INTRODUCTION

In September 1998, upon the introduction of competition into the domestic electricity market, Friends of the Earth (FOE) published a consumer guide to buying green energy. This included a league table of companies operating in this market at the time, comprising mainly the Regional Electricity Companies (RECs), but also Centrica (formerly British Gas) and the Renewable Energy Company. This Background Report explains how this league table was formulated. Contact details for all companies surveyed are given at the end of this report.

The bulk of the research was conducted by the Ethical Consumer Research Association (ECRA) on behalf of FOE. Some additional research on investment in renewable energy capacity by the RECs was carried out by FOE. Scores were awarded by ECRA in consultation with FOE.

Information Sources

Information on policies, targets and investment was obtained largely from the companies themselves, via a detailed questionnaire, phone research and the companies' own reports. Information on company group performance and criticisms levelled against the company relating to the environment was obtained from: the US ethical investment research group - Council on Economic Priorities; the US Environmental Protection Agency public access databases; the Ethical Consumer Research Association Corporate Critic database; newspaper searches; and EIRIS - the UK ethical investment research group, plus its US partner the Investor Responsibility Research Centre.

Information was gathered between March and July 1998. It was correct at time of going to press (Aug 1998), but it should be noted that the electricity sector is undergoing considerable change, with new companies emerging onto the market, takeovers and mergers. This is likely to continue as competition is widened. Some information in this report may therefore become out of date.

Criteria and Priorities

The preparation of the league table has been a complex process, since deciding on the weighting given to different activities requires choosing a set of priorities. The overall results show that some companies are good in some areas and poor in others. The core priority throughout has been to help consumers reward those companies which show the greatest awareness of their responsibilities to address global climate change and which demonstrate a commitment through their actions. This is reflected in the final ranking, where Eastern Electricity leads the Regional Electricity Companies because it has a quantified target on developing renewable energy and Combined Heat and Power, because it has a specific policy on climate change, acknowledging the need to transform its business in response to this threat, and because it has already started to offer its own customers the chance to support renewable energy, through the launch of its green tariff.

Categories

The rest of this report attempts to explain how decisions were made in each of the different categories and provides information on which these decisions were based, with an explanation of source, scoring, any weighting that we decided to apply and the final ranking. We have provided a league table for each of the four categories, as follows:

        Section 1:    Renewable Energy
        Section 2:    Energy Efficiency
        Section 3:    Environmental Policy and Reporting
        Section 4:    Parent Company Performance

Companies were then awarded points in these four league tables to produce the overall league table below:

1 The Renewable Energy Company; 2 Northern Ireland Electricity; 3 Since going to print East Midlands has been taken over by Powergen and some information is therefore out of date; South Western Electricity

Scoring & Rating

For the league tables within each of the sections, and for the final overall league table above, scores were calculated by giving each company 3 points for a 'Very Good' rating, 2 points for a 'Good' rating, 1 point for an 'Average' rating, 0 points for a 'Poor' rating and subtracting a point for a 'Very Poor' rating. We have given an 'Average' rating when a category is not applicable to a company.

This section considered the company's attitude to renewable energy and we looked at:

i.    their investment in renewable energy generating capacity.
ii.    whether the company had a target for increasing the amount of electricity it generated or sourced from renewable energy projects.
iii.    whether they operated, or plan to operate, a green energy tariff
iv.    how amenable the company was to independent renewable energy generating companies using their electricity distribution system

The league table for this section was as follows:

        Score        Rating

RECo        11        Very Good
Eastern     7        Very Good
SWEB         4        Good
Manweb     3        Average
Norweb     3        Average
Scottish P     3        Average
Midlands     2        Average
Scottish H     2        Average
Yorkshire     2        Average
Centrica     1        Poor
East Mids     1        Poor
London     1        Poor
Northern     1        Poor
NIE         1        Poor
Southern     1        Poor
Swalec     1        Poor
Seeboard     0        Poor

Details of how this league table was compiled is given in Table 1 at the end of this Section (p. 6).

