An odd suggestion given the AER/ACCC is independently responsible for the site. More so given how the site of today has evolved on the watch of the previous government. Would it be more prudent to write directly to the AER/ACCC?
Unfortunately politicians are experts at deflecting or avoiding responsibility whether they are in government or opposition, IMO.
Have you participated in the current survey offered on the EME web resource to assist with assessing it’s performance? I’ve done so just this week.
EME might be independent but it still belongs to the Federal Government.
What I told the MP’s staffer was that the labor Federal Government would be blamed, if people like myself repeatedly are told the EME plan is not available. If was the Minister for Energy I would make sure this doesn’t happen, no matter how “independent” the joint is.
I will not be doing the survey since EME was reluctant to assist with this issue when I asked.
The Energy Made Easy web site is the responsibility of the AER (Australian Energy Regulator).
How did you contact the AER re the EME service and what was requested?
Are you able to provide examples or links to the differences in plans found?
Which distributor and area of Australia do the plans relate to? The short explanation is that they assume all potential customers are about average for their usage and needs. It’s not true of for all.
It’s useful to be able to provide details of the plans you have been offered from different sources. It’s useful in that it can assist others in the community learn how to better use the tools and services that are available. My recent experiences with alternative online services ‘offering to find me a better deal’ have not been successful.
We’ve two owner occupied properties one Capital City and one rural. The EME web site has returned consistent results for both noting they have been with different retailers and in different service areas. My general previous observations note it has been (but not assured) possible to obtain a better outcome by approaching retailers directly armed with details of alternative quotes. The EME web site has been flooded with plans that include conditional or introductory offers that can make a difference. The site may not be perfect. I’m still learning how to make better use. Until more recent years where we lived only offered a single choice of supplier.
P.S.
My personal experiences of dealing with the MP’s in my part of QLD suggests yours where ever is not doing their job. For issues related to the direct provision of a service they have taken some effort to understand the issue and offer assistance. Perhaps yours failed to understand or accept there is a problem with the service. All MP’s are able to make enquiries of government departments, the respective ministers and as appropriate in parliament. Especially if one has personally tried and failed to get a satisfactory outcome. If it was a policy matter they typically divide along party lines. No further comment necessary!
I am still looking for a plan, and here is an example of a difference between the rates from Energy Made Easy, and the ones from Red Energy’s website. The date of search is 7 July.
What happened is as follows,
I searched Energy Made Easy and selected Red Energy’s plan RED181325MRE6. This plan is designated as RED BCNA Saver (TOU Seasonal – N71).
Next, I went to Red Energy’s website and found a plan called RED BCNA Saver, with either single or time of use (TOU), so I clicked the TOU option, to check the rates.
This led me from Red Energy’s site to an Energy Made Easy page, but the plan is called RED181346MRE6, instead of RED181325MRE6. The rates are similar, but there is a shoulder introduced, and there are 2 rates for weekends instead of 1.
As @RSB has suggested it’s possible to find more plans and possibly a different recommendation by going directly to the EME web site. There may be a very simple explanation.
It’s important to look very carefully at what may appear to be small differences in the naming of plans and sub descriptions. Looking at the Energy Made Easy (EME) web site I was able to identify 17 different plans registered with the AER by RED for my post code. (There is a filter option which enables a choice of one or more retailers.) Three offers are described by ‘Red BCNA Saver’. One offers a flat rate tariff, two offer ToU tariffs.
The retailers web site often returns a different result from the plan EME may list as lowest cost. The EME site can use actual meter records, bill data or manual input consumption.
When using a retailers website site to find the best offer,
I did go directly to RED Energy, selecting the relevant State and Post Code. RED made a recommendation without requesting any consumption details or address/NMI. It avoided looking for the best match based on actual consumption. Note even EME asks as a minimum for the household size which changes the estimated consumption used for comparison estimates.
Observation, one needs to look past the retailers web resource to get a reliable comparison of the cost of their offers. RED Energy’s web site is no different to those of many other retailers. Cynically? Designed first to capture the customer. Any better consumer outcome is more likely due to diligence by the consumer in looking objectively at their usage.
Trying to explain discrepancies is fine but the comparison sites whether EME or Victoria’s Energy Compare tend of have anomalies. Some of the anomalies are the day the sites are used versus the day the retailer last updated their offers and precisely when it filtered through the comparison system to be included in consumer returns.
Since its inception I have found the Vic site to be on the money although sometimes the plan numbers it has returned did not reflect the retailer plan number, but the details of the plan have always been available from that [selected] retailer.
Should there ever be a discrepancy? No, but data is not updated in real time as if a banking account and as the Vic staff explained to me a few years ago when I queried such discrepancies, there is sometimes a 3-4 day lag from retailer changes to the retailer submitting updates, to those updates going live.
In 2022 one would think all the systems to populate the plans would be automated, and maybe they are, but it is software at the end of the day, and appears to be buggy is some ways. Yet the Vic site has never steered me wrong and always given me top choices to look at.
The biggest funny was this year when AGL showed as $hundreds less than #2. The catch – only available to customers with BEVs. It is a game that prioritises the retailers ability to bait and switch and obfuscate above the consumers right to just find the cheapest plans with filters, but Vic and I suspect other government attempts such as EME come really close to delivering even when imperfect.
