Here’s are the options Portsmouth councillors had when deciding Victory Energy’s future

Picture: Shutterstock
Picture: Shutterstock
0
Have your say

Last month a decision on the future of Victory Energy was referred back to Portsmouth City Council’s cabinet.

A cabinet meeting could possibly take place in December to discuss the council-owned energy company.

Today The News revealed that the chief executive of Victory Energy has been paid £270,000 – despite the company not selling a single kilowatt of electricity.

READ MORE: Timeline of the Victory Energy company

How it ended – the options faced by Portsmouth’s councillors

Councillors were faced with four options after a review from PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Continuing with the firm as it stood, the first option, would have seen a return of investment of £24.3m, based on its business plan, in five years. But two other scenarios forecasted it could have made £2.5m in the same period, or around £50m in 10 years.

A second option would have seen the firm axed, with £2.5m to £3.5m investment lost. The council's cabinet chose to do this.

A third option would have seen the firm continue, with similar returns in the first option, but with tighter governance.

A fourth option was to enter a white label agreement with another supplier, which would have seen the council rebrand the other supplier’s energy as its own.

The consultancy report found the firm would have needed £15.2m investment, up from a predicted £3.8m initially thought.

The company would have needed more than double the number of customers originally forecasted, up to 50,000 a year.

Speaking at the time, deputy council leader Steve Pitt said: ‘Our priority is to minimise the financial risk to the people of Portsmouth.

‘We'll be working with an independent expert to assess how we can move forward with winding down or disposing of the company at the lowest possible cost to the council.

‘We'll then explore other options, such as creating a “white label” energy company, which is something other local authorities have done. This could potentially generate income for the city in future with substantially less risk than with the previous plan.’