Agenda item - Your Energy Sussex Energy Tariff

Report of Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing (copy attached).

(1)      That the report be deferred and brought back to the next meeting with responses to the questions asked by members, to ensure that the committee have a robust and ethical report that can be supported to residents alongside other providers.

68.1   The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing which provided an update on the Your Energy Sussex (YES) partnership, led by West Sussex County Council, which planned to establish a local energy tariff scheme to deliver a set of low cost, high value energy tariffs to residents and businesses across the Sussex area. YES was a local authority partnership open to 15 Sussex local authorities working with residents, businesses and other partners to promote energy saving and renewable energy. The council is an affiliate member of the partnership. Members were asked to support the promotion of the scheme to residents in the city through existing communications networks. The report was presented by the Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager.

68.2   Councillor Wealls provided examples from his own energy company which demonstrated that there were cheaper tariffs available than those proposed by the report. He asked why the proposed scheme was considered a good deal.

68.3   The Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager explained that there was no guarantee that the scheme would offer the cheapest tariff available. There had been some analysis carried out in November 2017 where there was a comparison with the big six energy suppliers. Robin Hood did have cheaper tariffs than those energy suppliers.  The data suggested that the majority of people who do not switch or very rarely switch would be more likely to have their energy supplied by the big six suppliers. In terms of promoting the scheme there would not be any guarantees that it would be the cheapest price and if people found that there was a cheaper tariff elsewhere the council would encourage them to take the cheapest tariff. The aim of the scheme was to promote switching. The council could not procure an energy partner that could guarantee being the cheapest energy supplier at any one time.

68.4   Councillor Wealls stressed that there was a huge difference in the prices of Robin Hood tariffs and the tariffs of his own energy company. He would find it difficult to support a recommendation that the council support Robin Hood Energy as a provider when there were tariffs in the market that were 20% to 25% cheaper. 

68.5   Councillor Druitt expressed concern that there might be a conflict of interest in the council white labelling Robin Hood Energy. This particular deal which would have the council’s name attached to it was not necessarily the best deal for residents. He asked if the council would be encouraging people to take up the Robin Hood tariff even if it was not the best deal for them. If that was the case that would contradict the fuel poverty alleviation ambitions of the council. He asked for clarity about whether the council stood to gain anything from people taking up the tariff.   Meanwhile, the council’s website stated that Carillion were the council’s partner. Councillor Druitt assumed that Robin Hood Energy had replaced Carillion.

68.6   The Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager explained that the council would not advise anyone to switch to the Your Energy Sussex tariff if there were cheaper tariffs available. Someone who received advice through the SHINE project would have the benefit of an advisor who would help to find the best deal for the individual, which might be the cheapest tariff or one of the cheaper tariffs for a longer period of time on a fixed deal. The proposed scheme was a more generalised offer that would be promoted on the basis of it being competitive and offering good customer service.  Carillion were procured by West Sussex County Council a few years ago to deliver what was going to be a green deal offer across Sussex. This deal ground to a halt and did not happen. West Sussex had used them on individual projects such as building solar farms. They have had no involvement in the energy tariff scheme.

68.7   Councillor Moonan stated that it was a concern that there were many people in the city who did not have the wherewithal or the information to know that they could change their tariffs. This was something the council should address as part of bringing people out of fuel poverty. Councillor Moonan was pleased that the council would be looking at voids as people moving into a property could inherit the past provider. She was concerned that the Warm Homes Discount was not included and asked what impact that might have on residents. Another area of concern was that it appeared that any surpluses were placed in a pot which was shared out through a Partnership Board. Councillor Moonan asked about the representation of the Board. She was concerned that Brighton & Hove as a large unitary authority with a high level of deprivation would only get one vote on the Board.

68.8   The Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager explained that the Warm Homes Discount was an obligation on energy supply companies over a certain size. Robin Hood Energy had not reached that level yet but they had made it clear that they wanted to offer the Warm Homes Discount at some point in the future. Officers could update members if there was any progress.  The council needed to be clear in any publicity that if people were eligible for the Warm Homes Discount they might get cheaper energy costs with a company that did offer the discount. Meanwhile, the council would have representatives on the panel considering the allocation of the Fuel Poverty Fund. There would be some flexibility about how the allocation would be made across the different authority areas and also some recognition of those areas that have the greatest uptake. 

68.9   Councillor Bell concurred with comments made by Councillor Wealls and would not support the scheme. He noted that Housing Services were recommending Brighton & Hove Energy Services Co-operative and wanted to know why there appeared to be different schemes being promoted.

68.10  The Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager explained that Brighton & Hove Energy Services Co-operative carried out a lot of work in the city, some of which had been funded by the council to run energy advice desks. They did not supply energy. There would not be a conflict in working with both organisations. 

68.11  Councillor Hill noted the concerns expressed that at any given time these tariffs might not be the cheapest. However, there was an advantage in having a company that may not be cheapest at all times but over time had been seen to be consistent and good value. The scheme would not be recommended to someone if they could be paying less on a different tariff. One of the advantages of having the Robin Hood tariff was the void switching. She stressed it would be good to get residents off pre-payment meters. She concurred with Councillor Moonan with regard to the Warm Homes Discount. She welcomed the Fuel Poverty Fund but shared concern on how much money would come back to the city. Councillor Hill questioned the wording of recommendation 2.2 which appeared to suggest the council would support the promotion of this scheme whereas the officer had stated that the intention was for the council to communicate the benefits of the scheme alongside other schemes.  

68.12  The Housing Sustainability & Affordable Warmth Manager explained that the Warm Homes Discount and voids, would be something that officers would consider in the voids process. He stressed that if a void is switched then the new tenant can switch to a new energy supplier the day after they move in. Officers would want to make them aware of the eligibility of the Warm Homes Discount and it was hoped it would eventually be offered through the scheme.  

68.13  Councillor Druitt shared Councillor Weall’s concern but acknowledged that Councillor Moonan and Councillor Hill had made valid arguments.  He considered the idea to be very good as it would enable the council to encourage people to move away from the big six suppliers and off coin meters, increase people’s awareness, and the majority of the time would most likely result in people being better off. However his concern was that some of the time vulnerable tenants would be misled by the fact that it had the council branding and would assume that the council was recommending it as the best deal. He proposed that that the committee defer a decision on the report to the next meeting in order for officers to carry out an analysis of the long term cost benefit of this tariff against the rest of the market. 

68.14  Councillor Atkinson expressed concern at recommendation 2.2. where the wording suggested promotion of the scheme.  He would prefer it to say it was raising awareness of the scheme.

68.15  The Chair agreed that the report be should be deferred and brought back to the next meeting with responses to the questions raised.

68.16  RESOLVED:-

(1)      That the report be deferred and brought back to the next meeting with responses to the questions asked by members, to ensure that the committee have a robust and ethical report that can be supported to residents alongside other providers.