Scores were awarded under each of the different categories as follows:

(i) Investment in Generating Capacity
Information on renewable energy capacity owned, or part-owned, by the RECs was obtained through telephone conversations with the companies themselves. Details of the projects are available on request.

We considered only those projects built under Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) since 1990 (which is when renewable energy schemes began to be built following privatisation of the electricity industry), since some companies like Scottish Hydro simply inherited large scale hydro plants at privatisation. Because the nature of the companies varies (eg some such as Eastern have a lot of generating capacity, while some have very little and are mainly distributors), we did not award points on the basis of how many MW of renewable energy capacity they had, but rather gave credit for having made any investment at all in renewable energy schemes. It is our opinion that regardless of the nature, size or location of the company, any REC can invest in renewable energy projects in

any part of the country if it is so inclined. Indeed, because embedded generation (ie plant that plugs straight into the local distribution network) can reduce transmission costs, building small-scale renewables plant can benefit the REC financially and in terms of security of supply.

The scale of investment by Regional Electricity Companies both in terms of actual capacity and as a percentage of their overall generating capacity has generally been poor, considering the size of the renewable energy resource in the UK. We therefore awarded an 'Average' rating if they had invested in renewables since 1990, and a 'Poor' if they had not. The exception was the Renewable Energy Company, which has invested in renewable energy projects itself as well as sourcing its power from other renewable energy companies. Since the electricity it produces or buys is purely renewable, the Renewable Energy Company was awarded a 'Very Good' rating in this category.

NB: Waste to Energy

Waste to energy plants are criticised for their air emissions which often contain potentially hazardous compounds such as dioxins and because burning rubbish is seen to be an inferior substitute for effective demand-side management and recycling. Municipal waste-to-energy incinerators have therefore NOT been treated as renewable energy projects for the purpose of this research and credit has not been given if a company has invested in such projects.

(ii) Targets

This information was obtained from the company through the questionnaire. We asked whether the company had a target for the development of renewable energy, either in terms of its own generation or through dedicated supply contracts. Companies scored 'Poor' for no target at all, 'Average' if they had a target but it was not quantified and 'Good' if they had a quantified target. The Renewable Energy Company was awarded a 'Very Good' in this category as it invests exclusively in renewable energy and it aims to increase development according to market demand.

(iii) Green Tariffs

Information as to whether the company currently operates or plans to operate a green tariff was supplied by the company through the questionnaire. We did not award points on the quality of the tariffs as not enough information was available on the kinds of tariffs planned. We simply awarded a 'Good' if they had an operational tariff, an 'Average' if they had one planned or under review and a 'Poor' if they had no tariff operating or planned, or if they gave no reply to this question. We awarded a 'Very Good' rating if they had an operational green energy tariff available to all their customers and did not charge a premium for this.

Weighting: We decided to give extra credit for the operation of a Green Energy Tariff, as we believe this to be an important way forward for the electricity industry. It shows an early and positive response to growing customer demand for green energy and empowers individuals to take action against climate change. We therefore awarded an extra point to the three companies who have operatonal tariffs.

Further details on the range of tariffs on offer:

Information on the various green tariff schemes being offered by the RECs is given below. Information on planned schemes was limited, and we have quoted information given by the companies in their questionnaire. Further details should be available direct from the company.

SWEB - 'Green Electron'

This scheme, still described as a 'pilot trial' in February 1998, intends to charge a supplement to subscribers - 'for the typical domestic customer who consumes £300 of electricity per year, the premium would be £3.50 per month' [3]. SWEB pledges to 'match the demand for green electricity with an equivalent amount [purchased] from renewable generators' [4]. The amount contracted by SWEB on behalf of its Green Electron customers 'will be audited and verified by an independent organisation'. This means you are in effect 'buying' energy generated from renewables, rather than paying a donation to fund future development. It is likely that renewable generation companies which have previously received support through the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (a levy ultimately paid by electricity consumers through their fuel bills) but whose contracts have run out, will be selling their power to the Green Electron scheme, but it is not clear whether Green Electron will develop additional new renewable energy capacity.

