At an Energy and Climate Change select committee (ECCC) hearing, GB Energy Supply chief executive Luke Watson said he is “staggered at the course of the action” and that he sees it as “going against the grain” compared to a number of the CMA’s other remedies and what it is trying to achieve in rebuilding trust in the sector and increasing customer engagement.
He added that they may end up not showing the cheapest deals to consumers and that they “are becoming marketing companies”.
ECCC chair Angus MacNeil shared this view, and when grilling CMA chair of the energy market investigation panel Roger Witcomb, said that PCWs should therefore be renamed as “price advertising agencies” and that the move risks “eroding consumer trust” event further.
He stated that removing the whole of market requirement will result in consumers not getting the best possible deals from the PCWs, with more expensive tariffs from energy suppliers able to afford the marketing being displayed.
MacNeil then told Witcomb: “I am surprised that after two years of this work, it is the customer who could be disadvantaged. For many, switching may have been better off if the CMA did nothing.”
Witcomb defended the CMA’s remedy, saying “no other sector has a whole of market requirement” and this move is bringing the energy sector back in line with these other industries.
He added that the move is necessary because the whole of market requirement means the commercial PCW model is “not sustainable” and would see them leave the market, harming customer engagement and switching levels.