Externally located electric meters

[ban-all-sheds]

Will that be the regulator with an exemplary track record of standing up for the consumer and keeping the energy providers firmly in check and really, really wary of him, or a different one?

 

[JohnW2]

No matter what the behaviour of the regulator, I don't see why smart meters should make any difference to their decisions about how much customers may be charged for their electricity.
Now this is sliding into becoming inquistorial, I'm out.

 

[SimonH2]

It's not about regular tariffs or average increases. Its about being able to hike prices drastically (like 5 - 10 fold) for those periods when historically they'd have arranged sufficient generating capacity. So times like 6pm dinner times on those cold winter nights in the middle of a static high pressure period - think Dec 2010 when we had a couple of weeks of exceptionaĺly cold weather, naff all wind*, and the sun goes down mid afternoon**.
* So all the installed windmill capacity is producing f-all ** And ditto all the solar PV

Just to be clear, this is about avoiding blackouts when demand exceeds supply - a form of rationing by price. And if that doesn't do it, rolling blackouts using the remote disconnect.
The claimed usage savings are a smokescreen to get them accepted.

 

[John D v2.0]

arranged sufficient generating capacity

Is that a euphemism for burning extra fossil fuel? Fundamentally the capitalist setup we have incentives thethe transfer of cost to the consumer, because they are the ones who have the information about whether they really want a cup of tea right now it whether they can wait 10 minutes.
We could always have a smart meter that just recommends using less at certain times, but we already have that with anything that has off peak tariffs.
It's something new, people will get used to it, and without being cynical it should end up with cheaper bills overall due to less power stations needed and less damage to the environment.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No matter what the behaviour of the regulator, I don't see why smart meters should make any difference to their decisions about how much customers may be charged for their electricity.

That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just to be clear, this is about avoiding blackouts when demand exceeds supply - a form of rationing by price. And if that doesn't do it, rolling blackouts using the remote disconnect.
The claimed usage savings are a smokescreen to get them accepted.

The problem is, of course, that the govt do not dare tell the truth about why they are doing this.

 

[opps]

I've never had a fire in any appliance in over 40 years of use.

Nor have I but I am lucky enough to be able to afford better made devices.

Domestic kitchen appliances are responsible for 60 fires a week. That's not an insignificant number and far from "bacofoil hat" territory. Washing machines and tumble driers account for 35%, dishwashers 10%. Those are exactly the types of devices that will be used unattended in the event of dynamic pricing.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ces-cause-60-uk-house-fires-a-week-which-says

As an update to my earlier post, here is advice from the fire brigade:

Don't leave the washing machine or dishwasher running overnight or while you are out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't leave the washing machine or dishwasher running overnight or while you are out.

At least one of my appliances has a delayed start feature so that you can do just that.

My "tinfoil hat" comment was about the people who say that smart meters give you headaches, or piles, or cancer, or something, and how they can be hacked into to make them "literally explode"

 

[SimonH2]

Is that a euphemism for burning extra fossil fuel?

Not necessarily. it's about having enough generating capacity to meet peak demand - though at the moment that does mean burning fossil fuels, and will do for the foreseeable future.
At one time we did have that (as well as a better diversity of capacity by fuel type), but when we lost the central planning that came with "everything under the CEGB umbrella" operation, that's gone by the wayside.

Fundamentally the capitalist setup we have incentives thethe transfer of cost to the consumer, because they are the ones who have the information about whether they really want a cup of tea right now it whether they can wait 10 minutes.

But it won't be 10 minutes. The thing is, people tend to want their dinner at dinner time - not in the early hours of the morning. The hardest hit will be the poorest, with the well off (more or less) unaffected.

And it has to be said, the cost of intermittent and undispatchable generation includes making a lot of generation capacity commercially unviable - hence why we now pay out (though our bills) significant amounts to keep some stations (such as Fiddlers Ferry and a load of gas turbines) available. The wind lobby never include those costs when shouting about how cheap their lecky is.

 

[JohnW2]

It's not about regular tariffs or average increases. Its about being able to hike prices drastically (like 5 - 10 fold) for those periods when historically they'd have arranged sufficient generating capacity. So times like 6pm dinner times on those cold winter nights in the middle of a static high pressure period .... Just to be clear, this is about avoiding blackouts when demand exceeds supply - a form of rationing by price.

