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We asked for views from stakeholders on our draft guidance about how AI should be used in Great Britain’s energy sector.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 to help us update the Consumer Vulnerability Strategy.

We received 67 responses, which broadly supported our proposed themes and outcomes.

There were some suggestions for more specificity, clarity and scope of certain outcomes. For example, some respondents said we should include financial vulnerability in the definition of vulnerability. However, most agreed that other work should be prioritised over updating the definition.

The aims of our proposed annual supplier presentations were also generally welcomed. However, there were concerns about the potential regulatory burden and duplication of existing work. Some suggested other ways to meet our objectives in increasing transparency and accountability.

We also received responses which offered support or suggestions on individual workplans such as the Priority Services Register, debt and affordability, consumer confidence, and innovation.

We’ve published the responses we received, apart from those that were marked as confidential.

After considering the responses, we:

• made some minor wording changes to the outcomes to add clarity;
• set out reasoning for retaining the current vulnerability definition;
• adapted our proposal to engage with suppliers annually.

See our response summary (PDF 206 KB) for more details on what we have changed and why.