Planned schemes:

Midlands Electricity - this 'would include schemes previously funded by NFFO. Also to consider wind, hydro and solar. Possibly to include CHP, biomass, waste-to-energy and methane gas schemes'.

Northern Electric - 'A levy to support small scale community-based projects, primarily wind turbines, to be launched within 12 months'.

Northern Ireland Electricity - This is 'to be finalised. It will include wind, hydro, biomass and biogas'.
Scottish Power/Manweb - Will 'support small scale hydro schemes and windfarms, not existing NFFO projects'. It is likely that this scheme will be similar to Eastern's, whereby a customer will not actually be buying green electrcity but paying a voluntary premium to fund future development of new projects. They plan to support this by paying around 80% of the cost themselves.

Scottish Hydro-electric - is planning to sell a green tariff at no extra cost to the customer. The power will be 100% renewable (to be confirmed).

iv) the RECs' attitude to independent renewable energy generating companies using their distribution system.

After discussion with contacts within the renewable energy and electricity industries, there was a strong view that the attitude of the RECs to renewable energy generators using their distribution system was a very good indication of how positive they were to renewable energy in general.

Eastern Electricity stood out as the only REC with an explicitly positive attitude to such use and was therefore awarded an extra point for this. To avoid penalising the Renewable Energy Company for not being a REC, it was awarded a point in this category.

TABLE 1: RENEWABLE ENERGY

	Investment in projects	Target	Green Tariff	Attitude to independents	Points	Rating
Centrica	Poor	Poor	Average		1	Poor
Eastern	Average	Good	Good +1	1	7	V Good
East Midlands	Average	Poor	Poor		1	Poor
London	Poor	Poor	Average		1	Poor
Manweb	Average	Average	Average		3	Average
Midlands	Poor	Average	Average		2	Average
Northern	Poor	Poor	Average		1	Poor
NIE	Poor	Poor	Average		1	Poor
Norweb	Average	Good	Poor		3	Average
RECo	V Good	V Good	V Good +1	1	11	V Good
Scottish Hydro	Average	Poor	Average		2	Average
Scottish Power	Average	Average	Average		3	Average
Seeboard	Poor	Poor	Poor		0	Poor
Southern	Poor	Poor	Average		1	Poor
Swalec	Average	Poor	Poor		1	Poor
SWEB	Average	Poor	Good +1		4	Good
Yorkshire	Average	Poor	Average		2	Average

i.    they have met or exceeded the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance targets set for the RECs by the Electricity Regulator (OFFER). The SoPs require the RECs to spend money on meeting specified energy efficiency targets by 31.3.98

ii.    they are doing anything on energy efficiency over and above their obligations under Standards of Performance ('non-SoP projects')

iii.    they run or plan to run any innovative schemes to help customers invest in energy efficiency improvements, principally low cost loans repayable on fuel bills and the development of Energy Service Companies (ESCOs).

The league table for this section is as follows:

            Score        Rating
            
Seeboard        5        Very Good
London        4        Good
Manweb        4        Good
Northern        4        Good
Scottish Power    4        Good
Southern        4        Good
Eastern        3        Average
Midlands        3        Average
RECo            3        Average
Scottish Hydro    3        Average
Centrica        2        Average
East Midlands        2        Average
NIE            2        Average
Swalec        2        Average
Yorkshire        2        Average
Norweb        1        Poor
SWEB            1        Poor

Details of how the companies scored in each category to produce the league table above is given in Table 2 at the end of this Section (page 9).

Scores were awarded under each of the different categories as follows:

(i) Standards of Performance:

In 1994 the electricity regulator OFFER introduced a scheme called the 'Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance' or SoPs. These required the RECs in England and Wales, as Public Electricity Suppliers (PES), to spend money on meeting specified energy efficiency targets by 31.3.98. Typical schemes are targeted at the elderly or disabled, those in rural areas or on low incomes, and might involve supplying low energy lighting, insulation or low energy appliances.

