Bribes to turn off the juice over the winter.

[Polar Bear]

It seems that the energy suppliers will sign up to this scheme whereby if you are one of less than half of households in the UK who has a smart meter and you stop using energy at certain times then you will be bribed for having done so.  I find this terribly flawed for so many reasons that I think it verges on immoral.

Firstly, more than half of homes do not even get the chance to participate as they do not have smart meters and off peak tariff users seem to be excluded.

Secondly, all those poor sods on prepayment meters who are already bordering on or actually in fuel poverty are already not being profligate with the energy yet are completely ignored.

Thirdly, all those of us who are routinely conscious of not wasting energy and do things like run the washing machine overnight on economy 7 instead of at peak times which we have been routinely doing for decades also get no credit for being conscientious energy users.

Seems to me that the scheme rewards people in large, often inefficient properties who are on decent incomes and burn energy like £50 notes under the noses of homeless people "because they can". 

Once again, doing the right thing in Britain is ignored by the twatterati.

[ElyDave]

I think you are effectively pointing out the flaws in many energy efficiency schemes, including those like the EU ETS that are very blunt instruments indeed and either end up overly bureacratic or not targetting the right behaviours in the right cohort of the population.

I do not have an answer at policy level.

[Jaded]

Would a progressive charging system be better. The more you use the more you pay?

This would be easy in the billing, although they seem to cock it up when it is just a simple price per unit…

[TheLurker]

Seems to me that the scheme rewards people ... who are on decent incomes...

Mark 4:25
For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. 

Which I have just, this very moment, realised is probably the Truss-Kwarteng credo and motivating principal.

x-post with Jaded
"Would a progressive charging system be better. The more you use the more you pay?"
Sort of works, but edge cases such as those relying on energy hungry life-support machinery (home dialysis?)  would, despite (probably) being less well off, be faced with higher bills.  Suspect there is no really good, simple, solution.

[Polar Bear]

Progressive charging would be a good thing with a few tweaks.  Tariffs already exist for cheaper off peak energy use so you could simply have a tariff that is progressive during the peak times or perhaps just not during off peak.  EV charging tariffs work a bit like that as does Octopus Agile.  With such flexibility also comes the opportunity to have a compassionate purposes tariff designed to be applied to an account where somebody is dependant upon lifesaving equipment within a household.

We for instance are on an economy 7 type tariff and our basic dumb meter has the capability to record usage during four specific time zones.  It would be relatively easy I suspect to have a daytime off peak, the two peak zones and the cheap overnight zone defined instead of just peak and off peak.

Seems to me though that nobody really puts any meaningful thought into such matters.

[Ham]

Progressive charging would be a good thing with a few tweaks.

Except of course that it would intrinsically penalise multigenerational households with kids and elderly....

When the foundation on which our modern day "wealth" is built on turns out to have a higher than expected cost, there are absolutely no easy answers.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Progressive charging is used in India (or was when I was there, which is a long time ago now), where mulitigenerational households are pretty much the norm.

[Ham]

Progressive charging in the historic context where energy was a relatively small is functional, and there is also the argument that the combined household will use less than multiple individual ones, It doesn't address the current situation, where the rapid rise in energy cost has to be managed.

[Kim]

I participated in Octopus's trial scheme for this.  Because we have smart meters and I'm the sort of nerd who cares about energy (the financial reward was laughable).  We were give 24 hours notice of 2-hour windows and a target percentage of our average consumption for that period over the previous n weeks.

My conclusions:
-It was easy enough to reduce load by not cooking or washing at peak times.  Either by changing your schedule a bit, or cooking a less energy-intensive meal that day.
-Morning or late evening energy consumption could be reduced somewhat by staying in bed or having an early night, assuming there wasn't something you *had* to do at that time involving washing/tea drinking/using a computer.
-It was basically impossible to make a significant dent in middle-of-the-night baseload, without doing things like turning off the fridge and shutting down network/alarm infrastructure.

