cliché) for ordinary people and this is just one possible measure.

It's an interesting move (announcement). Successive governments have either been ideologically in hock to big business or scared of them – which is why I don't think it's been tackled although, IIRC, Cameron had floated some sort of idea on the issue a year or so ago. Yet even this morning, Miliband has hit back at the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688complaints from the energy companies[/url.

All rather unexpected.

The closest I've come to cheering a politician for as long as I can remember. It might well be too bold a move and the backlash might end up destroying him politically, but its better than giving up without any kind of fight.

One rather hopes that the the veiled threats from the energy companies might have a backlash – not least since they are, in many cases, foreign-owned, so you have an entire idea of furrin companies holding the country to ransom etc.

Doesn't make privatisation look any better either.

A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.

A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.

The thing is though that these foreign-owned companies are not in business to supply energy, they are in business to make money. That is their ultimate driving force.

If a freeze led to a situation where the cost of producing the energy is more than they can sell it for then it's highly probable that they would cease, or at least restrict, supply if that was the most economically benificial thing for them to do. Supplying energy is secondary to making (or not losing) money to them.

I'm not defending them for it and quite frankly they have manipulated prices for years through restricting supply but Miliband is playing a dangerous game talking about absolute freezes on prices. I don't see how he can make that work. I reckon we will eventually see a compromise where the energy companies margins are capped on a cost plus basis against wholesale market prices for a while. That's if Miliband ever gets into power of course.

Miliband was appointed in October 2008, I'd hazard a guess that there were other, far more pressing matters requiring government attention at the time. The energy companies have had plenty of time to offer more transparency in how they conduct their business, they have chosen to ignore them. Only now do they bleat about how unfair it all is

I'm still making my mind up about it all.
But I do recall reading some months back that, whilst the companies who sell us the energy aren't making huge profits, the companies they buy from (and largely own, IIRC) are really coining it in.
I need to read up on that.

Quote ="EHW"A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.'" The problem with competition is that it only works up to a certain scale of project. Once you get to a certain point, there are only a small number of suppliers and you play the game by their rules. That's why I'm applauding Milliband for trying to take the energy companies on even though its probably doomed to failure.

Quote ="EHW"A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.'" The problem with competition is that it only works up to a certain scale of project. Once you get to a certain point, there are only a small number of suppliers and you play the game by their rules. That's why I'm applauding Milliband for trying to take the energy companies on even though its probably doomed to failure.

not sure what you mean by that?

If you look on the price comparison sites, the smaller competitors in the market are regularly cheaper than the Big 6. Ecotricity (a 100% green/renewables energy supplier) have this week announced that they will shortly reduce their prices.

These companies need to be encouraged to be innovative and introduce new ideas, not restricted by more regulation and legislation.

Cross purposes I thought you meant increase competition for supply and distribution, not just the retail bit.

That has long been one of my bones of contention.

The only 'choice' we have with utilities is who to pay to.

We cannot, for instance, choose to buy soft water when in London. And when you see how energy companies have, in recent years, all put up prices at approximately the same time, by the same amount, you also see how little meaningful choice there is.

Also, as I've mentioned before, I dislike this business whereby it's the consumer's responsibility to be an expert in everything they buy – not least because you can no longer rely on customer service to be honest.

I've yet to be convinced that there is anything wrong with the idea that essentials such as power should be available to all at a fair rate that acknowledges the importance to the whole country of that product/service, and where any profit is then ploughed back into that product/service. Remarkably, in the last couple of years, even posters on the [iTelegraph[/i forums have started saying that privatisation of utilities 'hasn't worked'.

As has been said, part of the reason prices are high is the folly (largely under Labour) of building wind turbines via huge subsidy in order to prop up German (and Danish) manufacturers. Another example of Germany using the EU to its domestic advantage and an easy government sop to the deluded elements of the green lobby who seem to seriously believe that wind power is the answer to our energy needs. The whole thing is a bizarre joke at the expense of taxpayers and the countryside / seascape. Urban trendies f**king the country up - just as they do in every field.

