Energy supplier EDF shames rivals with 3.9% rise Analysts said EDF customers will be paying an extra £52 a year, taking average annual dual fuel bill to £1,384 Decision to cap the increase means its new standard tariff is up to £107 cheaper than the likes of Npower, British Gas, SSE and Scottish Power Vincent de Rivaz (pictured) is the chief executive of EDF Energy, which has announced it will cap winter bills at 3.9 per cent Energy giant EDF has shamed its "big six" rivals by capping its winter bills price rise at 3.9 per cent. The increase is bad news for its 2.6 million customers - however it is less than half of the 10 per cent imposed by its major competitors. Independent analysts said EDF customers will be paying an extra £52 a year, taking the average annual dual fuel bill up to £1,384. The French-owned firm's decision to cap the increase means its new standard tariff is up to £107 cheaper a year than the likes of Npower, British Gas, SSE and Scottish Power. The fact that it has been able to announce a lower price rise will increase suspicions that its rivals are guilty of profiteering. EDF said that just £1 of the latest rise can be blamed on a higher cost of wholesale gas and electricity. The rest relates to costs imposed by the government and regulators, most of which are associated with cutting energy use and carbon emissions in a switch to green energy. It said the price rise would have been £50 higher if it had factored in the rising cost of the government ECO scheme. This involves applying a supplement to all bills to finance free home energy efficiency measures - loft insulation, double glazing and efficient boilers - for the poor. EDF said that as the Prime Minister has signalled plans to shake-up this scheme, perhaps shifting the bill to general taxation, it has decided to hold off adding this to tariffs. Its chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, said: "The best way to help customers is for us to keep our prices as low as possible. Mr de Rivaz said he supported schemes to make homes more energy efficient, but insisted the cost of the schemes needed to be cut. "Something can and must be done for consumers," he said. Energy firms, politicians and consumer groups need to be part of the solution and stand on the side of customers to give them energy at an affordable price. While EDF was keen to claim credit for its lower price rise, the reality is that the company remains more expensive than a number of small independents. For example, Spark currently has a variable rate tariff charging an average of £1,116.41 a year, which is a saving of £268 versus EDF. For those looking for more certainty, First Utility has a fixed rate deal until June 2015 with a relatively low average bill of £1,178.48. E.ON UK, the only one of Britain's big suppliers yet to increase prices for this winter, declined to comment on whether it was rising prices yesterday. It is reported to be planning a 6.6 per cent increase. EDF said that as the Prime Minister has signalled plans to shake-up this scheme, perhaps shifting the bill to general taxation, it has decided to hold off adding this to tariffs Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, said he was "encouraged" that EDF had kept its price rise much closer to the general rate of inflation than some of its competitors. He insisted the energy market is becoming more competitive and said people can make meaningful savings by shopping around. Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd welcomed EDF's lower price rise, saying: "Today's announcement will make people question why other major suppliers have hit their customers so much harder." Tom Lyon, energy expert at uSwitch.com, said: "Any winter price rise is a blow to consumers as it makes the struggle to afford to stay warm that little bit harder. "This means that customers will know upfront that they will benefit from any step the Government takes to reduce the impact of "hidden" taxes on bills. Energy industry expert, Adam Scorer, director of Consumer Futures, said: "This is a smaller price rise because it comes with strings attached. It puts pressure on the Government to shift the burden of some policy costs from the bill to taxation.