Similar standards were introduced for the two Scottish RECs in 1995. In Northern Ireland a similar SoP scheme was introduced in May 1996 for a trial period of two years. This slightly different programme is not easily comparable with the other UK SoPs. Centrica (British Gas) does not have SoP targets, although it has carried out some energy efficiency schemes. So as not to prejudice these two companies' overall rating, Centrica and NIE receive an 'Average' rating.

We obtained advance information from the RECs on the progress of these schemes through the questionnaire. Despite several follow-up phone calls, two companies - Norweb and SWEB - did not provide this information, but we understand that all RECs will at least meet their target and we have therefore awarded them an 'Average' rating. (NB: SWEB's failure to respond to the entire questionnaire has affected its score elsewhere)

The Standards of Performance targets are different for each company and are based on an assessment and advice by the Energy Saving Trust (EST). All the companies met their targets, with some exceeding them. However, the targets are conservative - RECs are required to spend the equivalent of only £1 per customer on these schemes, a small percentage of their overall profits. We have therefore awarded a 'Good' rating only to the two companies -Eastern and Seeboard- who exceeded their target by more than 10% (119% and 117% respectively). The others - who simply met the target set for them or did very little above their statutory obligations - received an 'Average' rating.

ii) Non-SoP schemes

We asked companies if they were doing anything on energy efficiency in addition to their obligations under Standards of Performance. Most of these amounted to energy efficiency advice, education, awards and charitable donations. Some provision of energy efficiency advice is obligatory for RECs and overall the services they provide are very standard. We therefore awarded an 'Average' to all companies on this, except for Norweb and SWEB who received a 'Poor' rating because they failed to provide any information when requested.

(iii) Energy Efficiency Loans or the Development of ESCOs

One of the major obstacles to investment in energy efficiency improvements by householders and businesses is a lack of capital to pay for insulation, more efficient appliances, etc, despite the fact that their investment will be paid back through lower fuel bills. Friends of the Earth has been lobbying for companies to provide help to overcome this barrier, through provision of low cost loans for such improvements, which can then be paid back through householders' fuel bills. The repayments are not burdensome, since the fuel bills are lower as a result of reduced energy use. We have been lobbying for some time for changes in regulations to encourage the transition of electricity commpanies into 'energy service companies' (ESCOs) - companies that provide a whole package of energy services to customers rather than simply selling units of electricity or gas, thus providing an incentive and mechanisms for the provision of these services in the most efficient way. We therefore asked companies if they offered, or planned to offer such services - such as low cost loans - to customers. This information was gathered through the questionnaire.

We were ready to award a 'Very Good' if they had such services available to all customers or a target to extend them to their customer base (no company received this rating); we awarded a 'Good' rating if they had trialed such schemes (Seeboard, Northern, Scottish Power/Manweb, Southern, London); we awarded an 'Average' rating if they had plans to offer such a scheme (Scottish Hydro, Midlands, the Renewable Energy Company) and a 'Poor' rating if they had not even considered it.

TABLE 2: ENERGY EFFICIENCY

	Standards of Performance	Non-SoP projects	ESCOs/ loans	Points	Rating
Centrica	Average	Average	Poor	2	Average
Eastern	Good	Average	Poor	3	Average
East Midlands	Average	Average	Poor	2	Average
London	Average	Average	Good	4	Good
Manweb	Average	Average	Good	4	Good
Midlands	Average	Average	Average	3	Average
Northern	Average	Average	Good	4	Good
NIE	Average	Average	Poor	2	Average
Norweb	Average	Poor	Poor	1	Poor
RECo	Average	Average	Average	3	Average
Scottish Hydro	Average	Average	Average	3	Average
Scottish Power	Average	Average	Good	4	Good
Seeboard	Good	Average	Good	5	Very Good
Southern	Average	Average	Good	4	Good
Swalec	Average	Average	Poor	2	Average
SWEB	Average	Poor	Poor	1	Poor
Yorkshire	Average	Average	Poor	2	Average

In March 1998 we wrote to all the companies in this report with a questionnaire asking about various aspects of their environmental policy development. Responses to the questionnaire and actual policy documents and reports form the basis for information in this section. Despite follow-up phone calls, two of the companies (Midlands and SWEB) did not fully respond in time for the deadline for this report and were consequently penalised. Manweb, a subsidiary of Scottish Power does not appear to report on environmental issues (other than those required by law) separately to its parent company. Its rating is therefore the same as its parent.

