Smart meter ?

[JohnW2]

Did you actually reduce your water consumption or did the bills just reduce by 66% like my father's did when he had a meter installed?
This in the South West; the dearest in the country.

I also experienced a fairly dramatic fall in costs when (many years ago) I had a water meter fitted, but at least part of the reason is apparent.

Firstly,I live in a very large house (very high Council Tax 'band') which, at the time the meter was fitted, was only routinely occupied by two people - so that the ';without-meter' estimates of water consumption were far too high.

Secondly, I had previously been paying a substantial additional charge for use of a garden hose, and it became apparent that what I had being charged for that considerably exceeded the (actually very modest) amount of water I was actually using via the hose.

I've never seen any reason for uneasiness about water meters, hence the concept of paying for the amount of water one actually uses. Even those who are opposed to having 'smart' electricity/.gas meters do not suggest that one should have gas/electricity bills which are 'fixed' (at some sort of 'estimated' figures), regardless of the amount of electricity/gas actually used (as would be the case without any metering).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I've never seen any reason for uneasiness about water meters, hence the concept of paying for the amount of water one actually uses.

Nor I, but I logically thought that not everyone can have their bills reduced to one third of the previous level.

Even those who are opposed to having 'smart' electricity/.gas meters do not suggest that one should have gas/electricity bills which are 'fixed' (at some sort of 'estimated' figures), regardless of the amount of electricity/gas actually used (as would be the case without any metering).

No, but if that rate resulted in the cost being reduced by 66% then more would be in favour.

 

[Diver Fred]

I was also against water meters, already one in this house and it has saved me a lot of money.

Moved from Midlands (SevernTrent, water rates) to East Anglia (Anglian Water, meter) water costs went UP! We watch every drop of water we use and We still pay more. Even had the thieving b*****d's change the meter and connection cause that was cracked, read the meter on a weekly basis and it still cost more than old house on water rstes.

I also don't like water meters in health and cleanliness grounds. When I was a field technician seen to many houses where the residents were so concerned about costs that the toilet would be flushed infrequently or there'd be old bath water and a bucket in the bath - yuk!

 

[JohnW2]

Nor I, but I logically thought that not everyone can have their bills reduced to one third of the previous level.

As you say, that might seem logical - unless, that is, the ('unmetered') bills represented a serious over-estimate of the actual cost of water used by most consumers.

Another thought is that I imagine that the totality of domestic water may well fade into insignificance in comparison with commercial/industrial consumption, so maybe dramatic reductions in all domestic bills is really 'no big deal' for the suppliers?

No, but if that rate resulted in the cost being reduced by 66% then more would be in favour.

Sure but, as above, such would only be the case if 'unmetered' bills grossly over-estimated the cost of water actually used. In any event,it would never be 'fair' that 'high consumption' customers should be 'subsidised' by the low consumption (quite possibly 'poorer') ones.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Moved from Midlands (SevernTrent, water rates) to East Anglia (Anglian Water, meter) water costs went UP! We watch every drop of water we use and We still pay more. Even had the thieving b*****d's change the meter and connection cause that was cracked, read the meter on a weekly basis and it still cost more than old house on water rstes.

I also don't like water meters in health and cleanliness grounds. When I was a field technician seen to many houses where the residents were so concerned about costs that the toilet would be flushed infrequently or there'd be old bath water and a bucket in the bath - yuk!

That seems a bit excessive! I began recording all three of my meter readings at the same time, around 6 years ago, when my partner passed away. Part of the reason being, that I didn't have much of a clue what things cost, because she had dealt with such matters entirely, and I was suddenly faced with the bills, with just my income. Obviously, I would have much more reason to be concerned now, with energy costs rising so much....