As the total supply/demand situation worsens, and given the inability to store significant amounts of electricity, one would obviously expect measures would be taken to try to optimise usage throughout the 14h, and financial incentives would seem to be the approaches most likely to have some effect. However, that does not necessarily have to take the form of "a 5-10 fold" increase at the times of current peak demand - one could move a fair bit in the same direction by a 5-10 fold decrease at the times of current minimum demand (with adjustments of the actual figures to get the total received by suppliers right).

One thing that seems to get overlooked is that IF draconian increases in cost at times of current peak demand achieved what they were intended to achieve, then usage at those times would decrease considerably, so that far less electricity would be being paid for at those very high rates.

As I have intimated, if 'basic' (cheap times of day) rates remained much as they are now, but rates at some times of day became dramatically more expensive, IF (despite the intention) very substantial numbers of people continued to use electricity at those times (and hence suffer a considerable increase in their electricity costs), that would result in a dramatic increase in profits for the suppliers - which one would hope that the regulator would not allow.

As I recently wrote, given the desirability of encouraging people to use more 'off-peak' electricity (hence decrease their use of 'peak time' electricity), I was very surprised to find that, a few months ago, my supplier changed their 'best available' tariffs such as to considerably reduce the financial incentive to use electricity at current 'off peak' times. As the following show, even taking into account a recent reduction in my 'off-peak usage' (due, I think, primarily to the hot weather decreasing heat-losses from my stored hot water), since the change in tariffs in April, the advantage of having E7 (hence the incentive to use off-peak electricity) has reduced by at least £100 per year.

The claimed usage savings are a smokescreen to get them accepted.

That I certainly agree with and I'm more than a little surprised that the media have not made more of a fuss about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As the total supply/demand situation worsens, and given the inability to store significant amounts of electricity, one would obviously expect measures would be taken to try to optimise usage throughout the 14h, and financial incentives would seem to be the approaches most likely to have some effect. However, that does not necessarily have to take the form of "a 5-10 fold" increase at the times of current peak demand - one could move a fair bit in the same direction by a 5-10 fold decrease at the times of current minimum demand (with adjustments of the actual figures to get the total received by suppliers right).

Yeah, that's how these things usually work.

One thing that seems to get overlooked is that IF draconian increases in cost at times of current peak demand achieved what they were intended to achieve, then usage at those times would decrease considerably, so that far less electricity would be being paid for at those very high rates.

So what?

As I have intimated, if 'basic' (cheap times of day) rates remained much as they are now, but rates at some times of day became dramatically more expensive, IF (despite the intention) very substantial numbers of people continued to use electricity at those times (and hence suffer a considerable increase in their electricity costs), that would result in a dramatic increase in profits for the suppliers - which one would hope that the regulator would not allow.

Presumably it will be treated as a tax.
Although, if that were the result then it would have failed, wouldn't it?
If you were poor and knew the price was Xtimes higher between 5 and 7 pm then you would probably adjust your usage times.

As I recently wrote, given the desirability of encouraging people to use more 'off-peak' electricity (hence decrease their use of 'peak time' electricity), I was very surprised to find that, a few months ago, my supplier changed their 'best available' tariffs such as to considerably reduce the financial incentive to use electricity at current 'off peak' times. As the following show, even taking into account a recent reduction in my 'off-peak usage' (due, I think, primarily to the hot weather decreasing heat-losses from my stored hot water), since the change in tariffs in April, the advantage of having E7 (hence the incentive to use off-peak electricity) has reduced by at least £100 per year.

So, cheap rate probably not going to be 5-10 times less, then.



Don't forget the massive amounts of fuel duty and VAT that will need to be found from other sources because of electric cars.

 

[John D v2.0]

Look another way, maybe it'll be a bit like uber - yes there's surge pricing but the base price is way cheaper than normal taxis.
And you never know, maybe they will introduce a system where you can switch supplier on a minute by minute basis! Every time you turn something on your can shop around for the cheapest electricity.

 

[JohnW2]

Yeah, that's how these things usually work.

I think that "Yeah" may be a bit confusing - but, if this is what your saying, in an unregulated market if a supplier wanted to charge much more for one variant of their product (electricity at a certain time of day), they would usually charge X times more (than the present price) for that variant, rather than charging X times less for the cheaper variant. However, given we are talking about a regulated situation, I would certainly hope that the regulator would not allow a change in pricing structure which resulted in a considerable increase in average electricity costs to consumers (for the same amount of usage), without much of a change in generation or distribution costs.