                 Score                Rating

Scottish Power        16                Good
Manweb            16                Good
Eastern            16                Good
Yorkshire            14                Good
RECo                14                Good
London            13                Average
Northern            12                Average
Scottish Hydro        11                Average
Centrica            10                Average
Norweb            10                Average
NIE                 9                Average
Seeboard             9                Average
East Midlands             6                Poor
Southern             6                Poor
Swalec             4                Poor
Midlands             3                Poor
SWEB                  3                Poor

This league table was compiled using information in TABLE 3 on page 12. For this table, the scoring is as follows: // = best rating (scores two points), / = next best rating (scores one point)

The companies were assessed under the following categories:

Environmental Policy Statement (EPS)/Environmental Report: Audited (ER(A))/Environmental Report: Unaudited (ER(U))/Social Report: Audited(SR(A))/Social Report: Unaudited(SR(U))
These columns simply report the presence of publicly available documents and do not attempt to judge the quality of these documents. The desirability of externally audited versions is communicated by the fact that all those with externally audited environmental reports receive the best rating.

Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Unofficial/BS 7750/EMAS/ISO 14001
We asked whether companies had any of the above internationally recognised environmental managements standards, or whether they operated an unofficial EMS instead. Although the official standards are not without their critics in the environmental movement, they all require some degree of external verification. Companies received the best mark if these standards were operational in

the greater part of their businesses. Companies with the next best mark had such schemes planned or under trial in various parts of the company.

Board Level Reporting
Indicated whether there is a board level environmental representative

Accountability to shareholders
We asked companies to indicate ways in which they attempted to maintain transparency and accountability to British customers and shareholders. Most companies drew attention to their environmental reporting and websites - and any attempt to answer is noted on the table with one point. The main reason the question was asked was to try to encourage the companies to address the problems of accountability that occur when US ownership means that the company no longer holds annual general meetings in the UK.

Air Pollution/Climate Change/Energy Efficiency/DSM Policy/CHP Policy
These columns indicate the presence of policy statements which specifically address these issues. DSM stands for 'demand-side management', or in other words schemes to meet supply shortages by cutting demand rather than increasing supply. CHP stands for Combined Heat and Power, an efficient method of energy generation and use. Clear policies with measurable targets receive the best rating, whilst vaguer policies or even just claims to have such a policy receive the lower rating.

ECRA Rating (targets)
This rating awarded by Ethical Consumer Research Association is based on the presence throughout the environmental policies and reports supplied by the companies of future measurable targets for improvements or dates by which these would be achieved.

Globally consistent standards
We asked companies whether they had operations in more than one country or business sector and if so, did they apply the same environmental and social standards globally across all their operations. The response to this was disappointing. Of the three companies who even answered this question, Eastern Electricity replied 'No, not yet' and Northern showed a misunderstanding of the issue, saying that they complied with the relevant national legislation in the countries in which they operated. Only the Renewable Energy Company replied positively, saying that it would apply standards consistently if it operated in more than one country, which, being a new small company it does not. We have not therefore awarded any points in this category.

Comments
Whilst the comments on ISO 14001 are self-explanatory, the 'good supply chain management' comment next to Yorkshire is worth commenting on. It is the only company answering the questionnaire to demonstrate a clear understanding that the environmental responsibilities of an electricity supplier extend to its purchasing contracts with generators. Although its comments are only related to future intentions, this is a vital point which could have beneficial repercussions for the environment, especially when taken on board by other suppliers.

