Energy firms pay £8m in penalties after attending some gas leaks late
Three gas distribution companies are paying a combined £8 million in penalties after failing to attend some gas emergency reports on time.
Regulator Ofgem said Cadent Gas, Scotland Gas Networks and Southern Gas Networks have voluntarily agreed to pay the funds after missing their targets between 2022 and 2023.
Ofgem's rules require companies which manage the gas network to attend reports of suspected gas leaks within one or two hours, depending on the incident, in 97% of cases.
Southern Gas Networks will pay £5.8 million, Cadent will pay £1.5 million and Scotland Gas Networks will pay £700,000.
The cash will go into Ofgem's voluntary redress fund, which provides money for projects that support vulnerable energy consumers.
Cathryn Scott, director of market oversight and enforcement at Ofgem, said: 'The potential risk to households and businesses if gas leaks aren't investigated quickly is significant, so it's right that the companies involved have acknowledged the seriousness of missing these targets.
'We're confident the companies have improved their systems and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again and have demonstrated their commitment to this by meeting their targets in the two years since the breach.'
Ofgem said it opened an investigation into the three companies after they self-reported missing their targets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
A buzzard named Brenda has caused a school playground ban
A buzzard named Brenda has been causing a bit of chaos in the village of Havering-atte-Bower, in bird of prey has been spotted swooping down at people - so children at the nearby local primary school have been told they cannot play outside while the bird is RSPCA thinks that Brenda's behaviour could be because she is protecting a nest or are one of the most common birds of prey in the UK, and are a protected species under UK law, meaning that the options on what to do about Brenda "are very limited" according to the local council. Havering Council said its health and safety team has given "detailed advice to the academy trust which looks after the school", including things they can do to safely deter Brenda from swooping at people, including hiring a falconry expert who understands the bird's school's Head Teacher Stella McCarthy told the BBC they were trying to figure out a way to allow children to play outside where possible, including taking pupils to a nearby school for outdoor play and finding a different location for sports day."We had to think about how to risk assess this... it's quite an unusual situation, having to risk assess a buzzard," she said. After accepting that "there was nothing we could do" to remove the bird of prey, the school decided to embrace her instead."The children named the bird Brenda and put out posters for protecting Brenda and looking after her... they've been writing stories, reports; next week they'll be doing newspaper articles, they've done artwork."As part of their learning, they even had a bird of prey expert visit the school - bringing with him a Chilean blue buzzard eagle called Ross Hicking said: "Guido (can) help educate the children about what Brenda the buzzard is dong, why she's behaving like this, the natural habits of buzzards, to foster interest in birds of prey and also to teach them about conservation and what we can do to protect birds of prey in the wild."He also said that, while "99% of the time" buzzards would avoid people due to fear, Brenda's swooping could be connected with the nesting also said that living in an area near to people meant that "she's a lot more comfortable around people and lot less fearful than most buzzards would be."
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Northumbrian Water to pay out £15.7m after sewage and water network failings
Northumbrian Water has agreed to pay out £15.7 million after failures in the maintenance and operations of its sewage and water network. Water sector regulator Ofwat said the firm will pay out the 'enforcement package' to local environmental causes and improvements to the region's water infrastructure. Bosses at the watchdog said its failures led to 'excessive spills from storm overflows'. It comes a week after Thames Water was fined a record £122.7 million after it was found to have broken rules over sewage treatment and paying out dividends. Ofwat said the enforcement package is 'greater than the penalty which would otherwise have been imposed' if it had fined the business. It also said the package agreed with the company means it will be spent on local improvements for customers, rather than being directed to the Treasury's consolidated fund. Northumbrian Water chief executive Heidi Mottram said: 'We agree with Ofwat's announcement that the financial settlement will be directed into speeding up our storm overflow reduction plans and in meaningful local initiatives via our Branch Out fund. 'This investment, which will come entirely from Northumbrian Water shareholders and will not be paid for by customers' bills, will enhance our ongoing efforts to support local communities and protect and improve the natural environment here in the North East.' Lynn Parker, senior director for enforcement at Ofwat, said: 'Our investigation has found failures in how Northumbrian Water has operated and maintained some of its sewage works and networks, which has resulted in excessive spills from storm overflows. 'The contraventions we have found at some of their sites will have had an impact on the local environment and customers and it is unacceptable. 'We are pleased that Northumbrian Water has agreed this package. 'We now expect them to move at pace to correct the issues our investigation has identified. 'We hope more companies will follow this example so that the public sees transformative change across the sector.' Northumbrian Water said in December last year that it plans to increase its average water bills by around 21% over the next five years.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Enough is enough. Let Thames Water go bust
