What on earth is going on with the massive Bulb bailout? | Nils Pratley

£4.6bn is an eye-watering amount for consumers to stump up – transparency from the government is long overdue

The most startling number in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic outlook last week – aside from the gloomy big-picture forecasts – was found in a one-sentence footnote on page nine. “The total cost of the Bulb Energy bailout has reached £6.5bn, with £4.6bn of that in 2022-23 included in the autumn statement,” it stated baldly.

Let those figures sink in. Since March, when the OBR forecast that nationalisation of the bust energy supplier would cost £2.2bn, the figure has increased by the equivalent of almost £3,000 for each of Bulb’s 1.5m customers. As one energy trader puts it, even under the April-to-September price cap of £1,971 and even with high wholesale prices, it ought it be almost impossible for Bulb to clock up losses of that size during the low seasonal period for consumption.

What happened? What explains the £6.5bn figure? How has the government, via its special administrator Teneo, managed Bulb?

We have half an answer to the last question: at administration in November 2021, the government did not put hedging contracts in place at Bulb to cover its purchase of energy for customers. The company was left to buy on the spot market. Kwasi Kwarteng, then business secretary, told the business select committee in May that hedging is “very risky”, that “you’re taking a bet” and “the Treasury rightly doesn’t think that’s the business of what the taxpayer should be doing”.

Kwarteng’s logic was bizarre in many ways. First, hedging isn’t like taking a bet – it’s about obtaining certainty over prices. Second, Bulb failed in part because its hedges were inadequate. Third, Ofgem, the regulator, requires regular non-nationalised companies to hedge. Fourth, as the select committee pointed out in its final report, the Treasury document cited by Kwarteng, called Managing Public Money, allows public-sector bodies to use hedging instruments provided they give value for money.

But Kwarteng’s testimony still doesn’t explain how £2.2bn in March could become £6.5bn by November. In recent weeks, as near-term gas prices have fallen with a warm European autumn, an unhedged operation might even be making a profit, think traders.

There are two main theories. First, a benign one: there’s something odd in the OBR’s calculations. Could the watchdog be using out-of-date data on gas prices? Or, more plausibly, does the key to the mystery lie within the sale agreement with Octopus? If the government has agreed to lend, say, £2bn to allow the pending new owner to make energy purchases, perhaps that is classed as a full liability even when there is a reasonable prospect that the whole sum will be recovered. The business department has partly encouraged that thought by telling the FT that the OBR does not have full visibility on the Octopus deal.

But there is also a more alarming theory. Is it possible that the government, in preparation for a sale of Bulb, performed a policy U-turn and started to put hedging contracts in place in July and August? If so, its timing would have been terrible – it would have been locking in expensive purchases.

Both explanations are speculative, it should be stressed, because the OBR hasn’t broken down its £6.5bn calculation, merely saying the cost of the intervention has increased “essentially because it lasted for more months than was factored into the March forecast”. But the onus is really on the government to explain. Instead, we have a bizarre situation where the business department disputes the £6.5bn figure but refuses to reveal the terms of the Octopus deal, despite ongoing legal attempts by rival suppliers to force disclosure.

A fortnight ago, this column argued that there was no excuse for the secrecy around the terms of the Octopus transfer. That view is only reinforced by the OBR’s number, which is way beyond analysts’ previous estimates. If it describes a likely cash cost, the full story of the government’s approach to managing Bulb should be disclosed. Nationalisation was never going to be cost-free, but did the business department under Kwarteng, for example, at any point request approval from the Treasury, under the chancellorship of Rishi Sunak at the time, to adopt a hedging strategy? And was Ofgem ever asked for advice on hedging?

Instead of facts, we have had only unsupported boasts from Grant Shapps, today’s business secretary, about how the sale to Octopus represents value for money for the public purse. Come on: the loss from Bulb is due to be shoved on to consumers’ energy bills eventually. If £6.5bn is correct, that’s more than £200 per household. These sums are too big to be dismissed without explanation in a footnote. Transparency is long overdue.

Contributor

Nils Pratley

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Kwarteng’s latest ‘we’re listening’ messaging fails to reduce credibility gap | Nils Pratley
Worryingly, gilt yields are rising again and another potential cliff-edge moment comes on Friday

Nils Pratley

10, Oct, 2022 @6:40 PM

Article image
UK borrows almost twice as much as expected in August
Figure of £11.8bn comes as high inflation drives interest payments to a record for the month

Julia Kollewe

21, Sep, 2022 @7:42 AM

Article image
OBR forecasts likely to show £60bn-£70bn hole after Kwarteng’s mini-budget
Predictions handed to chancellor expected to paint gloomy picture for UK economy amid sweeping tax cuts

Richard Partington Economics correspondent

07, Oct, 2022 @5:20 PM

Article image
Meltdown averted – but risk of repeat is obvious question Bank needs to answer | Nils Pratley
BoE has spelt out what was at stake when events last week turned extreme, though surely not unimaginable

Nils Pratley

06, Oct, 2022 @6:56 PM

Article image
Unfunded tax cuts mean UK ‘will need £60bn spending cuts’
IFS says Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget will leave ministers making serious reductions in public services

Phillip Inman

10, Oct, 2022 @11:01 PM

Article image
In 2022 Liz Truss tried to bin economic orthodoxy – but what is it?
Rishi Sunak soon rowed back from his predecessor’s chaotic experiment, reasserting the seven pillars of UK Treasury wisdom

Larry Elliott Economics editor

27, Dec, 2022 @3:00 PM

Article image
Why OBR forecast is being held back until Kwarteng’s next fiscal plan
Huge policy changes are needed to get UK back on track – so early publication would give an incomplete picture

Richard Partington

30, Sep, 2022 @6:03 PM

Article image
Kwasi Kwarteng to launch debt-cutting plan on 31 October
Chancellor will also bring forward publication of OBR forecasts after pressure from MPs

Richard Partington Economics correspondent

10, Oct, 2022 @9:20 AM

Article image
As the Bulb fiasco shows, hoping for the best is not good strategy | Nils Pratley
The mistake of not hedging the takeover of the firm from the outset says a lot about the UK’s approach to energy security

Nils Pratley

22, Aug, 2022 @5:49 PM

Article image
Silencing mini-budget analysis will not help Truss woo the markets
Government needs independent verification of policies if it is to win vital finance sector confidence

Nils Pratley

21, Sep, 2022 @6:28 PM