Smart meter problem

[JohnW2]

An electricity "supplier" notionally buys electricity on the wholesale market and sells it to you. IIRC the wholesale market works on a half-hourly basis.... Since the distribution network does not segregate electricity flows from different "supplier"s, the meter in your house must serve not only the relationship between you and your "supplier", but also the relationship between your "supplier" and the wholesale electricity market.

All true - but it's been equally true throughout the 40+ years of dual-rate tariffs (E7/E10 etc.)

Since many customer's don't have smart meters there must be a fudge in place, to charge electricity suppliers for an assumed consumption profile of their dumb-meter customers. I would assume that with legacy dual-rate tariffs there are two assumed consumption profiles, one for "day" units and one for "night" units.

Again true, but again, that's precisely what has been happening for 40+ years.

As far as I am aware, few suppliers are yet offering customers with smart meters anything much more complicated than the traditional dual-rate tariffs. If/when the ('smart'meter-facilitated) tariffs get much more complex, I imagine that many users will probably adjust their usage patterns (particularly in relation to the timing of EV charging) such as to eventually largely iron out the variation of demand during the day/night. If that happens, it will be good for generators/distributors, but will mean that smart meters have proved 'so effective' that they will have essentially have destroyed their usefulness

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

All true - but it's been equally true throughout the 40+ years of dual-rate tariffs (E7/E10 etc.)

Afaict 40 years ago we didn't have multiple "suppliers" sharing the same distribution infrastructure.

So while the electricity boards may have needed fudges in their internal accounting to account for different metering practices, those would not have been relevant to external transactions, all that would matter for the external transactions is the readings from the meters between the local electricity board and the national grid.

Much harder to change a fudge when it's part of a complex market than when it's contained within a single organization.

Thus it doesn't surprise me that new types of multi-rate tarrifs (in particular the "EV" tarrifs that had a much shorter off-peak period in exchange for a much lower of peak rate) require a meter that avoids the need for such fudges.

 

[JohnW2]

Afaict 40 years ago we didn't have multiple "suppliers" sharing the same distribution infrastructure.

That's true, but the multiplicity of suppliers started appearing about 32 years ago, and have worked with dual-rate tariffs throughout the period from then. However, I agree that those tariffs existed for a few years before privatisation of the industry (i.e. that 40 is more than 32), but the multiple private companies seem to have done nothing to get rid of them since, so they presumably think they can 'cope with them'!

So while the electricity boards may have needed fudges in their internal accounting to account for different metering practices, those would not have been relevant to external transactions, all that would matter for the external transactions is the readings from the meters between the local electricity board and the national grid.

That's true, and an inevitable consequence of this (in my opinion 'crazy') system of letting consumers choose which middle-man they want to pay for a commodity coming from a single source - as you imply, it creates difficulties and complexities in terms of the transaction between the middle men ('suppliers') and the source of the commodity ('the national grid') - the cost of which complexities will inevitably ultimately be bourne by the customers/consumers.

However, I see nothing remotely 'electrical' about this, so I stick with my original statement (to which you responded), namely ...

... As I've said, there is no electrical reason why one needs a 'smart' meter in order to have a dual-rate tariff ....

Kind Regards, John