Ofgem consultations

We asked for feedback on a new zero standing charge option within the energy price cap.

We received responses from 51 organisations, including 15 from suppliers, 28 from charities and consumer groups and 8 from industry bodies. There were also over 10,000 responses from organised consumer campaigns and over 250 individual consumer responses.

Respondents generally supported giving consumers more flexibility and control, with consumer groups especially valuing a zero standing charge option for low-usage households.

However, concerns were raised about adding complexity, implementation challenges, and the need for transparent, fair cost allocation. Suppliers emphasised financial risks and called for evidence-based tariff modelling to guide future decisions.

View our summary of responses (PDF, 240.4 KB) for more details about what organisations said in response to our consultation.

We are looking at introducing a requirement that energy suppliers must offer at least one lower standing charge offer. This should be available at all times and in all regions of the UK. It is subject to consultation and if implemented, the change would come into effect by January 2026.

We believe this approach will allow consumers to access more flexible and transparent pricing options quicker. It will also give suppliers the freedom to design tariffs that best meet their customers' needs.

Read about our next steps on the standing charges energy price cap variant.

We asked for views from stakeholders on our draft guidance about how AI should be used in Great Britain’s energy sector.  

Our consultation questions asked whether the: 

• existing regulatory framework is adequate to govern the use of AI 
• good practice guidance covering governance, risk approach and competencies is sufficient for the ethical adoption of AI 

We received responses from:  

• Cadent Gas  
• Cambridge Consultants  
• Ceimia  
• Centre for Net Zero  
• Centrica  
• Citizens Advice  
• Crackle Energy  
• DNV  
• EDF Energy  
• Electricity North West   
• Energy Systems Catapult  
• Energy UK  
• E.ON UK  
• Flexitricity   
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE)  
• IBM  
• Icebreaker One  
• Kraken Technologies  
• Lane Clark & Peacock  
• Microsoft UK  
• National Grid  
• Nemo Link   
• Northern Gas Networks  
• Northern Powergrid  
• Northumbria University  
• Octopus Energy  
• Ömer  
• OVO Energy  
• Scottish Power  
• Smart Energy Code (SEC) Panel Privacy Sub Committee  
• Siemens Energy  
• SGN (formerly Scotia Gas Networks)  
• SP Energy Networks  
• SSE plc  
• SSE Energy Services  
• Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN Transmission)  
• UK Power Networks  
• University of Bristol  
• University of Oxford  
• University of York  
• Urban Chain   
• Utility Customer Service Management (UCSM) 

There is broad support for the guidance and its outcomes-focused approach.  A minority of stakeholders provided critical constructive feedback. Some expressed views that less prescription was needed. Others said more specific responsibilities for regulated persons were required. 

Specific issues identified by these stakeholders included: 

• The AI definition is vague and can be interpreted to be inclusive of things which are not AI. 
• The positioning, clarity of scope and status of the guidance is uncertain and clashed with the intended outcomes focused and proportionate approach. 
• The suitability of the regulatory framework to deal with AI challenges. 
• Areas not explicitly covered by the guidance, for example, the responsibilities of third parties and non-licensees. 

We have fully addressed these issues by making appropriate revisions to the guidance. This ensures clarity around its purpose, scope and effect. 

We will keep the existing regulatory framework and this guidance under review. This will ensure our approach continues to meet the needs of regulating AI effectively in the energy sector. 

See our Ethical AI use in the energy sector guidance for details on good practice covering governance, risk approach and competencies for the ethical use of AI.

Read our policy page on the Ofgem website which outlines the steps we have taken in developing our regulatory approach to AI. 

We asked for views and feedback on:

• our definitions for authorised heat networks
• the processes for registration and authorisation application, the timescales and the information that will need to be provided
• our proposals for managing and reporting changes to authorised heat networks
• the data that authorised persons should report to us on a regular basis and the reporting process
• our overall approach to audit, compliance and enforcement of the consumer protection rules authorised persons will have to follow

We received 65 responses from a range of stakeholders including

• heat network operators
• industry representatives,
• charities
• housing providers
• property management companies
• billing agents

We have reviewed responses and considered stakeholder views. The decision document provides a summary of responses to each consultation question and a brief overview of our policy proposals.

We have decided to proceed with the overall approach proposed in the consultation including our approach to multiple operator heat networks, the registration and authorisation application processes, how changes to authorised heat networks will be managed and our approach to oversight, including monitoring requirements.

Our response outlines how we plan to take the proposals forward and the other publications that decisions will feed into. It indicates where we have made changes to our proposals, incorporating the feedback and evidence provided by stakeholders.

For policy areas that will be subject to further development and stakeholder engagement, we have indicated how this will be undertaken and signposted future consultations.

View our consultation decision (PDF, 581 KB).