[url=http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/ed-milibands-critics-think-his-energy-pledge-will-make-lights-go-out-they-are-wrongGood piece on the energy companies etc here.[/url

So we don't need greener and alternative energy?

I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better.

I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here:

"As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. In the USA in 2005 it was estimated that the monetary cost per unit of energy produced for new wind power installations would be similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powerLink[/url

Quote ="Mintball"I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better. I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here: "As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. '" That's all well and good until you look at electricity prices in the retail sector. May 2013's average market prices for the domestic consumer... Denmark 0.29525 € per kWh UK 0.17078 € per kWh www.energy.eu/ So yes the Danes may be producing more cleaner energy but they are paying 73% more than us for it. Which kind of defeats the object of Ed's policy really. Actually, looking at that data our electricity prices are pretty average for Europe, being 12th highest out of 28. For gas we are the 2nd lowest price in the whole of Europe with only Romania being cheaper.

Quote ="Mintball"I'd have thought that the more energy we can develop (more) cleanly the better. I'm no expert, but there's some interesting stuff here: "As of 2011, Denmark is generating more than a quarter of its electricity from wind and 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis. In 2010 wind energy production was over 2.5% of total worldwide electricity usage, and growing rapidly at more than 25% per annum. '" That's all well and good until you look at electricity prices in the retail sector. May 2013's average market prices for the domestic consumer... Denmark 0.29525 € per kWh UK 0.17078 € per kWh www.energy.eu/ So yes the Danes may be producing more cleaner energy but they are paying 73% more than us for it. Which kind of defeats the object of Ed's policy really. Actually, looking at that data our electricity prices are pretty average for Europe, being 12th highest out of 28. For gas we are the 2nd lowest price in the whole of Europe with only Romania being cheaper.

I'm bemused as to why renewable, clean energy should cost more?

Additionally: [url=http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-prices/ed-miliband-freeze-energy-prices-labour-conference-lab13/response from [iWhich?[/i[/url.

Some of it (not all) will be down to the fact that the infrastructure for delivering conventional energy is largely fully depreciated and has long since made a return on investment, where as the price of clean energy will incorporate a cost of the fairly recent substantial investments made to generate it.

Fair enough. But surely that means that the cost should fall over the coming years?

He must be doing something right given the foaming at the mouth front page of the Daily mail today

In theory yes, but what timescale "the coming years" reflects is obviously the key. It all depends on the expected time it takes for the initial investment to be recouped - might be 10, 20 even 50 years in some cases.

It was a bit, wasn't it?

A lot of the public response by the energy companies is kneejerk. But behind the scenes the energy companies, especially the foreign owned ones, will be carrying out a more sober assessment of Labour's policies. They're unlikely to conclude that investing in additional generating capacity in the UK is a more attractive proposition today than it was yesterday.

He could have gotten away with pledges to tighten up the regulatory system. The energy companies would still grumble, but as long as they know the rules of the game they can usually live with it and make sensible decisions.

Its the shock of the price fix that well send them running to the hills (or more accurately diverting investment to the rest of Europe). A decision to fix prices two years ahead, when nobody has any idea what the market conditions will be at that time, removes any stability from the industry. If they can announce a price fix now, what might they announce next?

The energy companies' response is typical of a bunch of robber barons, unused to having themselves held up to scrutiny. The city won't like it either, they'll have fewer opportunities to make money on swaps and short-selling. Well fook 'em, if they want to invest money, let them invest in embryonic companies, that may stand a chance of creating employment.

In the case of wind because you also need to build conventional power stations to generate electricty for the 75% of the time the wind is too weak or strong for the wind-turbines. Even when the wind blows there is relatively large capital investment per unit of production - each wiind turbine producing a piddling amount of electricity. Then there the problem that the wind may not blow when demand is their in the grid and that means if you are not to waste the dribbles you need to develop and invest in storage technologies. In short wind energy is not a viable way to keep our current economic system / infrastructure afloat.

The only immediately available green energy generators that could do that are nuclear fission reactors. They bring with them a degree of controvesy and potential strategic risk.