High usage using Off-peak electric

[Harry Bloomfield]

I received an expensive bill and the usage states that I’ve used 2719kwh over the night time, and 822 over the day from the end of November to today.

For comparison, I used 565Kwh of gas over the same period (29/11/20 to 14/02/21), this from my spreadsheet and readings logged every Sunday. I have a three bed semi and the heating is on 24/7, but with the desired temperature varied. Gas central heating, including hot water and gas cooking.

Electric over the same period was 621Kwh, with two of us in occupation.

Which suggests, that your flat is either extremely large, or very energy inefficient.

 

[JohnW2]

3500kwh total from end of November until now, so about 3 months? That doesnt seem like a "big bill" to me for an all electrically heated place. I use about that amount of electricity and i have gas heating

For what it's worth, similar here. I do not have electric heating but use in excess of 2,000 kWh per 3-month period. I would therefore expect the figures to be very much higher than that if I had electric heating of any sort.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Whilst there is a cost to everyone, it costs an individual no more, no less to have one fitted. Seeing as we are all paying for them, there is no point to refusing to have one. So really that is a none argument.

Au contraire. What a strange attitude.

So - all the government (it is not the suppliers) has to do is charge you for something and you will comply.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Au contraire. What a strange attitude.

So - all the government (it is not the suppliers) has to do is charge you for something and you will comply.

What do you think refusing to have one gains you personally?

 

[EFLImpudence]

What do you think refusing to have one gains you personally?

Prevents the government (and/or suppliers) doing whatever they want to do by installing them.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Prevents the government (and/or suppliers) doing whatever they want to do by installing them.

You need to make yourself a tin foil hat.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You just carry on being a serf.

 

[JohnW2]

Au contraire. What a strange attitude. So - all the government (it is not the suppliers) has to do is charge you for something and you will comply.

Does it not depend upon whether 'refusing to comply' offers you a personal benefit (or the opposite)?

If the government decided to, say, deliver basic food supplies to every household (and to 'charge everyone', through taxation), then one would be daft to refuse to accept that food (since one was paying for it, anyway). More in context, if, say, the first 2,000 kWh per year of every household's energy usage was not charged for directly, but was paid for 'by everyone' (through taxation or by adjustment of charged for energy above that threshold (not an unthinkable policy for a Socialist government) then one would, again, be daft to 'refuse to accept' that 2,000 kWh of energy (since one would be paying for it, whether one 'accepted' it or not).

The issue with 'smart' meters is that they do not, in themselves, offer any direct advantage to individual householders who accept them - so the implications of your viewpoint are seemingly correct in that context.

If 'they' had really wanted (for whatever reason!!) to incentivise people to 'accept' installation of a 'smart' meter, then the most obvious method would have been to offer some sort of discount on energy prices for those would 'accept' them, wouldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Aragorn84]

They offer some direct advantage, for instance i had Octopus Agile in the old place, a ToU tariff which varies based on wholesale pricing at 30min intervals. If theres an abundance of power, the rate goes down, even negative sometimes - yep they actually pay you to use electricity... If power is constrained, the price goes up.

For me this generally works out better than Economy7 type tariffs. Theres an expensive area around 4-7pm every day, so not ideal if your doing a lot of electric cooking etc during that time, but even with that, it still works out pretty favourably on average for us.

But they also offer the suppliers advantages, which will filter thru in terms of cost savings. If you dont need to pay a guy to come and read the meter, you can operate your business more cheaply. Similarly if your billing is more accurate, and your not having people run up big debts due to inaccurate estimated reads etc, then again, operating the business gets cheaper.

I suspect these advantages will begin to become apparent as the network gets "smarter", but its a bit chicken/egg currently.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does it not depend upon whether 'refusing to comply' offers you a personal benefit (or the opposite)?

No, it depends on the accepting leading to a detriment. It will inevitably be compulsory eventually.

