IN A letter to all States members this week, the chief executive of International Energy Group – probably better known to islanders as Guernsey Gas – launched a strongly-worded attack on Guernsey Electricity, accusing it of predatory pricing and of abusing its dominant position.

As a result, it said, Guernsey Gas, Kosangas, Rubis, Total and Esso are trying to compete against a loss-making, States-owned monopoly that offers tariffs below commercial levels, something IEG says is wholly anti-competitive.

These are serious charges and while Guernsey Electricity has already responded, this is a matter that requires some sort of definitive judgement from the States itself.

Is Guernsey Electricity’s pricing artificially low and, if so, why? Why is a States owned utility allegedly behaving in an anticompetitive manner that quite possibly would be illegal elsewhere?

The answers can come only from Treasury and Resources, which represents islanders’ interests as principal shareholder – but it will not welcome the challenge of responding.

The reason is that this is a complex area made more difficult because of the role played by the regulator. The OUR has set a rate for electricity which is too low and which GEL has said may well lead to sharp increases in the future.

So the situation that other energy suppliers claim is creating distortions in the market are as a result of a States of Guernsey agency, the OUR, which exists to ensure that there is at least virtual competition in the areas in which it operates.

If the consequence of that is to make commercial life difficult for the energy operators not regulated by the OUR then that, too, is something for the States to answer.

What IEG’s intervention has also served to highlight is the States ownership of Guernsey Electricity and the money locked up in the utility.

With a book value, including cash reserves, of £109m., selling some or all of Guernsey Electricity could release substantial funds at a time when the island is considering borrowing massively and expensively to pay for capital projects.

Why such asset sales were not considered as part of the capital prioritisation debate also demands an explanation.