All my readings are fed into a spreadsheet every Sunday. Our water consumption last week was 1.277 M3, which according to my spreadsheet cost £5.07, though I haven't updated the costing for a few years - I can't see it being much different. We have a bath usually every couple of days, washing is held back until there is a full load, and usually a good drying day, we have plenty of clothes to allow that. We share the bath water, for no better reason than convenience, toilet is always flushed, if water is needed for plants they get it from the tap, we even use an automatic system when away. When washing up, we always wash in a bowl, with the cold trickling into the second half sink, to rinse things before stacking to drain. Once a year, I sometimes pressure wash the drive down.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As you say, that might seem logical - unless, that is, the ('unmetered') bills represented a serious over-estimate of the actual cost of water used by most consumers.

Whatever the reason, if all customers having meters resulted in the revenue being reduced to a third then all customers would have to have their bills trebled.

Another thought is that I imagine that the totality of domestic water may well fade into insignificance in comparison with commercial/industrial consumption, so maybe dramatic reductions in all domestic bills is really 'no big deal' for the suppliers?

I think that is a silly thing to say.

Sure but, as above, such would only be the case if 'unmetered' bills grossly over-estimated the cost of water actually used. In any event,it would never be 'fair' that 'high consumption' customers should be 'subsidised' by the low consumption (quite possibly 'poorer') ones.

There you go.

 

[JohnW2]

Whatever the reason, if all customers having meters resulted in the revenue being reduced to a third then all customers would have to have their bills trebled.

Only if they had a genuine 'need' to receive as much income from domestic customers as they had been receiving pre-meters.

If their only customers were domestic ones, then they presumably would have that 'need' (or something approaching it0. However ...

I think that is a silly thing to say.

I don't think it's silly. If they were historically ('pre-domestic-meters') charging domestic customers three times what they should have been charging, and if (as I suggested) domestic consumption is a relatively small proportion of the total (hence implying some degree of historical under-charging of non-domestic customers), then it would not necessarily be difficult for them to 'survive' with a two-thirds reduction in income from domestic customers (coupled, if necessary, with somewhat increased charges to non-domestic customers).

Don't forget that prior to the widespread deployment of domestic water meters, their charges were necessarily based on wild guesses as to what the extent of domestic consumption actually was - and those 'wild guesses'may actually have been 'wildling incorrect'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think it's silly. If they were historically ('pre-domestic-meters') charging domestic customers three times what they should have been charging, and if (as I suggested) domestic consumption is a relatively small proportion of the total (hence implying some degree of historical under-charging of non-domestic customers), then it would not necessarily be difficult for them to 'survive' with a two-thirds reduction in income from domestic customers (coupled, if necessary, with somewhat increased charges to non-domestic customers).

Is that how businesses work.

How then did they work out the metered rate which resulted in the two-thirds drop in bills? Equally bad management?

Don't forget that prior to the widespread deployment of domestic water meters, their charges were necessarily based on wild guesses as to what the extent of domestic consumption actually was - and those 'wild guesses'may actually have been 'wildling incorrect'.

Well, again, is that how businesses work?

Not ((costs + mark-up) / number of customers)?

Whatever the method the meters must have resulted in a huge drop in profit.


Incidentally (I don't know) was the introduction of water meters (presumably to save the planet - very little water in the UK) also on the orders of the government?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Don't forget that prior to the widespread deployment of domestic water meters, their charges were necessarily based on wild guesses as to what the extent of domestic consumption actually was - and those 'wild guesses'may actually have been 'wildling incorrect'.

No reason why they would not have been able to calculate it, either via a meter on a few sample homes, or even via measuring the entire supply to an area such as where I live, which has no industry at all, supplied by a water tower.

The one third cost, is primarily due to home on meters being lower than average users, only those using less than the average, have volunteered to have meters installed.

 

[Murdochcat]

Quite a while ago all the homes on the Isle of Wight had to have water meters fitted.

Result was consumption dropped saving water but bills rose considerably

 

[ericmark]

For gas, I was able with an SM, to experiment with a variety of methods of using my heating systems, for better economy - the most economical way, without being cold, was to maintain a fairly low CH temperature most of the time, increasing it only when needed, and make more use of a living room gas fire, for a higher temperature, especially in the evening.