EPS

ER (A)

ER (U)

SR (A)

SR (U)

Unoff EMS

BS7750/ EMAS/ ISO14001

Board Level Report.

Acc. to s/holders

Air Poll

Climate Change

EE

DSM

CHP

ECRA Rating targets

Global standards

Comments

Score

Rating

Centrica

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

10

Average

Eastern

/

//

/

//

/

/

//

//

/

//

/

Group-wide ISO 14001

16

Good

East Mids

/

/

/

/

/

/

6

Poor

London

/

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

13

Average

Manweb

/

//

/

/

//

/

/

//

/

/

/

//

Manweb all ISO 14001

16

Good

Midlands

/

/

/

3

Poor

Northern

/

//

/

/

/

/

/

//

/

/

12

Average

NIE

/

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

9

Average

Norweb

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

10

Average

RECo

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

//

//

/

/

/

14

Good

Scottish H

/

/

/

//

/

/

//

/

/

11

Average

Scottish P

/

//

/

/

//

/

/

//

/

/

/

//

16

Good

Seeboard

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

9

Average

Southern

/

/

/

/

/

/

6

Poor

Swalec

/

/

/

/

4

Poor

SWEB

/

/

/

3

Poor

Yorkshire

/

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

//

/

//

good proposed supply chain management

14

Good

Of the sixteen suppliers covered in this report, eight are currently owned by US multinationals (the US 'parent' companies are the ones without 'plc' after their names). The US companies appear in all the rankings from 'Good' to 'Very Poor'. Four of the remaining companies are 'mixed utilities' whereby the parent company owns both electricity and water providers. The suppliers owned by mixed utilities are: Manweb, Norweb, Scottish Power and Swalec. It is interesting to note that three of the four remaining companies - Southern, NIE and Scottish Hydro - receive the highest overall rating. Note that this industry is undergoing dramatic change and ownership of companies may alter. The above is correct at the time of going to print (August 1998)

The overall rating was as follows:

Company            Parent Company        Critical Score    Rating

Southern Electric        Southern Electric plc             0        Good
Scottish Hydro        Scottish Hydro plc             1        Good
NIE                Viridian Group plc             2        Good
Northern Electric        CalEnergy Co Inc             4        Good
Manweb            Scottish Power plc             5        Average
Scottish Power        Scottish Power plc             5        Average
Seeboard            Central & South West Corp         5        Average
Centrica            Centrica plc                 5        Average
Norweb            Unitied Utilities plc             6        Average
Eastern            Texas Utilities                 7        Average
London             Entergy Corp                 7        Average
Swalec            Hyder plc                 9        Poor
Yorkshire             American Electric Power 50%    
                New Century Energies 50%        11        Poor
East Midlands            Dominion Resources Inc        11        Poor
Midlands            Cinergy Corp 50%
                General Public Utilities 50%        11        Poor
SWEB                Southern Co Inc            15        Very Poor

The league table in this section has been compiled using information in TABLE 4 on page 16, which shows 'criticism' of company group performance over the last five years. It is based on:

.    Information provided by the US ethical investment research group, Council on Economic Priorities

.    Information on emissions from the US Environmental Protection Agency public access database

.    The Ethical Consumer Research Association Corporate Critic database (includes UK pollution prosecutions)

The information was checked against additional information provided by EIRIS - the UK ethical

investment research group and its US partner the Investor Responsibility Research Centre. Although some companies gained or lost one extra point under this research, the broad patterns were identical with no company moving from its current position within the broad bands of 'Good' or 'Average', 'Poor' or 'Very Poor'. A copy of the full 79-page report by ECRA on which the findings in this section were based is available from Friends of the Earth for £50 (plus VAT) [6].

Points were awarded as follows:

Water/Air/Land Pollution and Fines:
X = three or more incidents or criticisms
x = one or two incidents or criticisms

Nuclear Power
X = evidence that more than 10% of US generating capacity is from nuclear sources
x = existing US capacity, but less than 10%, or evidence of providing supplies to the nuclear industry. (NB None of the UK companies own their own nuclear capacity.)

