In the last 18 months I have had two occasions to write about our experience as electricity retail customers, to highlight the cavalier treatment by energy retailers of their customer base.
The first was about our experience when being switched from our agreed rate to a high-cost time of use tariff, without notification or consultation, after the installation of a smart meter.
See: Bill shock: Energy retailers have a nasty surprise with smart meters and time of use tariffs
The second was when our new electricity supplier at our new address jacked up the electricity tariffs by around 25 per cent, far more than what was warranted or recommended by the regulator. They did it because they could.
See A government owned retailer has just jacked up our electricity tariffs by 25 pct – because it can
There is no gas network in our area, so we were intrigued when we were advised by one prominent energy expert of their recent experience and we have agreed to publish their report anonymously, at their request.
As the author suggests, the energy transition depends on consumers gaining trust in their retailers. The retailers are not making that easy. This is their story.
Guessing and gaslighting
Social license appears to have become a (the?) major challenge to the energy transition. There are objections to transmission lines, resentment about the reduced value of rooftop solar exports, and low participation in virtual power plants (VPPs).
I frequently hear industry and government lament this resistance to the vision of engaged “prosumers” enthusiastically driving forward a green revolution.
Taking off my industry hat, recent personal experience of estimated gas bills has reminded me that retail relationships, and retail bills in particular, are where the social license of the sector is earnt or eroded.
A few months ago, with the arrival of winter, our gas retailer decided to err on the safe side – for them – and up their estimation of our gas usage by 400% (yes, that’s two zeros).
The first time this happened I was truly shocked. It had been cold and we’d conceivably used more gas, so I held counsel with my partner about how we could rationalise our usage.
Only a few days later did I clue on to the fact that usage had been estimated. After locating our gas meter, taking a reading, and entering it into the retailer’s website I was pleased and outraged in equal parts.
Instead of owing the retailer $354 we owed them $56. That’s five times less than they would have direct debited from our account, had I not known to read the meter myself.
Outrageous. But, with the turning of the seasons, I could imagine where the retailer’s algorithm may be coming from.
That this pattern was repeated (and even exaggerated) in the following two months is entirely inexcusable. It is the year of our AI-overlords 2025. The proverbial room full of monkeys tapping away at calculators or throwing excrement at a wall (bounded by floor and ceiling functions) would have made more accurate estimates.
If I were one of the thousands (millions?) of customers who aren’t reading their own meters to double check their bills, I would have paid $1033 in spurious charges in three short months.
This retailer runs a VPP. It’s fair to say that any chance of me ever consenting to them taking charge of my home battery or electric vehicle has shrunk to nil and – and this is the real issue – the chance I’d participate through another retailer isn’t much higher.
We are approaching the trickiest part of a vexedly complicated, all-pervasive energy transition that can only proceed with customer and citizen consent. Governments are spending billions to incentivise customers to invest in batteries and hand their operation over to retailers and their kin.
If the “customer-centric” retail experience stays like this, all of our best efforts throughout the sector will be for nought.
This article has been published anonymously at the request of the author. Renew Economy knows the author, and can vouch they are a prominent expert in the energy industry. We respect their wish for anonymity but feel it is worth publishing because of the gravity of the issues addressed.
