It's a pricing signal to the market to entice more green producers into supply. Further, "green-only" retailers could directly commission more green supply themselves were this hypothetical "green cliff-edge" to be approached [or even it weren't approached, for that matter].If so many consumers chose suppliers who only paid 'green producers' that they were, between them, paying for all the 'green' electricity available, then those suppliers would presumably have to stop accepting further customers, because there would be no more 'green' electricity to be paid for.
It's not the suppliers who are bailing anybody out, it is all other electricity consumers.countless people switched to small suppliers who offered very attractive prices by rely on foolish gambles about the future of wholesale prices, and therefore ';went bust' - so that the customers had to be bailed out by other (more expensive) suppliers.
I would not be as confident as you seem to be that we can assume that 'they' have got it right (in terms of the interests of consumers).
What do you mean by "the interests of consumers"?