Lobbying - GCC
X = membership of or support for the Global Climate Coalition - an industry lobby group heavily criticised for its activities in Kyoto and elsewhere to prevent regulation by governments of greenhouse gas emissions

Lobbying - Other
X = membership of or support for other industry lobby groups which argue against good environmental practice or regulation

Environmental Policy of Parent Company (EP PC)
X = the company did not reply to our request for a copy of its environmental policy or reports
x = the company sent us environmental policies or reports but they contained no future measurable targets for environmental improvements or dates by which these would be achieved.
(NB. The UK REC was also assessed under this criteria - this is reported in Section 3: Environmental Policy and Reporting.)

Comments
AEP was listed by the US magazine Multinational Monitor in its annual award for the ten worst corporations of 1997. Its main criticism was of AEP's role in lobbying against the US government's Clean Air Acts during that year.

Weighting
The column entitled 'critical score' helps give a relative picture of performance. For each X mark, companies scored two points, with one for point for a small x. We then added one point to Viridian - the only company with no generating capacity and therefore likely to appear better than it really is. Since some degree of pollution from large industrial companies is to some extent to be expected, but the lobbying columns are evidence of unacceptable business activity, we added two extra points for involvement in the GCC and one point for 'other' lobbying activities.

British Gas/Centrica
In February 1997 British Gas 'demerged' into two companies: Centrica and BG plc. Centrica now owns the 'British Gas' and 'Scottish Gas' brands and sells the gas to UK customers. BG plc extracts the gas and sells it on to Centrica and others. Strictly speaking, they are two separate companies, but since the demerger was very recent and they are still the largest customers and suppliers of each other, we have treated them as one company for the purposes of this ranking exercise.

CONTACT DETAILS:

Centrica Charter Court 50 Windsor Road Slough SL1 2HA tel: 01753 758 000 Eastern Group Wherstead Park PO Box 40 Wherstead IPSWICH Suffolk IP9 2AQ tel: 01473 688 688 East Midlands Electricity Corporate Office P O Box 444 Wollaton NOTTINGHAM NG8 1EZ tel: 0115 926 9711 London Electricity Templar House 81-87 High Holborn LONDON WC1V 6NU tel: 0171 242 9050 Manweb Manweb House Kingsfield Court Chester Business Park CHESTER CH4 9RF tel: 0345 112 211

Midlands Electricity Mucklow Hill HALESOWEN West Midlands B62 8BP tel: 0121 423 2345 Northern Electric Carliol House Market Street NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE NE1 7NE tel: 0191 210 2000 Northern Ireland Electricity 120 Malone Road BELFAST BT9 5HT tel: 01232 661 100 Norweb United Utilities plc Birchwood Point Business Park 410 Birchwood Boulevard Warrington WA3 7WB tel: 0161 873 8000 Renewable Energy Company Stroud House Russell Street Stroud Gloucestershire GL5 3AN tel: 01453 756 111

Scottish Hydro
10 Dunkeld Road
Perth PH1 5WA
tel: 0800 300 000

Scottish Power
1 Atlantic Quay
Glasgow G2 8SP
tel: 0141 248 8200

SEEBOARD
Forest Gate
Brighton Road
CRAWLEY
West Sussex RH11 9BH
tel: 01293 565 888

Southern Electric
Southern Electric House
Westacott Way
Littlewick Green
MAIDENHEAD
Berkshire SL6 3QB
tel: 01628 822 166

SWALEC
Newport Road
St Mellons
CARDIFF CF3 9XW
tel: 01222 792 111

South Western Electricity
800 Park Avenue
Aztec West
Almondsbury
BRISTOL BS12 4SE
tel: 01454 201 101

Yorkshire Electricity Group
Wetherby Road
Scarcroft
LEEDS LS14 3HS
tel: 0113 289 2123

Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood Street
London N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555 Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk

August 1998