The post you are reporting:
There is, from time to time - instance to instance - , an upside to BOGOF deals. If and when such deals are on stock, non perishable items. Lugging home twice as many tins of beans one week could mean not having to tote any the following week, for instance.
But, I fancy that such 'deals' are there to help the store out in the first instance and to make it look like there is something in it for the consumer, which also provides an up-side for the store in question.
Asking why such commodities are not simply sold at half price will only get you a pat upon the head.
What has any of this to do with energy costs to the consumer, you ask.
IF, it could be arranged that the lowest possible energy tariff was applicable to the initial tranche of domestic usage and that the costs rose from there; that you pay more the more you use, but can light and heat your home cheaply. I fear I am in line for some more head-patting for even suggesting this, alas.
The problem would be the setting of that initial cheap-rate. The problem being that coming to know just what that level of usage is, is a simple matter...a far too simple matter. (we would be told)
The crux of the matter would then shift back to profit levels:While a price for the initial level of usage could be calculated, it would merely be the total wished for/ expected profit divided by the number of domestic customers, and be set to go higher from there.
An OFFWATT regulatory mechanism focused upon the benefit of the consumer (and 'green' issues) could set the initial tariff and allow the cards to fall as they may, but then we would have a hen with teeth. What are the chances of that?