If the government decided to, say, deliver basic food supplies to every household (and to 'charge everyone', through taxation), then one would be daft to refuse to accept that food (since one was paying for it, anyway). More in context, if, say, the first 2,000 kWh per year of every household's energy usage was not charged for directly, but was paid for 'by everyone' (through taxation or by adjustment of charged for energy above that threshold (not an unthinkable policy for a Socialist government) then one would, again, be daft to 'refuse to accept' that 2,000 kWh of energy (since one would be paying for it, whether one 'accepted' it or not).

There will not be a socialist (in the true sense) government.

The issue with 'smart' meters is that they do not, in themselves, offer any direct advantage to individual householders who accept them - so the implications of your viewpoint are seemingly correct in that context.

Exactly.
The only advantage mentioned being that one can see the consumption reducing when one switches off an item - wow.

If 'they' had really wanted (for whatever reason!!) to incentivise people to 'accept' installation of a 'smart' meter, then the most obvious method would have been to offer some sort of discount on energy prices for those would 'accept' them, wouldn't it?

I suppose that is now happening because so-called reductions are being introduced although more likely it is an increase if not accepted.

It's just more big brother - but I suspect the real reason (apart from variable tariffs) is the ability to charge people lots for charging their electric cars to make up for the loss of petrol/diesel fuel duty.

q

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

If 'they' had really wanted (for whatever reason!!) to incentivise people to 'accept' installation of a 'smart' meter, then the most obvious method would have been to offer some sort of discount on energy prices for those would 'accept' them, wouldn't it?

They already are doing that, with negative rates per kw, at certain times to use up surplus capacity - only accessible with a Smart Meters installed.

 

[JohnW2]

They offer some direct advantage, for instance i had Octopus Agile in the old place, a ToU tariff which varies based on wholesale pricing at 30min intervals. If theres an abundance of power, the rate goes down, even negative sometimes - yep they actually pay you to use electricity... If power is constrained, the price goes up.

'Smart' meter technology certainly offers the potential of such direct advantages to customers but (a) few suppliers currently offer such tariffs and (b) there are no guarantees that they would offer advantages (rather than disadvantages) to the customer. On the contrary, one of the greatest fears of those who are 'anti' these meters (and associated potential tariffs) is that such tariffs could result in the cost of electricity becoming much higher at the times of day when they most want/need (quite possibly 'unavoidably') to use electricity.

Hence, even when such tariffs become more widespread, there is no guarantee that such will represent a financial advantage, rather than disadvantage, to any particular customer.

For me this generally works out better than Economy7 type tariffs. Theres an expensive area around 4-7pm every day, so not ideal if your doing a lot of electric cooking etc during that time, but even with that, it still works out pretty favourably on average for us.

Fair enough. I realise that it would not be possible for a lot of people, but we have managed to adjust our lifestyle and practices such that, even without any electrical heating, we are doing pretty well with E7, generally achieving around 50% off-peak usage, at an annual saving of £200-£300 in comparison with a single-rate tariff.

But they also offer the suppliers advantages, which will filter thru in terms of cost savings. If you dont need to pay a guy to come and read the meter, you can operate your business more cheaply. Similarly if your billing is more accurate, and your not having people run up big debts due to inaccurate estimated reads etc, then again, operating the business gets cheaper.

The two suppliers of which I have experience (E.on and ESB) seem to have more-or-less given up on 'meter readers', even though I do not have a 'smart' meter. Looking back, it's about 7 years since we last saw a meter reader (even when we changed suppliers about 2 years ago) - so the only 'non-customer' reading they will have during that 7 year period will be when we had a 'routine' meter change (to a non-'smart' meter) about 3 years ago.

Interestingly, not only has no attempt been made to 'force' a 'smart' meter onto me, but they have not even offered me one (even when they did their 'routine' meter change). That may be because they already knew/suspected that if they tried to get connection from my house to a mobile phone network, they would probably have been disappointed.

In fact, the meter I do have is potentially 'smart'. It certainly has multiple ToU registers, the main thing it is lacking (which is an 'optional extra' for the meter I have) being the communications module.