I also wanted to work out what the central heating used. Theory was easy, having a modulating boiler which can gain latent heat should use less than a boiler being switched on/off so never gets chance to modulate, however my request for a smart gas meter was denied unless I also had a smart electric meter.

Also told unlike an clamp on ammeter the gas meters don't show use going up/down as the boiler modulates, so hard to work out if increased/decreased use is due to temperature change, opening doors etc. Or the change from digital to the claimed better analogue control.

I however did not with the move to analogue control the radiators ran a lot cooler, and the hysteresis was very much reduced. And putting a thermometer in the rooms with the electronic TRV's set up properly the room temperature remained static at what the TRV was set to. It raised the question what is a wall mounted digital (on/off) thermostat for?

However on moving to a house with an oil boiler, which does not modulate, I have found the electronic TRV heads do not work nearly as well. OK I can easy turn off rooms not in use, and set times when rooms are heated, but the control is no where near as good as when using a modulating gas boiler, however the cost of heating has dropped, maybe as rooms not really warm enough?

I made a mistake, I was told Nest worked with Energenie, it seems it doesn't, and to spend another £300 or more to correct grieves me, so looking for a second thermostat to work in parallel with the first, so two heated areas control if boiler runs or not.

However this is useless, it tells me when Nest asked the boiler to run, not when the boiler was actually running. The boiler fires up until the return water gets hot, then it turns off, so when it says it was running 7 hours, it means it ran for less than 7 hours, but as to how long, no idea. If the Nest was on a modulating boiler then even worse, as if set up correctly it could well show running for 24 hours, but clearly running at 6 kW for 24 hours is not as much as running at 28 kW for 6 hours, so the figures are very misleading.

I have been looking at what my tumble drier is using, again this is misleading, yes it shows when my wife did a lot of washing, but I know it uses around 600 watt, and it does with some loads switch on/off during the drying cycle,the cycle is longer than the just over an hour which is recent usage, so one needs to stitch the record together to show whole cycle, and the average hourly usage smooths out the display so you can't see what is going on, this is one stitched together. Trying to read this on a meter showing whole house is near impossible I see from my solar software that from 10 am to 4 pm I did not import any power from the grid, but there is no way from that I can work out when central heating turned on, or when lights were used, may be able to work out when I made coffee, or had a shower, even isolating consumption alone one can only really work out when we had a shower, can't even see when I made coffee, maybe the smart meter display is better? Some one with one maybe will show us what it tells one, I could turn off RCBO's and see what each one is using, but easier to use a clamp on ammeter for that. I have done that, and I have shown that main power use is the 5 refrigeration units my wife and daughter use, two fridge freezers, one chest freezer, one upright freezer, and a small freezer converted into a fridge to keep my beer cold, add my brew heater, and central heating there are so many items switching on/off to monitor house as a whole is rather pointless. And can be done without having a smart meter, as I am showing since I don't have one.

The old battery case in the picture is the old meter provided by Scottish power which was used before the Smart meters came in, now made obsolete by the solar panel display.

As a matter of interest,why were you 'against' them?

I was worried about a huge bill if I got a leak. Since I have no easy read display, one needs to go out into the road to read it, we have no idea on how much water used until we get the bill. I actually shine a torch into the oil tank more often to see how much oil left than read the water meter, in fact I have never read it.

The electric meter I take a picture of each time my wife asks for a reading, since she deals with it, I have no real idea of how much solar panels have helped, however in summer I think I will use the AC more as it will be only costing what the electric company would have paid me if exported instead.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I was worried about a huge bill if I got a leak. Since I have no easy read display, one needs to go out into the road to read it, we have no idea on how much water used until we get the bill.

Nowt to stop you adding your own water meter, indoors, as an easily read option.

I actually shine a torch into the oil tank more often to see how much oil left than read the water meter, in fact I have never read it.