-Crucially, you had no idea whether you were meeting the target in real time.  Those stupid in-home display things don't do the right analysis.  I wrote a program that could, based on my own monitoring of the meter's blinky light.  Most people would only have known if they hit the target n days later when Octopus crunched the numbers.  So if you're in it for the money, you can't rely on it.  And you might inadvertently wash your hands causing the boiler to run and miss the threshold.



Ultimately, like most things energy-related, it's mainly the rich that benefit.  Solar panel subsidies benefit people who own roofs, but made sense in terms of stimulating the industry and making solar systems better/cheaper.  This sort of load-shedding bonus benefits people who have smart meters (which is more about luck and not reading the daily mail than wealth) and who are sufficiently educated and technically competent that they can control their energy use in a reasonable way.  Roll it out widely, and you're going to get people unplugging their phone chargers and expecting a payment, or turning the power off at the fuseboard and falling down the stairs with a candle.  Maybe that doesn't matter, and there are enough energy nerds that this sort of scheme can make a decent dent in the peak load on the grid, which ultimately benefits everyone.

Personally, I think this is only going to work on a wide scale if it's automated.  That means internet-of-shit devices that can factor in grid demand when choosing when to run.

[Polar Bear]

I take Ham's point about potentially adversely affecting multi-generational households but I also think that there are economies of scale for more folk in one house.  One standing charge, cooking for many instead on just one or two people, heating the home for many instead of just one or two people, etc.  I know it's not perfect but it's difficult to find a solution that suits all and I just feel that the solutions out there punish poorer people more than those who are able to pay the bills still.

For instance, standing charge on an already low use household is the same so punitivly discriminates against low energy users in favour of high energy users.  The so-called standing charge should just be incorporated into the cost of a unit just like other business overheads already are.  It's a nonsense to have a separate charge which can be manipulated up or down but remains the same for any household regardless of actual use. 

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if when you went shopping there was a fixed charge for shopping regardless of how much you spent?  This single item of fruit please.  That'll be 50 pence plus a tenner standing charge please.  New smartphone please.  That'll be a grand plus a tenner standing charge please. 

The entire system of energy charging needs radical and urgent overhaul.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Is there still a standing charge on fixed line telecoms?

[Polar Bear]

Erm, dunno.

[mrcharly-YHT]

A massive flaw in the 'more you use, more you pay' model is that it rewards those who have the cash to spend on insulation, draught proofing, efficient heating sources.

So the people who are living 'on the pan crack' don't get to take advantage of this scheme.

Of course, if it is paired with insulation grants, then there is a win-win for the country.

[Jaded]

I thought the pricing stuff was to get us through a short term difficult time.

Funding for insulation and similar is a different matter.

[PaulF]

I agree it is unfair but could the OP suggest a more equitable solution that will help reduce energy usage?

Remember there’s an energy crisis looming so it needs to be implemented quickly using what infrastructure we currently have.

[Polar Bear]

Sort of misses the point.  A bad solution is not necessarily better than no solution at all.  Thankfully it isn't my job to come up with solutions but it is both mine and everybody else's responsibility to point out the flaws in the ridiculous plans which do nothing to provide a practical and equitable solution. 

We find ourselves in a society where inequality is being rewarded on a daily basis which to me is abhorrent.  It's about time those with some level of authority began to act responsibly considering the weaker, poorer and more vulnerable as oppose to dreaming up wheezes to simply give the haves more and more money at the expense of the have nots.

I don't expect the beneficiaries to cry foul and there are not enough voices pointing out the crass and vile inequality on behalf of the have nots.

[Kim]

Is there still a standing charge on fixed line telecoms?

Openreach charge service providers about a tenner a month for a copper pair, which they can then provide telephone and DSL services over.  Most providers will wrap this up in a deal with internet access and inclusive call minutes that obfuscates the line rental aspect.

[Kim]

Sort of misses the point.  A bad solution is not necessarily better than no solution at all.  Thankfully it isn't my job to come up with solutions but it is both mine and everybody else's responsibility to point out the flaws in the ridiculous plans which do nothing to provide a practical and equitable solution.