I suspect these advantages will begin to become apparent as the network gets "smarter", but its a bit chicken/egg currently.

At least from the point of view of the suppliers (and 'energy conservation'), I suspect that the greatest potential benefit (and one which the 'anti' people probably fear the most!) will not come until there is widespread deployment of 'smart appliances' with which 'smart' meters can communicate and which they can 'control'. However, far from being 'widely deployed', I have not personally seen evidence that any yet even exist - so, given the lifespan of such things, I imagine that it's likely to be decades (almost certainly beyond my lifetime) before there is any hope of that 'widespread deployment' happening!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

They already are doing that, with negative rates per kw, at certain times to use up surplus capacity - only accessible with a Smart Meters installed.

As I've just written, although a small number of suppliers are offering such tariffs, they can be used as much to the customer's financial benefit as advantage - so, given that the rate changes are dynamic, depending on supply/demand, and unpredictable, someone signing up to such a tariff does know whether they will benefit or suffer financially as a result.

It's a bit like asking people to move from a 'fixed price tariff' to a 'standard variable rate' one (i.e. the opposite direction from what most people do, and are advised to do) - but with the big difference that the 'variable rate tariff' can (and will) change, not necessarily predictably, potentially every 30 minutes, rather than once a year.

With the 'one-per-year' changes in variable rate tarrifs, one has the option to seek out cheaper supplier if one does not like the change imposed by one's current supplier - but one cannot 'switch supplier'; ever 30 minutes

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

With the 'one-per-year' changes in variable rate tarrifs, one has the option to seek out cheaper supplier if one does not like the change imposed by one's current supplier - but one cannot 'switch supplier'; ever 30 minutes

Reading that and thinking about it, if suppliers wanted to implement it - yes we could. Technically it certainly is possible with Smart Meters.

 

[JohnW2]

No, it depends on the accepting leading to a detriment. It will inevitably be compulsory eventually.

Once it becomes compulsory (or, at least, ';unavoidable), the discussion will obviouskly become moot.

I remain unconvinced that it is really 'avoidable', even now. When I eventually found (not easy) the contract with my supplier which I am deemed to have 'signed', it certainly seems to confirm what I thought, namely that 'I have agreed' that the supplier may install any metering equipment it wants in my house.

There will not be a socialist (in the true sense) government.

You're probably right. However, as I'm sure you understood, I was just presenting hypothetical examples to illustrate that if one is forced to pay for something, whether one 'accepts' the something or not, then if it is something one wants/needs, then it would be daft to refuse to accept it. However, we are agreed than many people do not feel that they want/need a smart meter.

I suppose that is now happening because so-called reductions are being introduced although more likely it is an increase if not accepted.

See my most recent couple of posts. What is just starting to happen is that some suppliers are now offering tariffs which can cahnge every 30 minutes and which can result in very cheap (or even negatiove price!) electricity at some times, they are equally able to chage very high prices at the very times when a customer needs/wants to use electricity - so it's not a 'guaranteed incetive' but, rather, 'a big gamble'!

It's just more big brother - but I suspect the real reason (apart from variable tariffs) is the ability to charge people lots for charging their electric cars to make up for the loss of petrol/diesel fuel duty.

They are certainly going to have to do something to recover the lost vehicle fuel excise duty - otherwise the shortfall will just fall on general taxation, which would be unfair to those who have no cars, or use them little.

I'm not sure whether the current 'smart' meters are smart enough to address this issue, are they? There would be a need for them to identify how much of the energy usage was being used to charge EVs, and I'm not aware of that being possible. Top merely hike the cost of night-time electricity (when most EV charging is done), hence 'reversing' the situation with tariffs such as E7 would presumably be unacceptable, because it would be extremely unfair to those with storage heaters etc. (although, I suppose, the 'storage' heaters could then be used for real-time heating during the daytime, which would then have become the 'cheap electricity' time of day!!

Kind Regards, John