It's a funny thing, isn't it? How we often define something not by its inherent qualities, but by what it's not, or what it's compared to. The very notion of a 'standard' is, in essence, a comparison. Without something to measure against, a benchmark, a reference point, how would we even know what 'standard' means?
I was recently looking at some correspondence about reforming the energy market, and it struck me how central this idea of comparison was. The goal, as stated, was to "encourage and equip customers to engage effectively so that they can get the best deal." But how do you get the best deal if you don't have a baseline to compare it to? The 'standard tariff' in this context, it seems, was meant to be that very baseline. Yet, the discussion quickly revealed the complexities.
One of the key concerns raised was about simpler tariffs. The idea was to make it easier for people to switch, to find a better deal. But the worry was that by simplifying too much, by perhaps limiting the number of tariff types, you might actually stifle innovation and reduce the potential savings. If there are fewer 'special offers' or smaller differences between deals, then even if more people could switch, the incentive might diminish. It’s a bit like saying we’ll make all cars the same colour to make choosing easier, but then people might not bother buying a new car at all if there’s no exciting new shade to tempt them.
Then there's the idea of fixed-term discounted tariffs. These are essentially offers where you get a lower price for a set period, compared to the supplier's usual rate. The argument against prohibiting them was that they clearly benefit the customer by offering a cheaper price, at least for a while. It’s a direct comparison: this price is lower than the standard. Why penalize an offer that makes customers unequivocally better off, even if it's for a limited time? It’s like saying you can’t offer a sale on a product because it’s only a temporary discount from the regular price.
Information, too, needs a standard for comparison. Clearer, more consistent information is vital for customers to engage. But the proposals for this information were sometimes so prescriptive, so text-heavy, that they risked becoming counterproductive. The goal was clarity, but the execution could have led to confusion. It’s like giving someone a manual that’s so dense, you need a degree to understand it – hardly helpful for engagement.
And the 'market cheapest deal' pilot? That one really made me pause. The idea was for suppliers to alert customers to rival cheaper prices. But as the commentary pointed out, in a truly competitive market, companies don't typically do that. They don't act as their own comparison sites. It’s a distortion of natural market behaviour, and the standard we should perhaps be aiming for is one that replicates fully competitive markets, not one that artificially creates intermediaries.
Ultimately, the 'standard' isn't just a fixed point; it's a dynamic concept. It's the yardstick against which we measure progress, innovation, and fairness. And as these discussions show, defining that standard, and ensuring it truly serves its purpose without unintended consequences, is a complex, ongoing conversation.