There comes a point in every corporate disaster when enough is enough and the plug has to be pulled. One such is Thames Water, which has sailed rudderless from one mishap to the next for over a decade now, with still no resolution in sight. Surprise, the latest hope of salvation – £4bn of new equity from the US private equity outfit KKR – has failed as comprehensively as all previous attempts to give Thames a viable future. After months of due diligence, KKR has concluded what must have been obvious all along – that the political and regulatory risks around Thames Water are just too big to be worth the candle. Water companies have in recent times managed the near-impossible feat of usurping the position once occupied by banks as the most hated corporate sector in the land. Campaigners such as the former Undertones singer Feargal Sharkey have raised the profile of the industry to the point where there is nowhere left to hide. Rising bills in combination with deteriorating water standards have made Thames and its nine, fellow privatised water companies into symbols of wider national failure. If KKR needed any further persuading of the folly of involvement with this nightmare of a company, the lambasting Thames recently received in the House of Commons for sewage spills and retention bonuses must surely have been the final straw. There's a price for everything, it is sometimes said, but maybe not with this industry, where to be an investor or lender is to be seen as the unacceptable face of capitalism in modern form. Good luck to the other bidders said to be circling Thames now that KKR is out of the way. They will no doubt eventually come to the same conclusion. In its current incarnation, Thames is holed below the water line. It's hard to see why anyone would want to take the tiller. The clamour for retribution is now so great as to render almost any form of investment completely unviable. I was an enthusiastic supporter of water privatisation when it was first mooted in the late 1980s. Back then, water standards were even worse than they are today. You couldn't even trust the drinking water, which would regularly fail European standards, let alone Britain's beaches or rivers. As publicly owned utilities, water companies had to take their place in the pecking order of public spending priorities, and it was inevitably a lowly one. Political pressure to keep bills low further starved the industry of the resources needed to meet increasingly demanding standards. For ministers, privatisation served a double purpose; not only did it promise much needed private capital for infrastructure renewal, it also meant that they would finally be shot of a seemingly constant source of political complaint. So desperate was the Treasury to get the water companies off the books that they were flogged off pretty much debt free, and in some cases with overflowing 'green dowries' to make them more attractive to investors. Sadly, it has not worked out well. The few water companies that have remained publicly listed enterprises haven't fared too badly, but the ones subsequently bought by private equity – including Thames Water – have been pillaged to destruction. Stripped down to the last lightbulb by rapacious financiers, they increasingly cut corners and are today in all kinds of trouble. What goes around comes around, and the private ownership that was once seen as the solution is now condemned as a major part of the problem. Attempts to find a future for Thames Water within the current framework of debt and equity ownership have gone about as far as they reasonably can. Any further machinations merely prolong the agony, and are really only about salvaging at least something from the wreckage for current senior creditors, as well as lining the pockets of a veritable army of advisers and lawyers. Most of them deserve little sympathy, even if the original sin at Thames was committed by a generation of owners who have long since disappeared with their bags of swag. Many will take positive pleasure in the likes of Elliott Management, a vulture capital fund that specialises in buying up distress debt and squeezing it dry, losing their shirts. Their only motivation is value extraction. They cannot be allowed to dictate the future course of bills and regulatory obligations. I no longer buy the argument that putting Thames into 'special administration' – a form of insolvency procedure intended to ensure protection for public services – would send a bad message at a time when the Government is looking to raise hundreds of billions of pounds from private investors for Britain's energy transition. Rather the reverse; actually, it would say yes, we want private investment, but on fair terms that don't seek to rip the heart out of essential public services. Since I cannot put it any better myself, let me just repeat what a reader said on a rival news site: being open for business does not mean being open to exploitation. The bottom line is that in order to properly meet its social and environmental obligations, Thames needs to be made largely loan-free, wiping out the near £20bn of debt that it is currently struggling to service. The arguments in favour of this approach are now so overwhelming that it is hard to see why ministers are still hesitating. From a political perspective, it would be extremely popular, which is why Nigel Farage's Reform UK has latched onto it as gainful, populist fodder. That doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do; often, the easy, popular course turns out to be the wrong one. But what are the alternatives? The 30pc haircut to more junior debt holders currently under discussion is very unlikely to be sufficient. Despite initial fears that it would cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg, the most recent example of special administration – Bulb Energy – has worked out reasonably well. Bulb was one of a number of fly-by-night retail energy suppliers that found its relatively generous fixed rate deals rendered hopelessly uneconomic by soaring wholesale prices. When first put into special administration, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that based on energy prices at the time, the bailout could cost the taxpayer an eye-watering £6.5bn. But that tally has steadily eroded, and with further recoveries from Octopus Energy – which acquired Bulb's customer base – the ultimate cost to the taxpayer is expected to be negligible. Nationalisation without compensation is always a process fraught with legal difficulties. Historically, it has tied presiding governments up in knots for years afterwards. But how else is the never-ending saga of Thames Water ever to be resolved? Once freed from the ball and chain of excessive debt, Thames Water could easily be sold back to investors, and with requisite reform to regulation, could then perfectly adequately serve all three interest groups: investors, customers and environmentalists. Time to bite the bullet.
