Not exactly... But put it that way, can u remember NGG CEO's interview? What did he say, that he will file and file again if necessary and that is how u do business in the energy regulated energy retail business. The thing is there is no regulatory body and that leads to GDF doing as it pleases, kind of, then u get a political show with elected officials making very offensive comments about business and shareholders promising a price freeze, of course it doesn't work and gets nowhere, and the consumer is trapped again and again. It is fair to ask the company to share with the consumers the retroactive price reduction it just obtained from Gazprom in a regulated environment should they had a decent regulation in place for GDF household retail operations (keeping in mind power production isn't regulated). According to the latest news, the significant ressource price reduction GDF has gained should according to the available numbers allow the company to pass it on to the consumers at no cost. In a statement following a show down with politicians, the company had set the price freeze toll at 400 millions and agreed on an increase of 4.4% out of...? nobody knows what, not being in a regulated environment, what's the share of investment, infrastructures and grid maintenance, ressource costs, operating costs and shareholders return on investment??? But now no doubt the 4.4% was at least covering the ressource price increase of long term contracts oil indexed the company stated to be the main motive to oppose the freeze and claim an increase was absolutely necessary, therefore, a ressource retroactive price reduction of at least 10% on long term contracts oil indexed can only lead to reconsider the need for an immediate retail price hike, first of all because the company has failed to produce evidence of the 2011 ressource rising costs of its long term contracts oil indexed, second of all the retroactiveness of the ressource price reduction applied to the long term contracts appear to be much more profitable than the expected return of the retail price increase just covering the ressource increasing costs. Would the regulator intervene if there was one...? Given the circumstances, my guess is he wouldn't have to, the company would take the right initiative towards the consumer to protect its name, the future of its business, avoid the prospect of difficult relations with the Press and jeopardise its relations with the regulator.
What's the odd of seing a similar move when u have no regulator and no Press caring for the Public?
U bet?