We asked, you said, we did

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.

We asked for views about our draft guidance for the National Energy System Operator (NESO) to produce future energy pathways. Our main questions were whether the guidance accurately reflected the decisions we had made on the changes to this work.

We were looking for responses from people and organisations who are currently using or will be using the Future Energy Pathways.

We received responses from:

• Energy & Utilities Alliance (EUA)
• Northern Gas Network
• Octopus Energy Group
• Intergen
• UKPN
• Energy UK
• Cadent Gas
• The Crown Estate
• ENWL
• Hydrogen UK
• SSE
• ESO
• EDF Energy
• WW Utilities
• ESB Generation and Trading
• National Gas Transmission (NGT)
• Northern Powergrid
• SGN
• SP Energy Networks (SPEN)
• RWE

The majority of responses agreed that we had accurately reflected our decision in the guidance. Most responses asked for more clarity in certain areas, particularly around:

• how the pathways will interact with the other NESO planning roles
• whether regional pathways were still needed in this process
• how distribution level, and gas data, will be incorporated in the future

Where we were given permission, we’ve published the responses we received.

We have decided to amend the guidance in line with positions laid out in the responses,  mainly a number of minor changes to add clarity. We have made three more substantial changes to:

• drop the requirement for the Future Energy Pathways to produce regional pathways, which will now be done as part of the regional planning work that NESO is undertaking
• require that NESO explain in its Future Energy Pathways publication exactly how the future energy pathways work interacts with its other planning responsibilities
• require NESO to explore with stakeholders how, and over what timescale, this work can include more distribution level and gas network information

See our decision document (PDF, 181.9 KB) and tracked changes (PDF, 197.7 KB) for more details on what we have changed in the final guidance, and why.

Read our notice of direction for the Future Energy Pathways guidance (PDF, 86.1 KB).

View the latest version of the Future Energy Pathways guidance on the Ofgem website.