There are inline consumption meters, and methods of relaying actual tank contents indoors.

 

[JohnW2]

No reason why they would not have been able to calculate it, either via a meter on a few sample homes, ....

... eventually, yes, they could have done that. However, the ('wild guesses') estimates of consumption, based on property rateable value, were established decades before there were any domestic meters - and I don't recall any dramatic revisions (certainly not 'downwards' ) when they started getting data from domestic meters.

or even via measuring the entire supply to an area such as where I live, which has no industry at all, supplied by a water tower.

Yes, they could have done (and presumably did) do that - but if one is to believe what one hears, an appreciable proportion of the 'water flow' to an area they measured could well have been that due to leaks in their distribution network, rather than water actually supplied to, and used by, customers!

In any event, as below,even if they managed to get a reasonable level of the total water consumption of all the properties in an area, it would not have been fair to assume that the consumption of individual properties within that area would bee pro-rata to the rateable values. Prior to having a meter, I would have been paying about three times more for water than was one of my immediate neighbours, despite both houses having the dame number of regular occupants.

The one third cost, is primarily due to home on meters being lower than average users, only those using less than the average, have volunteered to have meters installed.

That is probably a factor - although for a good few decades all new builds have come with (non-'voluntary') water meters.

It remains the case that, just as others are saying, virtually everyone I've heard commenting on this have said that installation of a meter resulted in an appreciable reduction in their bills, and I certainly have no reason to believe that they were all "lower than average users". I suspect that it's not so much a question of low/high users but, rather to the nature (hence rateable value) of their property - since (as in my case) it is by no means always going to be the case that a high rateable value means a high water consumption.

Kind Regards, John

 

[morqthana]

I also don't like water meters in health and cleanliness grounds. When I was a field technician seen to many houses where the residents were so concerned about costs that the toilet would be flushed infrequently or there'd be old bath water and a bucket in the bath - yuk!

In places where water shortages are a real and pressing problem, a practice of "If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down" is common.

And what's wrong with using grey water to flush toilets? Seems like an excellent way to reduce the need for clean water.

 

[JohnW2]

Is that how businesses work.

I can't speak for how the business in question work, but it's certainly one possible,and not unreasonable, possibility.

How then did they work out the metered rate which resulted in the two-thirds drop in bills? Equally bad management?

They presumably know, with a fair degree of accuracy, what it costs them (in the broadest sense) to 'produce' and distribute 1m³ of water, so if the meter tells them how many m³ have been used by a customer, it's not rocket science to work out how much they need to charge the customer

Well, again, is that how businesses work?

You'd have to ask them.

Not ((costs + mark-up) / number of customers)?

That presumably has to be the general concept - although, obviously, 'customers' varying dramatically in their water consumption, so oneee cannot )should not) just divide by the number (i.e. assuming that all have thee same consumption).. However, if one discovers that one has been (disproportionately) over-charging one sub-set of the customers, then presumably the distribution of the charges between different groups of customers needs to be 'revised' (even if total consumption and total charge for it remains unchanged).

Whatever the method the meters must have resulted in a huge drop in profit.

If what we're hearing is a general truth then, yes, a "huge drop in profit" in relation to supp[lies to domestic customers. However, I haven't got a clue as to what has happened to their charges to non-domestic customers during this period, so I have no idea what has happened to their 'overall' profit (for domestic PLUS non-domestic supplies). One might imagine that they may well have increased their non-domestic charges so as to avoid any fall in 'overall' profit.

Incidentally (I don't know) was the introduction of water meters (presumably to save the planet - very little water in the UK) also on the orders of the government?

I have no idea. In this case you at least cannot argue that it has been 'forced on people' by the government'.

In general, I find it totally reasonable that, for any commodity, the price one pays depends on how much one buys and uses. I wouldn't expect what I pay for cornflakes, beer, electricity or petrol (etc. etc. etc.) to be the same regardless of how much I bought and used, so why should it be the case with water?

Kind Regards, John