So what?

So .... it's a bit of a Catch 22. If introduction of tariffs with very different rates at different times of day resulted in appreciable increases in average electricity costs to consumers, then (unless the supplier were just making more profit - which we hope would not be allowed) that change will have failed in its intended purpose. On the other hand, if it succeeded in its intended purpose (without profits going up), then average cost to consumers ought to be relatively unchanged.

Presumably it will be treated as a tax.

Are you suggesting that the government would be given all the additional income that might result from tariff changes?

Although, if that were the result then it would have failed, wouldn't it?

Exactly - Catch 22, as above.

If you were poor and knew the price was Xtimes higher between 5 and 7 pm then you would probably adjust your usage times.

That's obviously the hope. That's just a different way of saying that if you knew that the price was X times less during periods which were not between 5pm and 7pm, you would probably make the same adjustments to one's usage. Those decisions to change usage times result from the ratio of costs at different times, regardless of the absolute levels of the costs.

So, cheap rate probably not going to be 5-10 times less, then.

Well, what happened to E.ON's tariffs in April seems ridiculous if they want to maximise utilisation of their stressed generation facilities - so I really can't answer that one!

Don't forget the massive amounts of fuel duty and VAT that will need to be found from other sources because of electric cars.

Indeed. As I keep saying, if it ever happens (I doubt in my lifetime) that overnight charging of EVs becomes very widespread, then the goalposts regarding patterns of usage would change dramatically - and it could then even become the case that 5pm - 7pm became one of the lowest demand (hence lowest price) time of day!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

So .... it's a bit of a Catch 22. If introduction of tariffs with very different rates at different times of day resulted in appreciable increases in average electricity costs to consumers, then (unless the supplier were just making more profit - which we hope would not be allowed) that change will have failed in its intended purpose. On the other hand, if it succeeded in its intended purpose (without profits going up), then average cost to consumers ought to be relatively unchanged.

It is not the intention that profits be raised, but demand be reduced - so it may make no difference to the suppliers.
If it resulted in loss of income, presumably they would be allowed to raise overall prices.

What happens in similar situations?
Tax to reduce usage is (supposedly) used as a method of raising prices on things like cigarettes and alcohol.
Do the suppliers benefit from the increased price or reduced usage?
Do they have to reduce prices on other products to compensate?

Are you suggesting that the government would be given all the additional income that might result from tariff changes?

They would certainly have to be if they want to replace the fuel duty.
Why do you seem surprised?

 

[JohnW2]

It is not the intention that profits be raised, but demand be reduced - so it may make no difference to the suppliers.

We're not really talking about reduction in total demand. If that were the aim, it could be achieved without all the expense and controversy associated with smart meters, simply by putting up prices in general (if that were 'allowed'). The only point of smart meters in this context is to encourage more efficient use of the stressed resources - i.e. to increase the proportion of electricity used at times when the generation/distribution capacity is currently 'under used'.

If that is achieved by hiking up prices at (currently) peak demand times, that would mean that (for the same total usage) customers who continued to use electricity during the 'hiked price times' would pay more for the same total amount of electricity - and, since it presumably costs no more to generate and distribute electricity at 6pm than it does at 3am, then profits would inevitably increase.

If 'standard' ('off-peak', non-hiked) prices remained as they are now, then those who responded to the incentive by primarily using 'off-peak' electricity, then their electricity costs would remain essentially unchanged. whilst those who did not respond to the incentive would pay a lot more - so, again, overall profit would go up.

What happens in similar situations? ... Tax to reduce usage is (supposedly) used as a method of raising prices on things like cigarettes and alcohol.

Indeed - and, as I said above, if one wanted to try to reduce total electricity demand one could do so without the cost/hassle of smart meters. A sort-of equivalent (to smart meters) would be something like an (equally unworkable!) system which, say, tried to charge more for alcohol to those who drank more than a certain amount!

In any event, as above, I don't think the idea of smart meters is primarily to reduce overall electricity usage to an appreciable extent - in which case there would probably be no significant loss of tax/duty revenue. With a fuel tax of 5%, the currently claimed/estimated reduction of £11/household/year (about £300m per year total) would only represent a loss of tax of £15m, which I would think would be neither here nor there in terms of the big picture of government finances (15m would, for example, run the NHS for a bit over 1 hour).

Kind Regards, John