Electricity companies have been giving businesses financial incentives to shed load since before I knew what an electron was.  Taking a cold store or smelter offline for an hour here and there is a great way to balance the grid, and makes little difference to the user.  Smaller industrial customers might be able to schedule their energy-intensive processes around expected demand.

Until now, domestic users haven't been able to access similar incentives, because the technology to do anything more subtle than an overnight rate didn't exist until recently.  I believe one of the requirements for domestic EVSEs is that they have the capability to inhibit charging when the grid is under strain, and I expect this sort of thing will come to heat pumps, water heaters, washing machines, fridges and similar in due course.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give people incentives to shift their energy use in order to balance the grid.  It helps us avoid supply disruption, and allows us to burn less fossil fuels.  Better to pay domestic users to shed their loads than to pay the shareholders to spin up another fossil fuel power station.  It's not like rich people don't benefit either way.


Equity with regard to energy needs is an important issue, but this is about stabilising the grid (for now, within the framework of a capitalist society).

[SoreTween]

My immediate thought on this is people will game the system, they always do.  Run your washing machine, tumble drier, oven, fan heater etc as much possible at peak times even if you normally wouldn't so that by not doing so on the specified days you can pocket a tenner for doing nowt.

[Polar Bear]

My immediate thought on this is people will game the system, they always do.  Run your washing machine, tumble drier, oven, fan heater etc as much possible at peak times even if you normally wouldn't so that by not doing so on the specified days you can pocket a tenner for doing nowt.

They probably already are in order to create a history of use. 

Managing power cuts for the vast majority of people is a relatively simple matter.  There are people with electrical equipment vital to their health who will of course suffer and yet I see nothing designed to protect the weak and vulnerable, just a scheme to put money into the pockets of less than half of the homes in the UK, those with smart meters. 

It's a gimmick for the benefit of Daily Hate readers imo.

[rogerzilla]

Daily Heil readers hate smart meters, though.  And smart motorways.  And smart Cabinet ministers.

[Polar Bear]

Daily Hate readers love money though.

[Wowbagger]

Daily Heil readers hate smart meters, though.  And smart motorways.  And smart Cabinet ministers.

I didn’t know they hated “smart” motorways. I’m probably with them there.

[Kim]

Managing power cuts for the vast majority of people is a relatively simple matter.

I think for most people it just means going without electricity for a while.  Which is fine until it isn't.

There are people with electrical equipment vital to their health who will of course suffer and yet I see nothing designed to protect the weak and vulnerable

I watched this sort of thing being discussed on IRC yesterday.  A tech channel, so full of educated and naive libertarians.  They were all thinking about wheelchairs and dialysis machines, and reckoned the best approach was either to up disability benefits (which, to be fair, they also thought should be raised in line with inflation), or to have the cost of the energy covered as part of the 'prescription' for the device (as if you can get decent wheelchairs from the NHS).

Blissfully unaware that the vast majority of people's health related energy needs are to do with being Not Cold and having a sufficiency of hot water for hygiene purposes (incontinence will be vastly more energy-intensive than running a wheelchair, for example).  And that the means-testing of disability benefits are all about paying people to do things for you, not your health needs.

just a scheme to put money into the pockets of less than half of the homes in the UK, those with smart meters.

I accept that it's all a bit first-world problems, but it's a scheme to try to balance the grid.  If it were about lining pockets, they'd do something more classically Tory, like vouchers for over-65s or people who use more than $foo kWh per year of heating.  Or a massive bung to fossil-fuel based generation.  Tech-savvy environmentalists don't vote Tory.

Conceivably this could be spun as a way to encourage people to stop objecting to having smart meters installed, which might benefit whoever's trousering the cash from the clusterfuck which is the smart meter rollout.

It's a gimmick for the benefit of Daily Hate readers imo.

Definitely not them.  None of them know what a Watt is, and they think smart meters cause cancer.

[Cudzoziemiec]

If smart meters cause house price cancer, bring them on!