Octopus Energy has completed its takeover of collapsed utility Bulb – although legal challenges to the deal remain.
Bulb, which has around 1.6 million customers, was the largest of more than 30 energy companies that went under in 2021 after a sharp rise in wholesale gas prices.
It was bailed out by taxpayers and has so far been run by administrators.
However, competing suppliers say the sale to Octopus was unfair and have taken legal action that could overturn it.
For now, the acquisition means Octopus is one of the largest energy suppliers in the UK.
Boss Greg Jackson said: “This begins to put an end to the enormous financial burden on taxpayers and paves the way for a brighter and safer future for Bulb’s employees and customers.”
The value of the deal with Octopus Energy has not been made public, but the BBC understands the company paid the government between £100m and £200m.
- Deadline set for Octopus to buy failed energy company Bulb
- Why Bulb energy company collapse can cost you £200
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has estimated that Bulb’s bailout could cost taxpayers up to £6.5bn – making it the biggest bailout since bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis.
Government officials say the final bill is likely to be much lower, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy adding it could be less than £4.5bn depending on energy prices this winter.
Rival suppliers Eon, Scottish Power and Centrica – which owns British Gas – have argued the bulb sale involved unfair government subsidies and are seeking a judicial review.
This is a type of court procedure where the legality of a government decision can be challenged.
In written submissions to the High Court in November, British Gas said there had been a “pathetic lack of transparency” about the terms of the deal.
And Scottish Power said the process had been “flawed” and asked for it to be repeated to allow for alternative offers.
But Bulb administrators dismissed the arguments, saying other energy companies had decided to “walk out” of the sales process.
The case is expected to go before a judge in February and it’s unclear what will happen to the transfer of clients if the deal is reversed by the courts.
Add Comment