IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/2051.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The CMA’s assessment of customer detriment in the UK retail energy market

Author

Listed:
  • Littlechild, S.

Abstract

In 2016, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found that “weak customer response” enabled incumbent UK energy retailers to set higher and discriminatory prices to residential customers. The CMA estimated the associated higher prices constituted a customer detriment in the range £1.4 bn to £2 bn per year. Although the CMA recommended against a price cap on most domestic energy tariffs, the size of the detriment and public concern about “rip-off energy tariffs” nonetheless led the Government to impose a price cap as from January 2019. This paper examines the CMA’s calculation of customer detriment and suggests that it is inconsistent with CMA Guidelines and unprecedented with respect to its nature, magnitude and policy impact. Alternative more realistic calculations suggest that any detriment would have been nearly an order of magnitude lower, so that a price cap was inappropriate. This raises a number of questions about the CMA’s approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Littlechild, S., 2020. "The CMA’s assessment of customer detriment in the UK retail energy market," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2051, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:2051
    Note: sl304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe2051.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agustin J. Ros, 2020. "Does electricity competition work for residential consumers? Evidence from demand models for default and competitive residential electricity services," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-32, August.
    2. Xiaoping He & David Reiner, 2018. "Consumer Engagement in Energy Markets: The Role of Information and Knowledge," Working Papers EPRG 1835, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    3. Stephen Littlechild, 2020. "The CMA’s assessment of customer detriment in the UK retail energy market," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 203-230, June.
    4. Baldwin, Robert & Cave, Martin & Lodge, Martin, 2011. "Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199576098.
    5. Kenneth S. Corts, 1998. "Third-Degree Price Discrimination in Oligopoly: All-Out Competition and Strategic Commitment," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 306-323, Summer.
    6. Ali Hortaçsu & Seyed Ali Madanizadeh & Steven L. Puller, 2017. "Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 192-226, November.
    7. Greg Shaffer & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Pay to Switch or Pay to Stay: Preference‐Based Price Discrimination in Markets with Switching Costs," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 397-424, June.
    8. Ek, Kristina & Söderholm, Patrik, 2008. "Households' switching behavior between electricity suppliers in Sweden," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 254-261, December.
    9. Brennan, Timothy J., 2007. "Consumer preference not to choose: Methodological and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1616-1627, March.
    10. Long, William F & Ravenscraft, David J, 1984. "The Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 494-500, June.
    11. Defeuilley, Christophe, 2009. "Retail competition in electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 377-386, February.
    12. Stephen Littlechild, 2014. "The competition assessment framework for the retail energy sector: some concerns about the proposed interpretation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1426, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Miguel Flores and Catherine Waddams Price, 2018. "The Role of Attitudes and Marketing in Consumer Behaviours in the British Retail Electricity Market," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    14. Fisher, Franklin M & McGowan, John J, 1983. "On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monopoly Profits," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 82-97, March.
    15. Chris Harris, 2015. "Peak Load and Capacity Pricing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-37092-1, December.
    16. Stephen Littlechild, 2019. "Promoting competition and protecting customers? Regulation of the GB retail energy market 2008–2016," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 107-139, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amenta, Carlo & Aronica, Martina & Stagnaro, Carlo, 2022. "Is more competition better? Retail electricity prices and switching rates in the European Union," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Stephen Littlechild, 2020. "The CMA’s assessment of customer detriment in the UK retail energy market," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 203-230, June.
    3. Haar, Lawrence, 2021. "The competitive disadvantages facing British assetless electricity retailers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Stephen Littlechild, 2021. "The challenge of removing a mistaken price cap," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 391-415, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Mel, S. & Munshi, K. & Reiche, S. & Sabourian, H., 2020. "Herding in Quality Assessment: An Application to Organ Transplantation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2052, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Esplin, Ryan & Davis, Ben & Rai, Alan & Nelson, Tim, 2020. "The impacts of price regulation on price dispersion in Australia's retail electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Esplin, Ryan & Best, Rohan & Scranton, Jessica & Chai, Andreas, 2022. "Who pays the loyalty tax? The relationship between socioeconomic status and switching in Australia's retail electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    4. Littlechild, Stephen, 2018. "Competition, regulation and price controls in the GB retail energy market," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 59-69.
    5. Calzada, Joan & García-Mariñoso, Begoña & Suárez, David, 2023. "Do telecommunications prices depend on consumer engagement?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Erdogan, Murside Rabia & Camgoz, Selin Metin & Karan, Mehmet Baha & Berument, M. Hakan, 2022. "The switching behavior of large-scale electricity consumers in The Turkish electricity retail market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    7. Xiaoping He & David Reiner, 2018. "Consumer Engagement in Energy Markets: The Role of Information and Knowledge," Working Papers EPRG 1835, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    8. Nogata, Daisuke, 2022. "Determinants of household switching between natural gas suppliers: Evidence from Japan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    9. Simshauser, Paul, 2018. "Price discrimination and the modes of failure in deregulated retail electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 54-70.
    10. Ziegler, Andreas, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences and the individual change to alternative electricity contracts," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Stephen Littlechild, 2019. "Promoting competition and protecting customers? Regulation of the GB retail energy market 2008–2016," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 107-139, April.
    12. Feldhaus, Christoph & Lingens, Jörg & Löschel, Andreas & Zunker, Gerald, 2022. "Encouraging consumer activity through automatic switching of the electricity contract - A field experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    13. Andreas Ziegler, 2018. "Heterogeneous preferences and the individual change to alternative electricity contracts," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201827, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    14. Stephen Littlechild, 2021. "The challenge of removing a mistaken price cap," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 391-415, October.
    15. Walter Beckert & Paolo Siciliani, 2022. "Protecting Sticky Consumers in Essential Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 61(3), pages 247-278, November.
    16. Tsai, Chen-Hao & Tsai, Yi-Lin, 2018. "Competitive retail electricity market under continuous price regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 274-287.
    17. Walter Beckert & Paolo Siciliani, 2021. "Protecting sticky consumers in essential markets," IFS Working Papers W21/10, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    18. Huisman, Hester M. & de Haan, Evert & Mulder, Machiel & Wieringa, Jaap E., 2024. "The combined effect of regulators’ and retailers’ actions to stimulate consumer participation in retail energy markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Nava, Consuelo Rubina, 2019. "Switching behavior in the Italian electricity retail market: Logistic and mixed effect Bayesian estimations of consumer choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 339-351.
    20. Haar, Lawrence, 2021. "The competitive disadvantages facing British assetless electricity retailers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    retail energy markets; market power; efficient costs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • L95 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Gas Utilities; Pipelines; Water Utilities
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:2051. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.